Geographic Reality: We Are Where We Are
I’m not trying to rain on anyone’s parade, but let’s not make too much of the mysterious Obama goings-on that may or may not be happening in Indianapolis on Saturday.
Could it be the Democratic presidential candidate coming here to tap U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh as his running mate?
Absolutely. And I hope that’s the case. In fact, the past two nights, I’ve been jolted out of sleep by all-too-realistic dreams that Bayh will be the pick.
However, in case it’s escaped your notice, Indiana is conveniently located between Illinois, Obama’s home state where he’s having a big rally at noon on Saturday, and Ohio, arguably the swingiest state in the nation.
So, while it’s all well and good to imagine that this will be the unveiling of Obama-Bayh ‘08, it could just be one of many campaign stops in states where Obama is spending beaucoup bucks trying to pick up electoral votes.
Powered by
I’ve tried to post a couple comments about this but they never seem to show up.
Why the crush like obsession over Bayh? Just because he’s from Indiana doesn’t mean he’d be any good at the job. He’s panderiffic, more boring than the color beige and more bland than vanilla ice cream. His bankruptcy bill vote is on my top 5 dumbest votes ever list. His vote for the Iraq War (and continued inability to say he was wrong) clashes with Obama’s message of chance and that we were wrong to go to war (and also clashes with common sense). He never takes a controversial position on ANYTHING. It would be a boring, bland, uninspiring and frankly stupid pick by Obama to go with Bayh.
This is one Hoosier Democrat that realllllly not wanting it to be Bayh. And I know a number of others as well.
I don’t get the Bayh love, Jennifer. Care to explain? Please?
“message of change” that is. Need more coffee
Take off your tin foil hat and put down the cup o’ haterade, Jason.
All of your comments here have been published.
Why do I like Evan Bayh and want Barack Obama to pick him? A bunch of reasons.
Here are a few:
First, he’s our Senator, and I cheer for the home team because I think it would be wicked cool for Indiana to be represented on the national ticket.
Second, I think Evan Bayh has a great political mind, and as a political hack, I have a lot of respect for someone who can skillfully navigate the minefields.
But most importantly, and you may disagree with me, I believe and statewide polling reflects that Evan Bayh represents Hoosiers — and Hoosier Democrats — well. For the most part, we Democrats are fairly moderate in this state, and whaddya know? We’ve got a moderate Democrat in the U.S. Senate.
Here’s the thing about politics that I’ve never understood about the outliers in both parties: It seems to me that you would rather put up a candidate who can’t win but who reflects your personal values than a candidate who can win and who will advance some of what you stand for. Same goes for the right-wingers.
The anti-Blue Dog Democrats folks kill me. Those Congressmen represent their districts, and that’s what Congressmen are supposed to do.
I get it. You don’t like Bayh. I do. And I’ve explained why. Agree to disagree?
(Sorry about the comments comment. I was getting comments left here mixed up with the one I left at Hoosier Political Report, which didn’t show up. Got mixed up becuase I didn’t realize until now that you were crossposting to both)
Yes, agree to disagree. But I still take issue with compromise for compromise’s sake politicians. Yes, someone who can deliver some of what you want is good. Very good! But when “some of what you *don’t* want” includes the terrifyingly bad for Hoosiers, only helps Credit Card Companies, Bankruptcy Bill and the horrifying foreign policy and lives of American soldiers disaster that was the Iraq War authorization - and the inability to say you made a mistake, well, that’s not good.
I mean, when has Evan Bayh EVER stood up for (strongly, not just with a vanilla press release or a smooth toned “I think that’s something we should look at”) anything progressive that wasn’t already popular? I’m not asking for a million things here. Just one… just one thing. Show me proof that he wants to lead (even if I disagree now and then) and not just navigate the minefields of power.
THAT makes someone worthy of national office. Not just because they can stay out of trouble, avoid ruffling feathers and happen to share geographic boundaries with you.
Obviously I don’t know how old you are Jason, but I’m old enough to be one of those Republicans (I’ve since gotten better) who voted not once, but twice for Bayh for governor and then for Senate. If you’re not old enough to remember him as governor, you won’t remember that he had absolutely no trouble standing up for what was right for Indiana. The Senate is a place for compromise and if you step back and look hard at all one hundred of them you’ll see that unlike governors and representatives, they tend to be a stodgy lot. I will vote for Obama no matter who the VP is, but it would truly make my day to have the second in command be a Hoosier.
Wagner: The anti-Blue Dog Democrats folks kill me. Those Congressmen represent their districts, and that’s what Congressmen are supposed to do.
There’s something that really bothers me about this line of thinking… Couldn’t I make the same argument about any politician? I’m sure the voters who send Mike Pence and Dan Burton back to congress every two years feel Pence and Burton represent them. So are Pence and Burton also not to be criticized?
I’m going to be against any politician who I feel is promoting policies bad for the country, no matter how much their district loves them. If it’s someone I’m not a constituent of I’m sure they could care less what I think, but I’m certainly not going to give bad policies a pass because someone won their district. If that’s the principle we’re working under, why should a challenger run against an incumbent at all?
I’d argue that you could run any Republican in Burton and Pence’s district, and that Republican would win.
If we’re talking about Indiana’s Blue Dogs, we’re talking about swing districts where people are actually paying attention to policies and party label.
You can be for or against whomever you’d like. That’s fine by me, and this is America.
All I’m saying is that it’s silly to think we can win those districts with candidates who hail from the far left. (There are swing districts across the nation where Republicans have to be moderate to win.)
At my core, I like electing Democrats, so I’m going to look for candidates who can win. In some districts, you can tilt left. In some districts, you have to be more moderate. If you want to win.
If you just want to challenge incumbents, that’s fine. Have fun. But I want to challenge incumbents — and win.
See the central theme here?
Riddle me this: Are you more likely to accomplish any part of the legislative agenda you view as important with a Republican or a Democrat in power?
I don’t agree with everything my friends do. Heck, I don’t like that my husband leaves the toilet seat up, and he thinks I lost the remote control to the television in our bedroom. These, however, are little things. The marriage is solid because we share the same core values and vision.
I look at politics in much the same way. I don’t agree with everything every Democratic politician does, but by and large, I share the same core values and vision for our country that a majority of Democrats share. The marriage is solid, even through a few missteps here and there.
UPDATE: The Obama campaign has issued a news release of the campaign stops this weekend, and Indiana is not on the list.
He will go from Illinois to Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri and Montana before arriving at the DNC in Denver.
Well, I’m not sure where you got from my comment that I’m in favor of running radicals in swing districts. I actually consider the fact that someone needs to be able to win their district to be useful so obvious that I thought it went without saying.
What I’m objecting to is this idea that one can never criticize blue dogs or “moderates” because they happen to represent their district. You love your husband even when he leaves the toilet seat up, but you still don’t like it, right? If you ever want to make progress, sometimes you’ve got lean on your allies a bit too. A blue dog Dem is going to better in my eyes than a Republican 99% of the time, sure, but that doesn’t give our blue dog a free pass from criticism. Elections aren’t a game for me where I cheer for the home team, I’m trying to accomplish something here. You don’t accomplish much by ignoring people when they do things you don’t like, even if sometimes they are on your side.
In Bayh’s case, it’s not like Jason’s upset because Bayh failed to vote for $30 million for the perverted arts or the Mandatory Gay Marriage Act. He’s criticizing him for voting for the bankruptcy bill, and I know you’re not going to tell me Hoosiers were crying out for credit card companies to have more power when dealing with their customers. That’s representing his constituents? Please.
Finally, I submit that all the people on Obama’s known “short list” are electorally viable. We aren’t choosing between Bayh and Dennis Kucinich here. And given that the VP has very little bearing on a ticket’s electability anyway, our foremost concern here should be who would be a better partner for Obama, and better able to step in as President if something unthinkable were to happen. Bayh’s a decent enough manager, but is he someone who, on his own, would push an agenda as progressive as the one I believe Obama will? I don’t see it. As for which set of state lines he lives between, this lifelong Hoosier doesn’t find it relevant.