PDA

View Full Version : Bayh to Obama: take this job and shove it



troung
15 Feb 10,, 22:22
Bayh to Obama: take this job and shove it
PostPartisan - Bayh to Obama: take this job and shove it (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/02/evan_bayh.html)
Millions of Americans long to tell their bosses “take this job and shove it.” Hardly any have the power and money to do so, especially in these recessionary times. Sen. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana, however, is the exception. His stunning retirement from the Senate is essentially a loud and emphatic “screw you” to President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. For months now, Bayh has been screaming at the top of his voice that the party needs to reorient toward a more popular, centrist agenda -- one that emphasizes jobs and fiscal responsibility over health care and cap and trade. Neither the White House nor the Senate leadership has given him the response he wanted. Their bungling of what should have been a routine bipartisan jobs bill last week seems to have been the last straw.

I don’t doubt that Bayh could have won re-election -- though he probably did not relish the prospect of a very nasty campaign revolving around GOP attacks on his wife’s business activities. Let it never be forgotten that Bayh is a perennial Democratic golden boy, the keynote speaker at the party’s 1996 convention, scion of a political dynasty, proven vote-getter in a red state and, in his own mind, prime presidential timber. For him, then, the question was: even if I win, who needs six more years of dealing with these people, after which I might be 60 years old and trying to pick up the pieces of a damaged political party brand?

And don’t get him started on the Republicans! I think we have to take Bayh at his word when he quite justifiably expressed disgust not only with the jobs bill fiasco, but also when he lashed out at the Senate Republicans who opportunistically voted down a bipartisan budget-balancing commission they had previously endorsed.

Quitting the Senate was a no-lose move for the presidentially ambitious Bayh, since he can now crawl away from the political wreckage for a couple of years, plausibly alleging that he tried to steer the party in a different direction -- and then be perfectly positioned to mount a centrist primary challenge to Obama in 2012, depending on circumstances.

There will be those Democrats who bid good riddance to Bayh and his coal-burning-state apostasy about cap and trade, etc. If so, they won’t need a very big tent to contain the celebration. On a more pragmatic view, Bayh’s dramatic vote of no-confidence in his own party’s leadership looks like another Massachusetts-sized political earthquake for the Democrats. Not only does it imperil the president’s short-term hopes of passing health care and other major legislation this year. It also makes it much more likely that the Republicans can pick up Bayh’s Senate seat in normally red Indiana and, with it, control of the Senate itself. If present trends continue, November could turn into a Republican rout.

troung
15 Feb 10,, 22:31
Obama hit hard as Bayh bows out
by Jim Mannion Jim Mannion 1 hr 3 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US President Barack Obama suffered another setback Monday as a fifth Democratic senator, centrist heavyweight Evan Bayh, decided not to run for re-election in dismay at the bitter political climate.

Obama, who reportedly tried to talk Bayh out of retiring, faces a looming Republican resurgence and risks watching strong majorities in Congress crumble in November mid-term elections, and with them his ambitious reform agenda.

With his tearful wife and two sons at his side, Bayh, 54, expressed disenchantment with excessive partisanship in the Congress as he announced his decision at a press conference in the state capital Indianapolis.

"For some time, I have had a growing conviction that Congress is not operating as it should. There is too much partisanship and not enough progress -- too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving," he said.

"Even at a time of enormous challenge, the peoples? business is not being done."

Democrats expressed shock at the development, seeing it both as the loss of a key consensus builder in the Senate and of a candidate strongly favored to win re-election in Republican-leaning Indiana.

A top White House official said Bayh, who called Obama on Monday morning, was "by nature a governor not a senator."

The New York Times reported that both Obama and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel tried to convince Bayh to run again, but to no avail.

In a statement, Obama praised Bayh for "reaching across the aisle on issues ranging from job creation and economic growth to fiscal responsibility and national security.

"I look forward to continuing to work with him on these critical challenges throughout the rest of the year," he said.

Republican Dan Coats, a former senator who later served as US ambassador to Germany, recently announced he would challenge Bayh, who has never lost an election in Indiana and once considered running for the presidency.

The son of Indiana senator Birch Bayh, he was best known as a moderate who co-sponsored a 2002 Senate resolution authorizing the Iraq war.

"He is a centrist, and it seems that the center is not holding," said Diane Ravitch of the Brookings Institution in a posting on Politico.com. "If senators such as Bayh leave or lose, the rancor in Washington will get louder and meaner."

His decision not to run for a third term was the latest sign of trouble coming at Obama and his Democrats as they head into mid-term elections amid rising public anger over high unemployment and economic uncertainty.

Explaining his disenchantment, Bayh pointed to last week's collapse of legislation aimed at creating jobs and a Senate vote against a bipartisan commission to deal with the exploding deficit and debt, which he called "one of the greatest threats facing our nation."

"After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so in Congress has waned," Bayh said.

"My decision was not motivated by political concern," he said. "Even in the current challenging environment, I am confident in my prospects for re-election."

Polls indicate that Bayh could easily have won re-election, making his decision all the more frustrating for Democrats struggling to hang on to the large majorities they won in 2008.

A poll last week showed Bayh, who is reported to have 13 million dollars in his campaign chest, with a 20-point lead over Coats.

"My decision should not reflect adversely upon the president," Bayh said, calling Obama's agenda "the right agenda for America."

But it follows the loss of the Senate seat in Massachusetts held for decades by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, which stripped Democrats of the 60-seat majority they need to override Republican delaying tactics in the 100-seat chamber.

Bayh is the fifth Democratic senator to opt not to run for re-election in 2010, a list that includes other party heavyweights Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota.

It was unclear who would succeed Bayh as the Democratic candidate from Indiana. Possible contenders include Representatives Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth. The deadline for filing is Friday.

Coats, 66, faces a challenge for the Republican nomination from former representative John Hostettler.

Democrats had already mounted bruising attacks on Coats, casting him as a carpet-bagger who lives and votes in Virginia, a lobbyist for drug industry interests and a foreign agent for interests as varied as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Yemen.
Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved

gunnut
15 Feb 10,, 23:12
Oh I hope to hell that Obama and the dems try to jam Obamacare and global warming bill through.

In fact, I should write to my senator, Barbara "who has earned the title" Boxer to never relent on her socialist principles. I can tell her that I am a registered democrat deep in the heart of Orange County, asking her to continue the course of "hope and change" and fundamentally change America.

Oh it will be sweet. :biggrin:

ZekeJones
16 Feb 10,, 01:31
It's a good move by Bayh.
It sets him up to run for a run 2012 as a candidate that wants to end the bullshit in Washington and this would be an example of his actions to demonstrate his sincerity. He's fairly moderate and has a somewhat "clean" image by DC standards, but his wife might be a sticking point as she has sat on several boards with questionable actions that some have suggested that influenced his votes.

highsea
16 Feb 10,, 01:49
Oh I hope to hell that Obama and the dems try to jam Obamacare and global warming bill through.They will keep trying gunnut, the "savings" are already factored into his 2011 budget.

I don't suppose anyone caught that speech he gave at the DNC winter meeting- all that talk of bipartisanship with republicans was forgotten, and he was right back to his regular self. Going on and on about the urgent need to pass the health care and energy bills...

DailyPUMA
16 Feb 10,, 03:13
Hi, this is my first post. I hope its ok to leave a link to an article I wrote as to why Evan Bayh decided not to run again so close to the deadline. I do not think the mainstream media will report what I believe to be a solid reason for why Bayh did what he did.

Back in late 2007 in Michigan, Obama, Richardson and Edwards pulled out of the Michigan primary just before the deadline. Then Obama, Richardson and Edwards verbally attacked Hillary Clinton for not doing the same even though it would have been impossible for her to do the same at such a late date.

Then Obama, Richardson and Edwards went around Iowa and New Hampshire saying how disloyal Hillary Clinton was for not taking her name off of the Michigan Ballot because Michigan had moved up their primary date to take the spotlight away from Iowa and New Hampshire. Although the date of their primary was after Iowa and New Hampshire, it was so close that it certainly would have required taking time away from Iowa and New Hampshire to campaign in Michigan.

Bayh waiting to the last minute before declaring he was not going to run again was payback for the shenanigans that Obama, Richardson and Edwards pulled in the democratic primary. A master stroke that the major media will once again suppress, just like they did when Obama, Richardson and Edwards pulled their clever political stunt.

Daily PUMA: BREAKING NEWS, Evan Bayh pulls a Barack Obama and gets out of the race one day before the deadline, just like Obama did in Michigan. (http://dailypuma.blogspot.com/2010/02/breaking-news-evan-bayh-pulls-barack.html)

gunnut
16 Feb 10,, 04:20
Obama, Richardson, and Edwards pulling out of Michigan primary was following the rule set by the DNC. Hillary chose not to honor that rule because she was desperate. I don't see how this has anything to do with Bayh of Indiana.

crooks
16 Feb 10,, 12:58
A pretty big loss - always liked him, was a bit too moderate for my tastes but a clear leader and bridge builder, the Democrats in the Senate are poorer without him, that's for sure.

That seat in Indiana is almost surely gone as well, unless Ellsworth is the Dem and he gains traction quickly.

troung
16 Feb 10,, 20:36
After Bayh, less bipartisanship needed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021602537.html
By Katrina vanden Heuvel
Tuesday, February 16, 2010; 12:16 PM

So Evan Bayh, the Senate's poster boy for bipartisanship, is, in the immortal words of the Jackson 5, "goin' back to Indiana." The senator explains, "There is too much partisanship and not enough progress [in Congress] -- too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving." Bayh is correct -- there isn't enough practical problem-solving in Congress. But his brand of bipartisanship should not be mourned. In fact, the country would be better off with a lot less bipartisanship, in any form, right now.

Bayh traded on his nominal party affiliation and the gold-plated liberal legacy of his father (whose seat he has occupied for two terms) to promote, as The Nation's John Nichols writes, "unnecessary wars, free trade and misguided domestic economic policies." Bayh's idea of bipartisanship, it would seem, was to call oneself a Democrat in the caucus while promoting center-right policies in the chamber. He worked to turn the Democratic Party into a kinder, gentler version of the GOP. And although the conventional wisdom is that his departure is bad news for Democrats, the caucus arguably would be stronger with 54 or 55 senators who would get real about governing and work to reform the anti-democratic filibuster than with a supermajority dependent on "conservadems" such as Bayh.

There are other variations of bipartisanship in Washington -- none of them having much to do with philosophical conviction. Bipartisanship, writes Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com, "has nothing to do with the philosophical orientation of a bill but instead simply who votes for it." The Atlantic's Derek Thompson writes that the "obsessive focus on bipartisanship for the purpose of bipartisanship only fetishizes something that Americans begin to value, and expect, and demand and neither party expects to work." It doesn't sign a worker's paychecks and it doesn't put food on the table.

Perhaps the latest, best example of the problem with bipartisanship is the Senate jobs bill. The $85 billion Baucus-Grassley version is seriously flawed. It would do little to create new jobs, yet it is larded with tax cuts and other extraneous incentives to get Republicans on board. What's the point? Well, as Politico noted, the release announcing the bill used the word "bipartisan" seven times. Meanwhile, apparently wanting to devise something more appealing to Democrats and yet to maintain the cover of bipartisanship, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has proposed a paltry $15 billion version of the bill that would be laughable if we weren't in a jobs crisis. A better template exists. The $154 billion House bill passed in December provides real aid to states and real investment in infrastructure and public jobs. But in the Senate, bipartisanship is the order of the day, which means job creation is secondary.

The irony is that the continued gridlock will no doubt lead to more unemployment -- for members of Congress themselves. In a mind-boggling New York Times/CBS News poll released yesterday, only 8 percent of Americans say that current members of Congress deserve reelection, the lowest figure since the Times began asking the question in 1992. Members of Congress should recognize that their employment is contingent on improving their constituents' lives, while bipartisan follies contribute to congressional do-nothingness.

Achieving progress through "practical problem-solving" shouldn't mean legislating as the wolf in sheep's clothing. And milquetoast conviction isn't what most of us want out of our senators. After all, even a fifth grader, charged up with public-school patriotism after reading Johnny Tremain, could tell you that compromised convictions in the name of "bipartisanship" are not what Esther Forbes had in mind when she closed her historical children's novel with, "A man can stand up."

The writer is editor of the Nation and writes a weekly column for The Post.

================
February 16, 2010
Michael Steele and the lack of Bayh-partisanship
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/2010/02/michael_steele_and_the_lack_of.html
It's understandable that Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele would be incredulous at Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh's announcement that he has decided not to run for re-election because of the lack of bipartisanship in Congress.

Sure, Mr. Steele's analysis of the situation, that Senator Bayh's retirement is another sign that Democrats are "running for the hills," seems a little unlikely, given that the most recent poll showed Senator Bayh up 20 points against his prospective Republican opponent and that the incumbent Democrat has $13 million in his campaign war chest. But Senator Bayh's explanation that recent events had convinced him that "there is too much partisanship and not enough progress -- too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem solving" made entirely too much sense for it possibly to be true. After all, such a decision would be principled, maybe even noble -- and in Washington these days, that sounds downright inconceivable.
The two issues Senator Bayh mentioned as straws that broke the camel's back were the failure of a bipartisan commission to force Congress to consider fixes to the federal government's long-term budget problems and the collapse over the weekend of a compromise jobs bill that had been negotiated by Republican and Democratic senators. Both are excellent examples of politics taking precedence over what's best for the country.





The fiscal commission was supposed to be a bipartisan panel that would have taken a comprehensive look at ballooning budgets for Social Security, Medicare and other federal programs and proposed cuts, tax increases, benefits changes and anything else necessary to put the nation on a sustainable path. The idea was that Congress would be forced to vote up or down on the commission's recommendations, much in the same way Congress now handles military base relocation and closure decisions, in hopes that doing so would force everyone to look at the big picture.

With the news that the nation is expected to add trillions in debt over the next decade, it was an idea whose time had come. But it failed to get the 60 votes necessary to pass in the Senate; 37 of the chamber's 59 Democrats voted for it, but just 16 Republicans did. Seven Republicans who had initially co-sponsored it and at least one who had publicly favored it -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky -- voted against it, dropping their support shortly after President Barack Obama endorsed the idea.

The jobs bill was an $85 billion compromise measure worked out by Sens. Max Baucus and Charles Grassley, Democrat of Montana and Republican of Iowa, respectively. It included various business tax breaks and incentives for hiring, public works projects, aid to states and more money for unemployment benefits. A few hours after it was announced, though, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yanked it back in favor of a stripped-down, $15 billion plan that would be too small to do much good.

The reason for Senator Reid's action is hotly debated in Washington. He says he was disturbed that Republican leaders weren't willing to commit to the $85 billion bill and worried that the GOP would later tar Democrats for supporting a proposal they had helped craft. Republicans think Senator Reid is manipulating the process in an effort to get them to vote against politically popular legislation during an election year. In either case, political considerations are clearly getting in the way of legislation targeting the issue most important to American voters.
In that context, it would be nice if Senator Bayh's announcement would serve as a wake-up call to Washington to mend its ways, but it looks unlikely. After all, Mercutio's "a plague on both your houses" didn't exactly result in peace and harmony in fair Verona either. Quite the contrary, everyone seems to be drawing exactly the wrong lessons from the decision. Democrats, seeing yet another incumbent deciding against a re-election bid, are only going to grow more timid and politically calculating. Republicans are going to conclude that their obstructionism works -- after all, it just turned Indiana from "leans Democrat" to "leans Republican" in the handicapping of November's election. Whether Senator Bayh's decision was noble or cowardly or something in between, it's almost certain to make matters worse.

troung
16 Feb 10,, 20:39
The Nation: Bye Bayh, Bring On The Populists

by John Nichols
Senator Evan Bayh
Enlarge Mark Wilson/Getty Images

The Nation: Bye Bayh, Bring On The Populists : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123764394)

Senator Evan Bayh speaks during day three of the Democratic National Convention in 2008. Bayh announced his retirement from the Senate, causing turmoil amongst Democrats who expect to lose his seat.
text sizeAAA
February 16, 2010

The headlines announcing Indiana Senator Evan Bayh's surprise decision to retire after his current term declare that the loss of this particular incumbent represents "a huge blow to Democrats."

While it is true that the Democrats might lose the Indiana seat this fall, the loss of Bayh is not a huge blow.

In fact, Bayh was part of the problem for Senate Democrats, not the solution.

When I wrote The Nation's "2010 Election Primer," which appears in the magazine's current issue, I suggested that Democrats needed to get over their obsession with building a caucus of 60 U.S. Senators.

The argument, based on the bitter experience of 2009, went like this: Better to have 54 or 55 Democrats who might actually want to get something done than to worry about building a super-majority on the "strength" of conservative members who enthusiastically support unnecessary wars, free trade and misguided domestic economic policies. Then, hopefully, the Democrats would get real about governing by taking the necessary first step of doing away with filibuster rules that empower outliers and run the Senate on the novel notion of majority rule.

As an example of the sort of senator that progressives ought not worry about losing, I cited Bayh, a longtime leader of the pro-corporate Democratic Leadership Council, which has for the better part of a quarter century worked to turn the Democratic Party into a kinder, gentler version of the GOP.

"Don't fret too much about the fate of Southern and border-state compromisers (Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln, Indiana's Evan Bayh)," the primer suggested. "Worry about re-electing progressives like California's Barbara Boxer and Wisconsin's Russ Feingold. Think about helping progressive, or at least mainstream, Democrats win seats vacated by GOP incumbents in Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio. The point is not merely to elect Democrats but to forge a caucus that is less tied to the old ways of doing things and more inclined to scrap antidemocratic Senate rules and start governing."

On Monday, we got the news that Bayh is quitting.

Faced with a serious reelection contest — although not in so dire a circumstance that his retirement was expected — Bayh has put a Democratic seat in play. As with the retirement of Senator Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, the senator from Indiana has increased the likelihood that a seat representing a Republican-friendly state will fall to the GOP in November.

But that does not need to be the case.

Indiana has been badly battered by the current recession.

This is an angry state that is looking for change, and rightly so.

Even before the economy went south, however, Indiana was experiencing the sort of rapid de-industrialization that devastates working families and their communities. Few states in the nation have suffered more seriously as a result of a ill-thought and poorly-implemented "bailout" of the auto industry and even more ill-thought free trade arrangements with China. (Even before the current downturn, the Economic Policy Institute determined that Indiana had lost more than 45,000 jobs because of the US-China trade imbalance. That number is unquestionably worse now. The state has, as well, lost an estimated 35,000 jobs as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement.)

Bayh, a pro-free trade Democrat, was consistently on the wrong side of economic issues that determine the fate of Great Lakes manufacturing states such as Indiana. He won office not because of his positions on the issues but because he is a affable campaigner with a magic name — his far more liberal father, Birch Bayh, was one of the great senators of the 20th century and remains an iconic figure among Indiana Democrats.

But in this volatile year, even his personality and name were not going to be enough to assure the younger Bayh a third term. He might well have won — polls put the incumbent well ahead of his likely GOP challenger, former Senator Dan Coats. (Coats is a weak contender: he has not lived in the state for years and who makes his money as a lobbyist.)

But Bayh says he has other interests and prospects: "(Running) for the sake of winning an election, just to remain in public office, is not good enough. And it has never been what motivates me," he said in announcing his decision not to seek reelection. "At this time I simply believe I can best contribute to society in another way: creating jobs by helping grow a business, helping guide an institution of higher learning or helping run a worthy charitable endeavor."

That's good news for Democrats who would prefer that their party stand for something.

And it might even be good news for Indiana Democrats.

The question is whether they can find a candidate who is willing to run as a genuine economic populist — not a compromised centrist like Bayh or an apologist for Obama, whose policies have been at best murky (he still does not seem to get the jobs issue and he has yet to take a clear position on trade) and at worst damaging (his auto bailout has helped fund the closing of U.S. manufacturing plants in states such as Indiana).

All things being equal, Republicans will win this seat.

The key for Democrats then is to throw the balance off by finding a candidate who is capable of expressing the frustration and anger of voters in a state that has significantly higher unemployment than the rest of the country.

Because Bayh is exiting the race on the eve of the filing deadline, it is likely that the nominee will be named by Indiana Democratic Party leaders. If they are smart, they will look for a candidate who can run hard and smart as a populist critic of free trade and big-bank bailouts and a supporter of smart investments in job creation.

Unfortunately, one top Democratic prospect, Congressman Baron Hill, has voted for a number of free-trade deals, including Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.

Congressman Brad Ellsworth, a more conservative Democrat in the Bayh mold, has also voted for free-trade pacts.

Former Congresswoman Jill Long, who lost a race for governor is 2008 and who was recently nominated by President Obama to serve on the board that oversees the federal Farm Credit Administration, actually voted against NAFTA when she served in the House. Long's a progressive populist who has worked closely with Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, arguably the leading House critic of free trade and of the bank bailout. This might be a good year for her.

Another interesting prospect is Evansville Mayor Jonathan Weinzapfel, who has a better good track record on trade and economic issues. As a congressional candidate in the 1990s, he was an outspoken critic of NAFTA, and history has proven him right.

The bottom line is this: Bayh's departure puts an at-risk seat even more in play for Democrats. But they won't win Indiana by nominating a dull centrist who echoes Bayh's wrong stances on economic policy, or who tries to run as an ally of President Obama. To win this seat, Democrats need a candidate who is angrier with Washington than the Tea Partiers.

If Democrats don't pick a populist, then their efforts to retain the Indiana seat will be wasted. And, at this point, a party that has already wasted way too many opportunities by compromising on economic issues cannot afford to waste any more.

troung
16 Feb 10,, 22:14
Disillusioned Bayh advocates electoral “shock” to broken system
54 mins ago

In an interview on MSNBC this morning, newly retiring Sen. Evan Bayh declared the American political system "dysfunctional," riddled with "brain-dead partisanship" and permanent campaigning. Flatly denying any possibility that he'd seek the presidency or any other higher office, Bayh argued that the American people needed to deliver a "shock" to Congress by voting incumbents out in mass and replacing them with people interested in reforming the process and governing for the good of the people, rather than deep-pocketed special-interest groups.

Bayh's announcement stunned the American political world, as up until just last week he looked to be well on his way to an easy reelection for a third term in the Senate, and his senior staff was aggressively pursuing that goal.

But Bayh had apparently become increasingly frustrated in the Senate. In this morning's interview he noted that just two weeks ago, Republicans who had co-sponsored a bill with him to rein in the deficit turned around and voted against their own bill. He also stated repeatedly that members of his own party should be more willing to settle for a compromise rather than holding out for perfection.

"Sometimes half a loaf is better than none," Bayh insisted.

It's no secret that the Senate has struggled to take action this year. With the two major parties unusually far apart in their substantive proposals for the direction of the country, even finding half a loaf to agree on has been difficult. Though the Democrats have had a substantial majority in the Senate for the last year, Republicans have escalated their threats to use filibusters (by forcing a cloture vote, see the graph below) to force Democrats to come up with 60 votes to pass any major legislation. And after Scott Brown's election to the Senate last month gave Republicans a 41st seat, health-care reform and other Democratic goals were stopped dead in their tracks.


(CLICK IMAGE FOR FULL VIEW)


Bayh blamed the current atmosphere of intense partisanship on the need for Senators to constantly campaign to be reelected to another six-year term. Citing his father, a popular liberal Senator in the '60s and '70s, he noted that "back in the day they used to have the saying: 'You campaign for 2 years and you legislate for 4.' Now you campaign for 6!" He noted that the need for constant fundraising made it nearly impossible to focus on passing legislation.

Frustration over the increasing amount of money being spent on political campaigns isn't exactly a new thing, as spending by candidates in the 2008 presidential election nearly quadrupled the amount of money spent by candidates in the 2000 election. Additionally, winners of House races in 2000 spent an average of $849,158 to do so, while House winners in 2008 spent an average of $1,372,591. Enhancing the concerns of many on the left and the right has been a recent Supreme Court decision to strike down the country's existing campaign finance laws. Put simply, the ruling opens the door for an even greater influence of money by allowing corporations to directly fund individual candidates.

Meanwhile, voter frustration is high, making the fight for campaign cash all the more crucial to politicians hoping to remain in office. A recent poll found that 44% of Americans believe incumbents should be voted out of office.

However, reforms of Congress appear unlikely. There doesn't appear to be any significant momentum at this time behind efforts to change the rules that govern passing legislation or Congress's need to constantly campaign and fundraise. With an election year beginning, it's also unlikely that congressional leaders will begin to see eye to eye more often on major legislation.

Perhaps a "shock" is indeed called for in order to change that.



-- Andrew Golis is the Editor of and Brett Michael Dykes is a contributor to the Yahoo! News blog

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

DailyPUMA
17 Feb 10,, 02:26
Obama, Richardson, and Edwards pulling out of Michigan primary was following the rule set by the DNC. Hillary chose not to honor that rule because she was desperate. I don't see how this has anything to do with Bayh of Indiana.

I'm not following your reasoning. Obama, Richardson and Edwards waited until just before the deadline to remove their name, why play games? It's because of perspectives like yours that I took the time to write another article that fully explains the strategy behind their waiting until just before the deadline.

It is a fascinating series of political chess moves and frankly, no matter what Hillary Clinton did in regards to Michigan, she loses. The Michigan Maneuver, how Barack Obama gamed Michigan in 2008 and Hillary's only hope was a fair and balanced response from Dean, Pelosi and Reid. (http://florida-michigan.blogspot.com/2010/02/michigan-maneuver-how-barack-obama.html)

DailyPUMA
17 Feb 10,, 02:38
Troung, the articles you posted sort of contradict each other. One article says "good riddance, I hardly knew ya", the other article states that it might send a shockwave through the system.

Julie
17 Feb 10,, 03:07
Troung, the articles you posted sort of contradict each other. One article says "good riddance, I hardly knew ya", the other article states that it might send a shockwave through the system.Not contradictory, but fair and balanced. ;)

troung
17 Feb 10,, 04:41
Troung, the articles you posted sort of contradict each other. One article says "good riddance, I hardly knew ya", the other article states that it might send a shockwave through the system.

Point is to show a range of opinion from across the spectrum.

gunnut
17 Feb 10,, 06:20
I'm not following your reasoning. Obama, Richardson and Edwards waited until just before the deadline to remove their name, why play games? It's because of perspectives like yours that I took the time to write another article that fully explains the strategy behind their waiting until just before the deadline.

It is a fascinating series of political chess moves and frankly, no matter what Hillary Clinton did in regards to Michigan, she loses. The Michigan Maneuver, how Barack Obama gamed Michigan in 2008 and Hillary's only hope was a fair and balanced response from Dean, Pelosi and Reid. (http://florida-michigan.blogspot.com/2010/02/michigan-maneuver-how-barack-obama.html)

I still don't see your point. What do you mean by "waiting until the last minute" in Bayh's case? What is the deadline? Does he have a deadline? Why would he seek revenge for something Obama and co. did to Hillary?

How did Obama, Edwards, and Richardson "game" the system in 2009 Michigan primary? The DNC had set the rule already. Everyone knew. Did Obama, Edwards, and Richardson make some kind of promise to Hillary about not following DNC's rules and then renege?

DailyPUMA
17 Feb 10,, 06:28
I'm not sure if you are asking after having read the articles I wrote, or not. It would be helpful for me to know as I maybe I left out a key word or phrase out of the articles that I linked to.

gunnut
17 Feb 10,, 06:34
I read your article. And read it again. I don't see how Evan Bayh relates to Hillary Clinton.

Evan Bayh sees the wrintings on the wall and is quitting while ahead, to possibly focus on 2012 if Obama continues to bumble.

And I don't see the "timing" issue. There is no deadline for Bayh. He can quit any time he wants. It would be much better if he quit 2 minutes after Harry Reid asks for his vote on the Senate floor.

dalem
17 Feb 10,, 08:03
The timing issue might refer to today's deadline on filing for valid candidates, gathering signatures, etc.

In that sense, yes, Bayh put the Dems pretty close to a corner of sorts.

-dale

Bluesman
17 Feb 10,, 14:44
The timing issue might refer to today's deadline on filing for valid candidates, gathering signatures, etc.

In that sense, yes, Bayh put the Dems pretty close to a corner of sorts.

-dale

Just the opposite, actually. The point of leaving inadequate time to file was to allow the Dem machine to SELECT their nominee, without all the messy involvement of actual people. Because the way Indiana works is, if you are the only filed candidate when it all closes out...you ARE the nominee, period. Bayh made sure nobody was going to get over that bar. (Actually, one woman ALMOST made it, but fell short. Another few days, and mischief-makers outside Democratic rolls would've pushed her over the top by providing the needed signatures, because there's simply no way she could've won, against ANY legit GOP candidate in the general election.)

As it stands, Bayh accomplished the mission of allowing the Dem leadership to hand-pick somebody that may stand a chance (although I still think this here red state is sending another 'R' to the Senate).

dalem
17 Feb 10,, 17:55
Ahh, I hadn't seen it in that light.

-dale

Parihaka
17 Feb 10,, 20:30
Remember he was talking to Obama 'prior' to the announcement. Washington had time, just not the people of Indiana.

Bluesman
17 Feb 10,, 20:39
Remember he was talking to Obama 'prior' to the announcement. Washington had time, just not the people of Indiana.

Real nice, huh?

DailyPUMA
17 Feb 10,, 21:01
Just the opposite, actually. The point of leaving inadequate time to file was to allow the Dem machine to SELECT their nominee, without all the messy involvement of actual people. Because the way Indiana works is, if you are the only filed candidate when it all closes out...you ARE the nominee, period. Bayh made sure nobody was going to get over that bar. (Actually, one woman ALMOST made it, but fell short. Another few days, and mischief-makers outside Democratic rolls would've pushed her over the top by providing the needed signatures, because there's simply no way she could've won, against ANY legit GOP candidate in the general election.)

As it stands, Bayh accomplished the mission of allowing the Dem leadership to hand-pick somebody that may stand a chance (although I still think this here red state is sending another 'R' to the Senate).

Bayh had a large lead and 13 million dollars to spend. Quitting just before the deadline when he probably could have been re-elected was a powerful message. Bayh might have been Hillary Clinton's VP choice.

This begins to parallel what Richardson, Edwards and Obama did in Michigan when they waited until very late in the game and then took their names off of the michigan ballot.

Bluesman
17 Feb 10,, 21:32
Bayh had a large lead and 13 million dollars to spend.
Google Martha Coakley.:biggrin:

ZekeJones
23 Feb 10,, 00:38
Here is an op-ed by him regarding his decision to not to run -
Op-Ed Contributor - Why I’m Leaving the Senate - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/opinion/21bayh.html?pagewanted=all)