2008 hypothetical: Bayh/Warner vs. Allen/Sanford

[The Duke]

Nobody should pretend that Evan Bayh is a great candidate.

[The Duke]

Oh, and if Allen picks Sanford he's brain dead.

[The Duke]

Nobody should pretend that Evan Bayh is a great candidate.

Nobody should pretend he doesnt have the potential to be.

Hey Evan Bayh, John Edwards just called, he wants his schtick back.

[The Duke]

Ben and others,

There is a cadre of Democrats on this board, and a cadre of Democrats nationally, who have an undeniable love affair with pretty white southerners and "moderates".  Democrats are always looking for someone who fits a particular profile.

They want a youngish, prefereable good looking, southern candidate.  John Edwards was the last souther pretty boy mdoerate.  Sure, all the Democrats stand back today and admit he was a liberal a dunce and not sufficiently experienced to be President, but that's not what they were saying before he flamed out.  They were saying the same things about Edwards they say today about Evan Bayh and Mark Warner.

They pretended Edwards was moderate.  He was not.  Today they pretend that Mark Warner, a tax hiker, and Evan bayh, who is so eager to pander to the base he actually voted against confirming Condie Rice.  Ben, you say Evan Bayh is a dedicated hawk?  Please.  He is no more a "hawk" than Kerry and Edwards were.

Bayh may be more experienced than Edwards, but the Democrats other allegedly moderate poster boy, Mark Warner, sure as hell isn't.  And regardless of their time in government, I have a hard time associating either one of these bland nothings with an issue.  What are they passionate about?  What noble stands has either taken?  McCain and Giulani are not conservatives by any meaningful definition, but neither could be said to lack political courage.  Where is the principle?  Where is the conviction?  Where is the passion?  What are these men  aside from people who enjoy the title of "moderate Democrat"?  Why would anyone, either in the Democrat primary or the general election, vote for either of these people unless they, like so many on this board, had an inusfferable penchant for declaring themselves moderate Democrats?

I'm sorry, but there's no there there.  As a famed liberal Democrat once said of the first boyish "moderate" Democrat, "Where's the beef?"

I fully expect you to flame away defending Bayh and Warner's moderate records, moderate moderate, moderate this blah blah blah.  Moderate.  Did I mention he's a moderate?  And I expect you to continue this until Bayh and Warner flame out just like John Edwards before them, and Gary Hart before him.  Once they flame out, you Democrats will no doubt find your next pretty boy empty suit who you will pretend is a moderate, but in fact he won't be moderate at all, he'll just be spineless, which is a far more apt definition for Warner and Bayh than anything else offered thus far.

So who's ready for Bill Nelson in 2012?

[The Duke]

Not to be contrary, Ford, but that whole profile we're trying to fit...didn't it pretty much fit Bush to a tee, except with more Republican ideals and less moderateness?

I don't consider Bush to have been the youngish good looking type.  In the Republicans case, you'd want a yougish good looking northerner, preferably New Englander because that's where the GOP is weak, the Dems want a southerner because that's where they're weak.

Is there just ONE good democrat in the Republican's eyes. I mean, we gave you McCain, can't you give us props on just one guy? Is voting against Condi Rice all you have against Bayh?

I'm not even saying Bayh (or Warner or Nelson) is necessarily bad, he's just not Presidential as some here say, he's not the saviour of your party as some here say.  I like Lieberman a great deal, I find Dianne Feinstein tolerable, Ben nelson is good.  I just don't like empty suits whether they're Republican or Democrat.  If you want some balance, Bill Owens is a good example of an empty suit.  Colorado basically went on auto pilot for almost a decade, and Owens was lucky that it worked out.

[The Duke]

I don't you're insufferable, Ben.  I'm sorry you took that as a shot at you.  I meant it more as a shot at Bayh and Warner, who I do think lack political courage, and the national Democratic party which is mostly concerned with image.  The greatest Democrat President ever does not fit the mold of charming, southern, young and good looking that so many Democrats, even some on these boards, seems to be looking for.  Franklin D. Roosevelt was a cripple, and aristocrat, had a nasally voice and an almost British accent, and was not a young man.  FDR could never be nominated by the modern Democratic Party, but Mark Wanrer could.  That in a nutshell is what's wrong with Democrats, there is no desire for greatness, its all about image.

I don't think Bayh's moderation is an example of political courage any more than George Pataki's is political courage-- he did what he had to do to win in the state he is in.  I'll assume his moderation is heartfelt, and I'll assume Pataki's is heartfelt.  But I don't think anyone would accept the line that George Pataki or Bill Weld or Pete Wilson or any other pro-choice Republican was demonstrating political courage and bucking the national party by holding the views they held.  They were expressing the only politically viable views in that state on things like abortion.  Its not so much courage as necessity.

On the Rice vote.  If Evan Bayh believes a Senator is allowed to choose the Secretary of State, he is far too arrogant to deserve anyone's support for President.  The majority of the Senate would probably, if you had given them the chance to pick a Sec. State, pick someone other than Rice, but only 9 Senators if I remember actually voted against Rice.  Does Evan Bayh understand the advice and consent role at all?  Or was he too busy combing his hair to learn that part of the job?

I read up on Bayh last night, to see if I had him wrong.  It seems he was a largely unaccomplished Governor whose main achievement was a budget surplus.  My own view is that a surplus is worth a warm pitcher of spit and little more.  He was more city manager than political visionary.  He gained wide approval by copiously avoiding anything that might offend as best he could.  That's not the kind of President I want.

Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, all are moderate, even liberal Republicans, and all have shown me major accomplishments, political courage, and a vision for the future.  A moderate can show courage, to be sure, but not the kind of moderate Evan Bayh is.

I do think bayh is an empty suit, and Warner too.  I think he's in the finest traditions of the modern Democratic party, always searching for that next JFK and never the next FDR.  Image over substance.