Evan Bayh - thougts, VP and otherwise

I'm not very knowledgeable about Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana but he seems to be a solid guy... but I'm also seen a lot of people question his views/credentials here on DU. What are his positives and negatives as you see them? Likewise, what do you think the positives and negatives of having him as VP would be.

and if you don't like the guy, try to flame constructively... :)

He's as conservative as you can get with out switching to the repukkks. You may consider that good, but maybe you don't. Indiana will be about 50-50 if he is nominated. It will be heated, my money, unfortunately would be on bush. The people around here are straight insane.

convinced that he is not on our team.

He is one of the leaders of the DLC and votes WITH the Republicans 75% of the time.

I live in Indiana, and when he was governor he visited my school. I've always thought it would be a good idea for Kerry to pick him for VP. It may help him get Indiana, which always votes Republican for President (but always for Democratic governors, strangely enough) in November, plus then I could say I shook hands with the Vice President. All I can say now is that one time I saw Dan Quayle in a restaurant and he ordered mashed potatoes. I shit you not.

I listened to a colleague explain to me that he tried to teach Quayle how to use Word while working for a services company. His impression. Quayle was the biggest idiot he ever met.

And my colleague WAS A REPUBLICAN!!!!!!!

Did he order mashed potatos, or mashed potato-e-s??

from boredom, good choice!

Would you mind explaining why you feel he is boring? That was the constructive part I was talking about in my original post.

His mannerisms are somewhat stiff and choreographed.

He does not have the energy to rally the troops and make people believe in themselves.

He only has 3 positives:
His wife
His twin boys
The Bayh name

But a BAD DEMOCRAT!!!!!!

To Bayhs credit, he has shed some of his wooden facade. He's much more personable then he used to be.

But I cannot stand how he is kissing Republican ass lately. He's a little bit removed from Zel Miller.

If there were NO OTHER choices, Bayh would be OK. But we have Bob Graham of Florida who is in a HIGH STAKES battleground state.

Seriously, I'd rather see MCCAIN on the ticket than Bayh. At least McCain is honest who he is.

He's nowhere near the man his father was. He has a vaguely recognizable name, but an Indiana pol won't help Kerry where he needs it the most, in the south. NC and La are up for grabs, and Florida is tied. Like it or not, Kerry really needs a southerner on the ticket.

Indiana is like another planet. I know, I've lived there. The state doesn't have a chance of going for Kerry, not even if Kerry promised to move the nation's capital to Muncie and exempt the whole state population from taxes.

I think there are worse VP choices. Better ones, too. There are some people that we might want to stay in the Senate. I think he's one of them. I do not mean that as an insult at all. After Kerry is elected, we will need people like him to help get legislation through.

It would be difficult to get another Democrat elected to fill that spot. The only way another Democrat would be Senator is for the Governor to appoint. But after an election is held at the next election to fill the remaining term it would be difficult even as an incumbent.

Note this article from Black Commentator:

The DLC's National White Man's Conversation
Let the rich rump of the party go where they belong

“The Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over from the far left." - DLC chairman Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Black Commentator
Issue Number 51
July 31, 2003

The right wing of the Democratic Party is once again threatening to secede. Our fervent wish is that nobody tries to stop them.

Historically speaking, Charleston, South Carolina would have been a better locale for the Democratic Leadership Council’s secessionist-minded “National Conversation,” this week. Instead, the party’s corporate extortionists chose Philadelphia to make a stand for the American White Man, whose every idiocy must be accommodated lest the party fall into the hands of…you know who: them!

White men are terrified of them – which explains why the poor fellows get all confused and vote against their own interests every time it is imagined that they – “special interests,” Blacks, unions, and the dangerous people who call for health care, jobs, peace and justice – are about to intrude on the “national conversation.”

White men are insecure, especially the young ones. “"If Democrats can't close the security gap, then they can't be competitive in the next election," said Mark Penn, the snake oil pollster for the world’s most boringly repellant white man, Senator Joseph Lieberman, the DLC’s standard bearer in the Democratic primaries.

According to Penn’s poll numbers, white men feel more secure with George Bush in charge. This is quite curious, since Penn also finds that, overall, “Fewer than half of those surveyed (48 percent) think deserves to be reelected and 53 percent said the economy is heading in the wrong direction.” Nevertheless, white men are increasingly Republican, indicating that their fears and insecurities get the better of their brains, every time.

Fearful white men and confused white women, says the DLC, must be retained at all costs within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Just in case these “swing voters” are not fearful enough, DLC chairman Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) warned: “The Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over from the far left.'' Since this is clearly an outcome unacceptable to the DLC and its corporate funders, it must be assumed that the DLC is preparing to bolt from the Party if rich white men don’t get their way.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/51/51_dlc.html

Most posters probably know that I support the DLC. BUT, I certainly think that you have the right to disagree. I do feel that the implied association of DLC as a "American white man's organization" is not a very accurate statement to make.

Hopefully, you are voting for Kerry. Maybe on that we can agree.
:toast:

ugh

He doesn't help us at all.

:puke:

He's a sensible moderate who has been elected and re-elected by landslides in a Republican state, and you can bet that he will be on Senator Kerry's short list for vice president.

Pay no attention to the far-left nutcases on this site who don't like him; they are NOT representative of the Democratic party as a whole (just look at what happened in the primaries).

Nationally, Democrats are pretty much middle of the road. They did not just like Clinton's personality, but they also liked his policies. If Bayh or Gephardt are chosen, Democrats across the country will rally to the ticket. Maybe not on this Board.:-(

He may possibly bring more labor support into the picture, but Dean seemed to do better with labor than Gephardt did. Bayh, on the other hand, might be a good choice don't really know much about him, though.

You've got to be shitting me (and just about everyone else here).

This is ridiculous. Those who think democrats shouldn't support Bush on many of his policies are "far left nutcases"?

Bayh is a dull politician. He's moderate by Indiana standards. His only excuse is that he's from Indiana.

Either way he wouldn't deliever Indiana to Kerry and even the DLC knows that. Nominating Bayh would be a TERRIBLE choice - even worse than Gep.

He said that Evan Bayh -- who was elected governor at age 32 -- was one of the most talented young Democrats he'd ever seen. Clinton was so impressed with Bayh that he even chose him to give the nominating speech at the 1996 convention. And now Bayh is reportedly being vetted for the vice presidency by Kerry's team. Yet many here still claim that Bayh is a "Republican" and a threat to our party just because he's a (gasp!) moderate. I think that just shows how clueless and out of touch many on this site really are.

Does Kerry want the "far left nutcase" vote?

unless you have ovaries.

I'm a far-left feminist nutcase who refuses with a big red R to vote for anyone who is antichoice.

What I find so mystifying is this - when was the party taken over by right wing nutcases who will sacrifice any principles we may once have had, in order to coronate Kerry?

Secretary of State 1986
Evan Bayh (D) 828,494
Robert Bowen (R) 704,952

Governor 1988
Evan Bayh/ Frank O'Bannon(D) 1,138,574
John Mutz/Steve Goldsmith (R) 1,002,207

Governor 1992
Bayh/O'Bannon (D) 1,382,151
Linley Pearson/Robert Green (R) 822,533

Senator 1998
Evan Bayh (D) 1,012,244
Paul Helmke (R) 552,732

Senator 2000
David L Johnson (D) 683,273
Richard G Lugar (R) 1,427,944

Lugar won by almost 800,000 more than Johnson
vs.
Bayh won by almost 500,000 more than Helmke
In the Bayh/Helmke race the gop had a lot of strife within the party because of hard core conservatives. This could had been a closer race otherwise. Another factor was that Helmke was mayor of Fort Wayne for 12 years.

Bayh won by almost 500,000 more than Pearson
Bayh won by almost 100,000 more than Mutz
Bayh won by almost 100,000 more than Bowen

Bayh won mostly on the name factor more than anything else. Other factors were the quality of the candidates that ran against him and their record or lack of record.

If Bayh's father had not been a major politician in Indiana Evan would not have won his first election. In fact, the Indiana Supreme Court at the time may have ruled that he had not met the residency requirement for the office.

Evan Bayh was just lucky to be where he was at the time and place.

he's anti-choice.

When he was Governor, Bayh signed into law a bill that required women seeking abortions to undergo counseling. Part of that counseling involving being bombarded with pro-life propaganda, including pictures of aborted fetuses.

Bayh voted for the so-called "partial-birth" abortion ban.

I would vote for a dead rat before I cast a voted for Evan Bayh.

I don't really know much about Bayh, so I'd like to read something like this before forming an opinion about him as VP.

I didn't know that Bayh had been a governor. That adds greatly to his appeal as a leader, someone who's knowledgeable, capable, etc. This moves him up on the list, IMO.

Regarding his stance on abortion, being bombarded with fetuses is a bad thing, since that is an emotional tactic used by the right. But I'd want to see some authority on that before I'd believe it. As far as the partial birth abortion stance, that is controversial and not clearly a right-wing, left-wing thing. I, myself, a fervent pro-choice believer, have not taken a position on partial birth abortion, which occurs in the last stages of pregnancy. Doesn't mean I'm against it. But I'm not convinced it is always used for the reasons stated, and I find it disturbing. I just don't know enough about it, I guess. Could be that I'd be for it. But a vote in favor of banning it does not, in and of itself, make someone anti-abortion.

Kerry needs someone with an executive background - governor, head of an organization, even a CEO or a wall street person - I don't care, as long as s/he supports the Democratic ideas and platform.

Secretary of State, too.

means that he does not support the ideas and platform of the Democrats, at least not at an executive level.

Bayh isn't even going to bring in his own state.

What are the reasons you think Bayh couldn't bring in Illinois, his home state? Is he unpopular there?

Bayh is from Indiana, which hasn't voted for a Democratic President since LBJ

And the regions where Kerry has abig lead, and wheer Bush does, it becomes obvious that Kerry is focusing on three areas, the norteast, his base, the west coast, and finally, the midwest. HE is not doing as well as Bush in the south but he is leading Bush by a significant amount of electoral votes by focusing on the most popular industrialized states, and the largest midwestern states. He will inevetiable end up choosing a midwesterner as his running mate, and there are many positives about Bayh. He more of a moderate than Kerry, and also is someone who will not trry to outshine Kerry during the campaign.

The husband is sleeping so I can't play this link to be sure first but I believe what you will hear is an interview with NPR's Bob Edwards. This was from June 20, 2003 when some Dems in congress were looking to investigate why no WMD's had been found in Iraq. Bayh, however sounded more like a Bush apologist:

http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1304909