Indiana's Evan Bayh to retire from Senate

NeoRio1 · Feb 17, 2010

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Why can't this be as simple as Bayh is fed up with the bullshit of his job, and wants a career change?

The extreme right has taken over the republican party, the moderate democrats are fearful of the far left...

What is a moderate republican or democrat to do?

This level of extreme partisanship in America is revolting, and I see no reason why a moderate like Bayh didn't grow tired of the rancor coupled with the knowledge that this level of extreme partisanship is going to end badly...

Bayh was never a charismatic flame throwing bombastic squeeky wheel looking to be greased, which was why even though I thought he would make an effective moderate leader...I didn't think he had a chance for president.

Moderate isn't exciting, it isn't rabble rousing, it doesn't hold the shortened attention span of today's electorate who is used to the ranting and raving they see and hear from the typical pundits and talking heads on TV and radio..

The simple fact is that the best person for the job of president is now becoming much too smart to actually run for the job...as it is more and more a no win situation for anyone who gets the job.

What we will likely see going forward is nothing but ego maniacs and damaged people looking to be president...

I really can't see a normal common sense matter of fact moderate personality being nominated by either party these days...

It is as simple as Bayh being fed up with the bullshit. I never said it wasn't that simple. My statement said that Obama will risk even further political onslaught if he ceases to move towards the center after all of these indicators that he should.

Look at history. In 1993 there were two gubernatorial elections. Both elections kicked out Democrats and put in Republicans. The task force for the Clinton Health care reform was put into place in January of 1993 and was somewhat controversial. Even after those two gubernatorial elections Clinton stayed the course on his healthcare plan. Unemployment during this time was 6.7% by the way, not 10%. Clinton ceased to move towards the center on his healthcare plan after the elections and his plan officially failed in august of 1994. We all know what happened in November, 1994.

Clinton had two pieces of evidence (elections) that should have persuaded him to move further to the middle. He decided to ignore it and continued with his policy that ultimately failed which was the main contributing factor in the midterms of 1994. Obama now has three/four pieces of evidence (if you count Bayh) that should persuade him to move towards the center.

Remember, politics is a game of possibilities. When you're a politician and you aren't willing to change your hypothesis regarding the possibility of your policies you lose, big time.

CaptainObvious · Feb 17, 2010

At the end of the day it's all about the dollar, and who can blame him. Why work in the spotlight for pennies when you can clean up in the shadows?
Evan Bayh Won't Rule Out Becoming A Lobbyist After His Term Ends
A day after he announced his retirement from the U.S. Senate, Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh declined to rule out a career as a lobbyist.
If Bayh wants to head for K Street, he, like other retired members of Congress, would have excellent job prospects. In 2005, the progressive watchdog group Public Citizen reported that 43 percent of the members who retired from 1998 to 2004 registered as lobbyists. That total excludes people like former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who does lobbying work but avoids registering.

There are several plum jobs available right now. The Hill reported on Tuesday that at least four major trade associations -- including Big Pharma and the Motion Picture Association of America -- are hiring for leadership positions with salaries of at least $1 million.

walter4 · Feb 17, 2010

Quote from Arnie:

I agree. Obama ran on a promise to change the tone in Washington. I think that is one reason so many independents voted for him. People are sick and tired of the crap.

But then, he just hands everything over to Pelosi and Reed and lets them draft major legislation without any input from him.
I'm not so sure people are upset with Obama's policies as mush as they are with his lack of any real effort to change the tone. If anything, he has poured gas on the fire.

Good post.

TraderTactics · Feb 17, 2010

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

You really don't get it do you?

You are thinking like a partisan, as if the dems losing a super majority is going to make a difference one way or another...

You are part of the problem with your thinking, certainly not part of the solution.

I agree that partisanship has not been working, and that indeed is a problem. But since when does it take 61 votes to pass anything? Especially when a constitutional majority is 51 votes? The problem lies with the abuse of the fillabuster. The whole reason the democrats need a super majority to pass any bill with the right wing party of "No". Partisanship is how our government is designed, so that the voice of both spectrums are heard and are given the ability to make a compromise. However I agree that the partisan model is not funtioning properly, especially when the GOP is forcing a 61 vote due to their incesent denial of anything and everything.

Scataphagos · Feb 17, 2010

Quote from TraderTactics:

"... I agree that the partisan model is not funtioning properly, especially when the GOP is forcing a 61 vote due to their incesent denial of anything and everything.

You don't see that the "anything and everything" Socialist agenda is BAD for America... and that the GOP opposing those bastards at every turn is a GOOD thing?

I'd rather see the requirement for a 2/3 majority to pass ANYTHING. Then there'd virtually no frivolous, spendthrift, partisan crapola.

That the Dems even TRIED to cram the Obamacare/Tyranny Socialist bill down our throats while excluding the Repubs from the process should get them ALL thrown out on their asses.. If there were any justice in this world, the Dems would lose 200+ House seats come November... :mad:

Ricter · Feb 17, 2010

Quote from Scataphagos:

You don't see that the "anything and everything" Socialist agenda is BAD for America... and that the GOP opposing those bastards at every turn is a GOOD thing?

I'd rather see the requirement for a 2/3 majority to pass ANYTHING. Then there'd virtually no frivolous, spendthrift, partisan crapola.

That the Dems even TRIED to cram the Obamacare/Tyranny Socialist bill down our throats while excluding the Repubs from the process should get them ALL thrown out on their asses.. If there were any justice in this world, the Dems would lose 200+ House seats come November...

Lol, eat shit, Scataphagos! (Sorry, I can't help it, everytime I see your moniker I think of the translation.)

Anyway, the "socialist agenda". You mean the socialist agenda that battles capital on behalf of labor? Yeah, Obama should be focusing his efforts not on helping the working man, who is doing fine, but instead on the big banks and other corporations who are so hard done by during this recent economic crisis. Yeah, we need even more capitalist agenda, not less, the workers are getting uppity.

Barth Vader · Feb 17, 2010

Quote from Ricter:

"..Anyway, the "socialist agenda". You mean the socialist agenda that battles capital on behalf of labor? .."

No, the marxist agenda that demands equality of condition instead of equality of rights...........

Ricter · Feb 17, 2010

Quote from Barth Vader:

No, the marxist agenda that demands equality of condition instead of equality of rights...........

Actually that's not Marx, that's later interpretations.

But he said "socialist", so let's not get sidetracked.

AAAintheBeltway · Feb 17, 2010

Do any of you see the unintended irony of a thread decrying the lack of bipartisanship and cooperation in Dc turning into a typical P&R shit slinging contest? If each of you were a US Senator, do you think you would suddenly be filled with a willingness to cooperate?

The problem is not partisanship. It is that we face difficult issues, and diiferent factions see radically different solutions. They are the type of issues that do not lend themselves to compromises. For example, one camp sees AGW as a dire threat, the other sees it as a hoax. One sees our only hope for rescuing the economy as tax cuts, the other sees them as a giveaway to the rich and sees massive tax increases as the way to go.

CaptainObvious · Feb 17, 2010

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Do any of you see the unintended irony of a thread decrying the lack of bipartisanship and cooperation in Dc turning into a typical P&R shit slinging contest? If each of you were a US Senator, do you think you would suddenly be filled with a willingness to cooperate?

The problem is not partisanship. It is that we face difficult issues, and diiferent factions see radically different solutions. They are the type of issues that do not lend themselves to compromises. For example, one camp sees AGW as a dire threat, the other sees it as a hoax. One sees our only hope for rescuing the economy as tax cuts, the other sees them as a giveaway to the rich and sees massive tax increases as the way to go.

Which means one side needs a majority and should push forward with their agenda regardless of the ranting and raving on the other side. Wait, the Dems had that, and still have it to a great degree, so WTF is going on? Me thinks neither side has the stones to man up and take the plunge.