It’s always interesting to speculate about politicians who have a ‘moderate’ profile. The vast majority of them represent swing districts or states, and while their votes and positions may reflect their constituencies, you can’t help but wonder if their principles lie further to one side or the other. For example, Evan Bayh represents historically conservative Indiana. If he voted like Bernie Sanders, it’s quite likely that his supporters would evaporate. I remember that when Al Gore was representing Tennessee, we has anti-choice, but when he decided to run for president, he became pro-choice. The same thing happened with Dennis Kucinich. Meanwhile, Poppy Bush was pro-choice when he ran for president in 1980, but flipped completely in his 1988 run. Times had changed for the Republican party. Do these politicians have real enduring values or just blind ambition?
One time that you can test a politician’s true principles is when they announce their retirement. Freed from the need to curry favor with their voters, they can vote any way they want. In Evan Bayh’s case, there was some reason to believe that he might be a bit more liberal than he let on. After all, his father Birch was a staunch liberal. But, it turns out that Evan Bayh is more conservative than he’s let on. Not only did he cast liberal votes with an eye towards pleasing the Senate leadership, but he also wanted to stay viable in the presidential primaries and keep his name in the mix for vice-president. When Obama was choosing his running mate, Bayh made the final cut along with Tim Kaine of Virginia and Joe Biden of Delaware.
Yet, once Bayh announced his retirement, he moved to the right, as could be seen last week with the votes on reconciliation.
During the two-day voting marathon on amendments to the healthcare reconciliation bill, the three Democratic centrists bucked their party more than any other of their 56 colleagues in the upper chamber. Out of 42 votes over 14 hours, Bayh (Ind.) defected 17 times, Lincoln (Ark.) strayed 12 times and Nelson (Neb.) crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans 25 times.
To his credit, Bayh did ultimately vote for reconciliation, but he voted on a number of poison pill amendments that were designed to embarrass Democrats who are seeking reelection. There was no coherent reason to vote for these amendments on the merits. But Bayh did.
Perhaps this shouldn’t surprise us since Bayh was a former head of the Democratic Leadeship Committee, but so were Sens. Carper and Lieberman, and they didn’t fall for the baloney even though they are seeking reelection.
It seems that Bayh was mainly a stalking horse for the right. Good thing that Obama passed him over for Joe ‘Big Fucking Deal’ Biden.
Having announced his retirement, does Bayh need a job? If so, who might offer him a job? Might that affect his voting more than ideology? That’s my main argument against term limits – it motivates representatives to vote with an eye toward their next job, giving that much more clout to corporate interests.
Follow the money. Always.
yeah, maybe.
A look at the actual amendments he voted for though doesn’t offer any clear narrative.
Ride-or-Die Joe has turned out to be a very good choice. I love his fight. Good riddance to bad rubbish with Bayh.
Perhaps this shouldn’t surprise us since Bayh was a former head of the Democratic Leadeship Committee, but so were Sens. Carper and Lieberman, and they didn’t fall for the baloney even though they are seeking reelection.
Does Carper have any further ambitions? And, I believe, there is only so many times HoJo can poke Obama in the eye before Obama clocks him with a roundhouse right(metaphorically, of course), and HoJo knows that.
Although I didn’t much care for Evan, his record shows that he was a liberal voter more often than it seemed, much more so than Ellsworth, who is being anointed to replace him.
I’m afraid that in the end, this could be a case of “be careful what you wish for.”
As BooMan said .. Bayh had greater ambitions .. which did him no good … that’s why his crappy voting record was as liberal as it was .. and that brings up another question .. about how Bayh thought he could become President when he was such a ConservaDem tool .. and a speaker who would put people to sleep .. and as far as Ellsworth goes .. you don’t think Obama and Emanuel are partially behind his getting the nod to at least attempt to replace Bayh?
I used to call Bayh Governor Bland and he didn’t give me any reason to say otherwise as a senator. Ellsworth, the candidate apparent, has been placed there by the state party, et al, which presumably includes the “Village People”.
As others have said, Bayh wanted to reach higher office, and you don’t do that in the party by being a right-wing hack like him.
Back in 2008, I remember Bayh when he was worrying to the press that young voters were growing up with the idea that we didn’t need to go running around killing Muslims for no reason.
Needless to say, even if I hadn’t already known what a scumbag he was, that would’ve been all I’d have ever needed to hear from him.
On Gore and Poppy, I differ on the abortion positions they held and when they shifted. Happy to be corrected though.
In the case of Al, I think he had a technically pro-choice stance while repping TN, but it was a highly nuanced one which allowed him, especially as a congressman, to emphasize its several handy anti-abortion aspects: personally against abortion, against fed funding, favored fetus over mother’s rights at certain stages (which sounds anti-choice but actually just restates Roe). He then somewhat de-emphasized the anti-abortion rhetoric over time in the 80s as senator, and by 92 when he ran with Bill, was able to jump aboard with Clinton’s theme of “safe, legal and rare.” That’s my recollection anyway.
As for Poppy, I think he did a major flip-flop from pro- to anti-choice not in 1988 but in 1980 when Reagan picked him to run as VP. Anything less than totally embracing the harsh anti-abortion party platform would have caused some intraparty problems at the convention, and I don’t recall there being a problem getting Bush the #2 spot with delegates once he did the 180 on abortion.
As for Bayh, I agree with the poster above, that we should not be too pleased seeing him leave if it means an even more conservative pol and a Repub replaces him. And on the possibility of his being tapped by Obama in 2008, I’d like to think conservadem Bayh was only there among the finalists as a courtesy gesture of good will to ensure his enthusiastic support in the general. He would have been a bland de-energizing drag on the ticket, with the possible exception of being helpful in winning the one state of IN.
He would have been a bland de-energizing drag on the ticket, with the possible exception of being helpful in winning the one state of IN.
And Obama didn’t need him to win IN, did he? 😉
Exactly. And if you’re going to put a guy on a ticket just for one state, it’s usually a better idea that the state in question be a big one, like TX in 1960 (positive outcome) or FL (not such a good outcome in 2000, though almost certainly stolen by the Rs).
Methinks you’re reading too much into the reconciliation votes. Not all ideology is based on left/right.
It’s quite possible Bayh simply believes his own bullshit on bipartisanship, and objected to the reconciliation process on those grounds. The votes on amendments would then be his way of protesting its use.
Didn’t you have a man-crush on Buh-Bayh at some point, Boo?
absolutely not. No. Never.
the earlier mention I can find of me actually making a value judgment of Evan Bayh came in December 2005, while discussing possible presidential candidates.
Meant “earliest.”
Let’s not forget this, cutting off fuel to a country is an act of war. He’s always front and center to do Israel’s bidding.
Of course he is setting himself up for a run. For president.
Lieberman, Bayh, and Kyl on Iran: “Whatever It Takes…Crippling Sanctions”
September 25, 2009
Bayh’s Presidential ambitions are dead. Okay, maybe not his ambitions, but his chances of getting the Democratic nomination are.
We can only hope.
These people live in a bubble. He strikes me as holding himself in very high regard.
I think you’re right. I can’t even imagine his fellow Hoosiers coming out in support of him, at least not the Democrats.
Ah yes, BooMan with the name calling. Don’t agree with him, you’re a troll. All Bayh was pointing out that the partisan bickering in Washington is no good for the country. For that, Bayh is demonized by his own party. Forget the fact that a strong majority of Americans agree with Bayh. Doesn’t matter to the liberal wing of the Democratic party. To them, Bayh is the problem because he doesn’t want to see blood spurting form the Republicans. He wants to work across the aisle, and get things done.
As BooMan pointed out in his article, Bayh represents CONSERVATIVE Indiana, not the liberal websites like this one.
Let me ask you a question BooMan. You like what you see out in America?? You like the hate speech going on? You like the fact that both Republicans and Democrats are being threatened with death?? I should think not. Well, that’s what Evan Bayh was talking about when he complained about the bitter, and gutter politics in Washington, and around the country.
Sorry BooMan, but Evan Bayh is a good, decent man, and the fact is he is not the problem. The problem is Washington discourse. You get rid of the moderates and independents, and the tone in Washington gets worse than it is right now. You may want blood in the water, but I think it’s a disgusting way to do things. And I am not alone in thinking that.