When you step back and review all backgrounds.. is Evan Bayh really such a bad choice?

[snowbear]

.
.

When you stop and think about it... ..

... if indeed it's his relationship to the DLC" keeping him so low on the DU Richter Scale --- it's actually hard to find many of the other 'potentials' who aren't also affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council (aka DLC) in some fashion or another.


Aside from Bayh, others currently or in the past associated with the DLC include:-

Governor Tim Kaine
Governor Kathleen Sebelius
Governor Brian Schweitzer
Governor Bill Richardson
Senator Joe Biden
Senator Hillary Clinton
Senator John Edwards
Former Senator Sam Nunn
Governor Mark Warner (not in contention as far as we know)
Governor Ed Rendell (not in contention as far as we know)
Governor Ted Strickland (not in contention as far as we know)

(And of course a whole host of others not often mentioned on the continual Veepstakes) but listed as DLC'ers..



I'm not overly familiar with Evan, but from what I've read here..

(1) I get the impression that many DU'ers don't care for his DLC background and
(2) They don't find him "exciting enough".

The little I do know about him (especially from the recent interviews supporting Obama) is that the guy is an incredibly eloquent speaker and like General Clark, he's easy to listen to.

When he's doing a split-screen on the networks with a Republican and he's defending Obama, he knows how to get the other side flustered and off-track pretty easily.

But when I read about him here, the conclusions about him are usually brief and are mostly relate to his association with the DLC.

Most of us here (I'm assuming) would prefer a more liberal candidate, but why is it that for whatever reason, many of our more 'centrist Democrats' are raking in the high approval ratings from their constituents? (Jon Tester is a good example that)

Do centrist Democrats have a unique ability to attract voters across the political spectrum (i.e. Independents and fed up Republicans moreso than liberal Democrats?)

~~~~~~~~

We talk a lot about Brian Schweitzer of Montana here. And it's interesting to note that he's not only endorsed by the NRA, but he's a big time gun activist. He said on "Big Eddie's radio show" a few days ago that "gun control to me is only having to shoot your Elk once in order to bring it down".

Richardson, Strickland, Napolitano, and others are also endorsed by the NRA.

Then there's Governor Kaine who personally opposes abortion, Governor Strickland who only has a 30% NARAL rating.. and others with the same mindset.

Here are a couple recent media reviews regarding Bayh. The first is from Chris Cillizza at the Fix, and the second is from Eric Vaughn who is doing a weekly Veepstakes (like every other media outlet) at CBS.

Evan Bayh:

"...Obama will go (should go) with Bayh because: (1) he's popular and widely respected in Indiana, which seems to be in play this go-around; (2) he will help shore up Obama's perceived foreign policy weakness (odd that the one issue that Obama seems to be ahead of the curve on is perceived as his weakness); (3) he's a former governor on top of being a senator, so he's got experience both working outside and inside Washington; (4) he was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton, so he could be useful in shrinking the PUMA crowd even further; and (5) he is a disciplined politician who would likely be gaffe-free.'

Evan Bayh


Senator from Indiana (1999-present)
Attorney at Baker and Daniels (1997-1998)
Governor of Indiana (1989-1997)
Indiana Secretary of State (1986-1988)
Undergraduate degree from Indiana University, law degree from University of Virginia
Age 52
Married, 2 children
Episcopalian


Vaughn's View: Many Democrats wondered why Bayh passed on the chance to run for president himself as he's just the sort of moderate, Midwest candidate that could win in states like Ohio, Iowa and Indiana. He has executive experience in addition to time spent in the Senate and would be a safe, solid pick. But Obama is not the "safe" candidate in the race and may benefit more from someone representing more of the "change" he's promising.

If Evan Bayh was not only a popular governor from a red state (and now a popular U.S. Senator with foreign policy credentials), and who was a huge Hillary supporter.. are we giving him the cold shoulder mostly because of his DLC ties.. or is it something else?

For those of you much more familiar with Evan, what do you see as his major downsides?


~~~~~~~~

[chimpymustgo]

1. Yes. Another conservative milquetoast. A heartbeat from the Presidency? I think not!

[snowbear]

2. So which of the "short-listers" can bring in enough Independents to clean McLame's clock..

..and actually win this thing?

I have no clue how accurate (or inaccurate) the "on the issues" site is, but this is the rating they give Evan Bayh-

[Independent_Voice]

3. What happens to his Senate seat?

If Bayh becomes V.P., does Governor Daniels appoint a Republican to replace Bayh in the U.S. Senate...or will the appointment be made by whoever wins Indiana's gubernatorial race in November?

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. Bayh didn't just vote for the Iraq War - he was a cheerleader - and co-chair of a neocon group along

with McCain and Lieberman pushing for the war. It would be little hard to attack McCain having poor judgement with a neocon cheerleader like Evan Bayh.

"- A.B.B. - ANYBODY BUT BAYH!!

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/bayh_as_veep_he_cochaired_wing.php


"In 2003, Bayh was an honorary co-chair of the neocon pro-war Committee for the Liberation of Iraq -- a group he joined along with none other than John McCain and Joe Lieberman, according to a press release from during the run-up to the invasion.

Check this out, from the group's press release on February 14th, 2003 (via Nexis):

The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI) is pleased to welcome Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) as an Honorary Co-Chairman. Bayh becomes the third U.S. Senator to join the committee after Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced their participation on January 28.

The Committee is a neo-con group that was formed to propagandize the country into war. It boasted such illustrious neocon members as Bill Kristol, former CIA director James Woolsey, and even McCain senior foreign policy adviser and Chalabi-bamboozler Randy Scheunemann, whom Josh has been blogging about.

Bayh would, to put it very charitably, muddle Obama's message. It's true that Bayh was said to have subsequently removed himself from the group. But Obama's campaign is partly about -- and rightly so -- the judgment he made, and others didn't, in the run-up to the invasion.

The McCain campaign and the Repubs would have a grand time mocking the choice. Indeed, the McCain camp is already trying to make an issue of Bayh's past."."

[TheKentuckian]

5. Too many litmus test will screw up finding actual people

I'm NRA pro-gun (life time member) because I cherish all individual rights, when they and other groups I support clash I accept there will be conflict and don't expect single issue organizations to fit the big picture. While understanding that I have to pay them to balance out groups I support that in the course of events come to wrongheadedly see guns as the problem versus how we are dealing with them.
Gun education early and often will cure many, many ills. The problems created from ignorance and lack of respect for a firearm are profound but don't happen among people who know guns and respect that power.

Also, if the citizens respected that we are the militia and were prepared to act as such, the fear of terror would be drastically reduced.

Then I am not personally in favor of at least last trimester (and possibly/plausibly earlier) abortion because I believe the difference between a fetus and a baby is centered around brain activity.

Yet and still I guarantee you that all but the most far left progressives (and probably them too) would feel like dancing in the streets, if I was setting policy.

What I believe for me and what I'm willing to force on someone else is two very separate things. Not much different than saying because someone holds a particular view on religion, that they will force it on everyone.

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. My only litmus test, is that the candidate be less likely than the Republican candidate to be a

force for war rather than peace.

I can live with almost any position on almost any other issue. I fully expect the candidate to be a hawk who is going to increase military spending. I can forgive a misguided vote for the Iraq War. I simply don't want a foreign policy neoconservative cheerleader like Bayh or Lieberman (or Bush or McCain for that matter.) If that is foreign policy credentials, I want no part of it. At least Sen. Hagel, as awful as his domestic record is, remains a realist and pragmatist rather than an extremist foreign policy ideologue like Bayh when it comes to foreign policy.

I don't think it is being too much of a purist and expecting too much perfection to back candidates who are less likely then the Republicans to turn the Middle East into a blood bath.

[TwilightGardener]

7. I'm coming around to the fact that Bayh may be the best option.

I don't get the excessive love here for Schweitzer--the idiotic gun/elk statement you quoted, and his "mah dawg don't lahk skunks, can't move to DC" routine reminds me of Huckabee and Fred Thompson--all just a stupid good ol' boy act that makes my skin crawl. He's trying WAYY too hard to be a character.

[Inuca]

8. Another reason I don't like Bayh

The potential VPs fall under 2 categories: those that will be groomed for 2016 and those who, for whatever reason (primarily age), won't or very unlikely. Bayh is young. I can live with him as VP, but I really do not think I want him as P down the road. Because of some of the reasons that are mentioned by others, but also because I think, rightly or wrongly, that he is not presidential material, a more elusive quality that has nothing to do with his stands on this or that postion, but with the person as a whole, intellectual power, personality, etc. If he runs, he may either lose, or if he wins he would be a weak president.

[salonghorn70]

9. Bayh Would Be A Great Choice

I have said several times that I favor Bayh by an eyelash over Kaine. Both would be great. Alas, I'm not as liberal as many on DU. Politics is about reaching out to others and trying to build coalitions. I think that either Bayh or Kaine would be effective in that.

[Cosmocat]

12. He ABSOLUTE would be a great choice ...

Ciliza notes a lot of good points ... I will add ...

1) As noted, he breaks the all senator ticket having been a governor for two terms ... BEYOND THAT, he had a FANTASTIC tax record as governor ... He not only NEVER raised taxes, he instituted the largest tax cuts in state history ... People here don't get how big an issue taxes are - I understand that because I share the ethos that I just pay my taxes and appreciate what I get for them ... But, to MANY taxes are a prime issue ...

2) He WILL make up the margin for Bo in Indiana, he is that strong in Indiana to make up the small margin ... Bordering Ohio, Michigan and Iowa, he can't do anything but help in those states ...

3) Kaine is problematic ... He AMPLIFIES the "lack of experience" theme ... Unlike as the OP noted, where Bayh has the demenor that the MSM has a hard time typecasting him, Kaine has a presence like Kerry or Gore ... I, and WE know they are decent, honorable men, but he WILL be successfully typecast as arrogant or whatever ... Further, I don't like one bit that he broke silence on VP talks, I think that is something that should be a warning sign for people ... Further, he has rode Mark Warners coat tails ... I like the guy, but the more I mull him, the more I think he is problematic as a VP pick for BO ...

IMO, Bayh is a slam dunk great pick that both helps to round out the ticket and helps amplify BOs efforts to flip middle states in his Illinois power zone ...

There is a LOT of irrational teeth nashing about Bayh being republican or some nonsense like that ... He is a VERY successful red state democrat ... You can't be Dennis Kucinich and win prothonatary in red states ... Underneath all the hysteria about him, he is right on 90% of core democratic concerns, he is not partisan or typecast as partisan, has no ethical glitches, is a very smart and capable politician ...

[wyldwolf]

10. I like Bayh, met him once, is smart and a good speaker... but Biden would be so damn fun to watch!

Biden - Bayh - Kaine. Either one would be fine by me. But the words of caution should be heeded. Who fills the Senate seat for Bayh? And for that matter, we'd get (I think) a GOP governor in VA if it's Kaine.

[JTFrog]

11. Yes. A horrible choice.

He is a warmongering piece of shit.

He's one of that awesome threesome (Clinton, Lieberman, Bayh) that are fighting to save my kids from video game violence while voting to send them to the front lines of Iraq and paving the way for Iran.

[saltpoint]

13. While Yo Yo Ma must have practiced to build on his inherent talent so that

when he finally began taking world stages to perform the repertoire sounded seamless,Evan Bayh sounds practiced. His speeches are sincere but they sound practiced.

I've heard him live and in person and he's as earnest as they come, careful, comprehensive, smart, but quite dull.

He does nicely in Indiana, having won several statewide ballot contests.

I liked his dad.

[snowbear]

14. One thing you have to respect about DU'ers... we definitely have varied opinions!

~~~ And it's one of the many reasons DU is so AWESOME!!

Compare that to the vast difference of the freaks at Free ReTHUGlik for example!

-- According to an article in the New York Observer, the a-holes actually "banished" anyone from their website who made complementary statements regarding Rudy Guiliani during their primary! Not the General. THEIR FREAKING PRIMARY !!!!

Free Republic Purge: Conservative Web Site Bans Giuliani Supporters
by Rebecca Sinderbrand



A few weeks ago – in between Hillary Clinton’s official entry into the presidential race and the first Republican primary debate of the cycle – the fiery online conservative forum Free Republic marked a decade in operation as one of the premier online forums for right-wing political discussion.

It also experienced one of the biggest internal battles to rock the site since the 2000 election of George W. Bush -- a tumultuous campaign year that nearly tore the site apart, as its founder and chief administrator first cleansed commenting ranks of Bush supporters, then, later, rallied to his support.

At the heart of the latest controversy: the fight over the conservative bona fides of Rudy Giuliani.

Over the past few weeks, chaos has reigned in the “Freeper” community as members sympathetic to the former mayor's candidacy claim to have suffered banishment from the site. They were victimized, they say, by a wave of purges designed to weed out any remaining support for the Giuliani campaign on the popular conservative web forum. Another significant chunk of commenters have migrated away from the controversial site over the action, according to a number of former site members and conservative bloggers who have been tracking the situation.

Continued: http://www.observer.com/2007/free-republic-purge-conservative-web-site-bans-giuliani-supporters


I'm blown away that they would restrict their opinions of their own candidates during a primary. How the hell do you learn about each candidate if you don't discuss them?!?

It's awesome to be able to hash out the pros and cons of anyone running for office in our party here!!

And as far as Evan Bayh goes, I learned a lot about the positive and negative aspects of this potential short-lister thanks to DU's incredible input!!