Evan Bayh
Sen. Evan Bayh’s transformation into a mainstream Democrat continues with each passing day. First, he voted against Condoleeza Rice’s confirmation as Secretary of State because “she has been a principle architect of policy errors that have tragically undermined our prospects for success” in Iraq. Having shored up his foreign policy image with liberals, Bayh set to work improving his social conscience with more nanny state regulations in over-the-counter drugs. But he needed something fiscal to prove he has what it takes to win the Democratic presidential nomination.
The so-called “moderate” Senator was able to complete the hat trick on the Stephanopoulos show on ABC this Sunday with a clear stance opposing choice with Social Security personalization. Rather than permitting Americans to choose between an IOU from the government and their own personalization, Bayh would rather citizens be forced to choose a socialized “insurance program” without the opportunity to opt out of it. All Bayh has left to do is have a pro-choice conversion, although he already has an 88% rating from Planned Parenthood and a 50% rating from NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League). Bayh’s well on his way to appearing acceptible to Democratic primary voters.
10 Responses to “Evan Bayh”
You’re surely right that Bayh is doing some early pre-presidential-primary positioning, but it’s a little silly to try to paint the opposition to Rice as fringy, given how very badly the war in Iraq has been polling (though it’ll be interesting to see how those polls change following the election, at least in the short term). And it’s doubly silly to do so about the OASDI issue, given the state of polling on that topic, too; see, e.g.
http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/001031.php
I’m also pretty sure you’ve just misread the politics of the over-the-counter drug thing — that’s not ‘nanny-state’ pandering to the left, but rather ‘tough on drugs & crime’ pandering to the middle.
If you’re into trying to fit facts into a ready narrative you do a pretty poor job of it. The only real shifting for Bayh is on the Rice vote, and even his no vote was couched in centrist rethoric with it’s theme being responsbility. Hardly anti-war radical. Your nanny state regulation argument ignores the fact that rural Indiana counties, as well as whole “red” areas of the country have a serious problem with meth, and it’s an approach supported by Republicans and Democrats in places like Oklahoma, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Oregon. I’m sure that even nutty Hostettler would support a bill if it ever came to the house. Most discussion around the country are about whether pseudoephedrine should be schedule V (given out in a pharmacy) or regulated. There’s really no constituency right or left that’s for the status quo. It won’t fix all the problems as you pointed out, more than 80% comes from Mexico, but part of the addiction problem, and social distress in small communities comes from local labs. It may end a local nusiance, which is why Republicans and Democrats support it.
And as far as social security privatization, show me how it’s rush to the left once you can show me a Republican caucus that will support it in the house and the Senate. As Josh Marshall has been showing beautifully, the problem is not in the Democratic caucus, it’s with Bush being able to keep Republicans on board, keeping them from rushing to join Bayh in his centrist position.
You are one of my favorite people, Josh, but please be gentle with the language. When you say “…a clear stance opposing choice…” it is somewhat at variance with the link. Bayh is quoted as “…about ownership and individual choice. I think those are great concepts, and I can support those — but in addition to the current Social Security system, not as a replacement for it.”
Sounds to me like he recognizes that he would support choice as an addition to the system, but not “carved out” as the language seems to be developing.
I, too, have no problem with yet another effort to get people to save. Looks as though none of the IRA’s so far have caught fire to do the job. But diverting funds now being used to support the system is not the way to go.
Just because today’s surplus (one sixth of collected revenues, I believe), to which you and I are still contributing, seems to be up for grabs, it doesn’t follow that it should be earmarked for future use by individual beneficiaries.
If that becomes the case, the next step will necessarily be a corresponding reduction of current benefits, at least for those who made such a “choice.” Otherwise, in future they would receive full benefits, over and above their individual nest eggs. You know the electorate will not sit still for that.
Bayh is pretty well nailed by Josh but that Bayh’s main talent is sticking a wet finger into the wind is already well known. What does not get much attention is his substantive record in Indiana. While the partisan Republicans have mocked it, even as they contributed money and votes to him, the current fiscal disaster in Indiana is clearly with Bayh roots.
You’re surely right that Bayh is doing some early pre-presidential-primary positioning, but it’s a little silly to try to paint the opposition to Rice as fringy, given how very badly the war in Iraq has been polling (though it’ll be interesting to see how those polls change following the election, at least in the short term).
I’m not convinced I painted it as fringy, only as something that appeals to liberals who will be the ones deciding primary outcomes. Only 12 Senators voted against Rice, and many of them have presidential aspirations.
I’m also pretty sure you’ve just misread the politics of the over-the-counter drug thing — that’s not ‘nanny-state’ pandering to the left, but rather ‘tough on drugs & crime’ pandering to the middle.
I concur, except for the part about me mis-reading it. It’s certainly nanny-state regulation, but it’s regulation appealing crime-conscience voters. (The drug thing really has little to do with liberals, I only wanted to mention it because I despise the law, and will likely mention it every time I bring up Bayh’s name.)
John, I’m pretty sure that most proposals available would reduce Social Security benefits to those who set some aside for their own personalization.
Fair enough.
You’re right, though, that I was sloppy in the post’s organization. I should be more clear that this is a general critique of Bayh, with an acknowledgment that he’s also working to shore up liberal creds.
I’m sure that even nutty Hostettler would support a [psueudoephedrine] bill if it ever came to the house.
Actually, I think that’s a fairly doubtful proposition. Whatever one thinks about Hostettler, he’s not one to put pragmatism over principle (which is largely why some people try to paint him as “nutty”).
You say that like it is a bad thing.