Bayh's Final Term
Bayh's vote against Rice sure seems like nod to '08
Bayh's not resting. From this moment on, everything he does will be viewed with a different lens. A centrist Democrat whose primary political aim is to win re-election from conservative Indiana wouldn't vote against Condoleezza Rice. Unless he is a candidate for president or vice president, don't expect to see Bayh's name on an Indiana ballot again.
No shock there ... If Evan Bayh does NOT recall the lessons of his father's term as Senator (and how a run at the White House diminished his appeal back home by the time of his 1980 defeat), he'd be the biggest fool in the world, and there's no way one can mistake him as such. There's a few notable differences, dad Birch was a notable liberal, whereas son Evan has never been accused of being such. One vote does not a liberal make.
A glance over at Connecticut offers another view of a centrist who took a hit back home for a run at 1600 Penn, but by the time that dream died, he headed home and now has approval ratings that look down at the stratosphere. Indiana isn't Connecticut, but my sense is that Bayh has more risk for a Presidential run, and hence, Bayh likely won't be back on the ballot as Senator anytime soon.
Comments
He'll be on as a Presidential contender
Posted by: Daniel | February 3, 2005 03:31 PM
Well, he voted against Abu Gonzales yesterday too.
Unlike the junior Senator from Connecticut.
Posted by: Jim D | February 4, 2005 08:02 AM
I was especially proud of Evan Bayh for voting against Gonzalez and Rice. I was disappointed in Senator Joe Lieberman for his votes, especially the one in favor of Alberto Gonzalez. If I had been sitting in the Senate, I would not have been able to overlook Gonzalez's role in narrowing the definition of what is included in torture, narrowing the application of the Geneva Convention, and dramatically expanding the limits of what is allowable in interrogation to the point of faclitating torture.
I could understand Lieberman's vote for Rice, but would have thought that he would have lambasted failures in strategy, operations, and tactics, not only in Iraq but elsewhere. Greg, as you so aptly pointly out, Lieberman criticized Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rice during the primaries for giving the war a "bad name." I disagreed with Lieberman on this point, viewing the invasion itself as a strategic blunder. However, that aside, I was hoping that Lieberman would be consistent on this score and have detailed the numerous policy failures of the Bush Administration.
Back to Evan Bayh, I don't know that he is signing his political death warrant in Indiana. Birch Bayh, his father, became a typical post-Vietnam Liberal. If Evan Bayh remains strong on defense and foreign policy and continues to embrace Indiana-style positions on cultural issues, then I think he can run again for the Senate and win. God help us if being strong on defense becomes irreconcilable with being in favor of human rights and sound military and geopolitical strategy.
Posted by: Scoop Jackson Democrat | February 5, 2005 08:30 AM
Jim D -- In the end, the Democrats are going to need all the members they can get their hands on to regain control of the Senate and House. Don't start kicking people out of the Democratic caucus. There was more diversity of opnion within the Democratic Party under FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. However, those Liberal figures arguably did more for American Liberalism than have modern, post-Vietnam Liberals.
Posted by: Scoop Jackson Democrat | February 6, 2005 07:28 AM