Magox Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...-bayh-to-retire Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) will not seek re-election in 2010, the Washington Post reports.
keepthefaith Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...-bayh-to-retire Another Dem that sees the writing on the wall.
pBills Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Yup, we're screwed when the political scene in washington swings completely back to the right.
Magox Posted February 15, 2010 Author Posted February 15, 2010 Another Dem that sees the writing on the wall. Definitely a body blow to the Obama administration. He's shown his dissatisfaction with the direction of the W.H's agenda, I've got to believe that this weighed in on his decision.
IDBillzFan Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Another Dem that sees the writing on the wall. I don't know that he is doing this because he thinks he can't get re-elected. According to this article at MSNBC, "Bayh's exit gives Republicans a prime pick-up opportunity. Former Indiana Sen. Dan Coats ® is running for the seat. Bayh was leading Coats by 20 points (55% to 35%) in a recent Research 2000/DailyKos poll." But after two terms, Bayh gets a pension for life, so that's something.
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Yup, we're screwed when the political scene in washington swings completely back to the right. No more screwed than we are know, with the left controlling Congress and the White House. Personally, I prefer divided control. It keeps the idiots focused on each other and away from trying to "fix" things. I'd rather see a Democratic Congress and Republican White House, if I had a choice....but vice-versa, almost as good.
pBills Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 No more screwed than we are know, with the left controlling Congress and the White House. Personally, I prefer divided control. It keeps the idiots focused on each other and away from trying to "fix" things. I'd rather see a Democratic Congress and Republican White House, if I had a choice....but vice-versa, almost as good. Divided control or not. The way they fight nothing will get done.
Magox Posted February 15, 2010 Author Posted February 15, 2010 Divided control or not. The way they fight nothing will get done. It couldn't possibly be too much worse than it is today, and that is with Democratic controlled W.H and Congress.
John Adams Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Divided control or not. The way they fight nothing will get done. When government is getting nothing done, we're all better off.
keepthefaith Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 When government is getting nothing done, we're all better off. Couldn't agree more.
pBills Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 It couldn't possibly be too much worse than it is today, and that is with Democratic controlled W.H and Congress. I am sure it could.
Nanker Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 When government is getting nothing done, we're all better off. Amen to that.
pBills Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Amen to that. Yes. Let's have a government that does nothing.
Doc Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Yes. Let's have a government that does nothing. I'll take that, over one that makes things worse.
Nanker Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Yes. Let's have a government that does nothing. You think Bayh liked toeing the lackey line for Harry Reid? I think he believed the leadership of his party was hijacked by ideologues - the policies of whom the majority of his constituency don't agree with. He figured there was a better way to make a living than carrying water for the far left. He made his political career as a centrist and isn't comfortable wearing lizard skin.
keepthefaith Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Yes. Let's have a government that does nothing. Your preferred party can't get elected on a platform of self sufficiency. What would happen if our government just leveled the playing field for everyone? Make everyone play by the same rules, cut unproductive agencies and a flat tax rate?
Doc Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 BTW, how many Democratic congress people have chosen not to run for re-election this year? Seems like it's happening every few weeks.
1billsfan Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 You think Bayh liked toeing the lackey line for Harry Reid?I think he believed the leadership of his party was hijacked by ideologues the radical left - the policies of whom the majority of his constituency don't agree with. He figured there was a better way to make a living than carrying water for the far left. He made his political career as a centrist and isn't comfortable wearing lizard skin. Fixed it. It's the modern day version of, "I didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me." Yes, I know he didn't technically leave them, but he is leaving them in just as great of a sense. http://www.journalgazette.net/article/2010.../302049933/1066 But, he said, “my question to you, Mr. President, is (in) speaking to independents, conservative Democrats, moderate Republicans – people who know we have to do this – why should the Democratic Party be trusted? And are we willing to make some of the tough decisions to actually head this country in a better direction?” It's a shame, he was one of the few democratic party members of congress that I liked and who would have been willing to participate in bipartisanship work in DC.
pBills Posted February 15, 2010 Posted February 15, 2010 Your preferred party can't get elected on a platform of self sufficiency. What would happen if our government just leveled the playing field for everyone? Make everyone play by the same rules, cut unproductive agencies and a flat tax rate? I'm all for everyone being on a level playing field. I just think that it will ever happen.
Recommended Posts