2008 hypothetical: Bayh/Warner vs. Allen/Sanford

[Moooooo]

His point is valid. Does the GOP look for "moderates" in the nomination process, or 3 years BEFORE that process? No.

I think that alone reveals a structural weakness in the Democratic Party that is tough to overcome no matter which way they go, moderate or liberal. There are problems either way, but the primary process gives the liberals a massive edge in getting the nomination. You either spawn a 3rd party candidate or lose because you're too far left.

The ideal Democratic candidate would be fairly liberal but yet popular because of his or her charisma and communication ability. They accidently stumbled upon such a candidate- Bill Clinton- that had the fortune of running against a "centrist" Republican that had already lost his base by 1992.

Ultimately, I don't see any Democrat as especially formidable if they don't meet that basic description (though they don't have to be a Bill Clinton in terms of political savvy or, obviously, intellect).

Bayh, Warner, etc. all flunk-- actually on both counts, because they are more moderate than the Democratic base while not engaging personally. If the incentive structure favored moderates, they would always win the nominations from their respective parties.

In other words, this isn't random speculation, this is empirical proof. Bayh will not be the Democratic nominee for President, neither will Warner, neither will Schweitzer. Their best shot is probably someone like Vilsack, though a number of Republicans would trounce him.

He's got a point.

[Democratic Hawk]

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 voting against Condi Rice was not so much pandering to the base but more of a point of principle - he felt Condi Rice and others were responsible for a number of errors in the run-up to and aftermath of Iraq and, therefore, she didn't warrant promotion to Secretary of State. No-one can accuse Bayh as being soft on national security or defence

Conservative commentators were delighted by what Bayh did and saw it as an opportunity to write him off politically in Indiana. In fact, recent polling suggests very much the contrary to their desires and deservedly so

In fact, Bayh had voted against Condi because he felt there other suitable nominees for Secretary of State and, in responce to his critics, he cited Indiana's own Dick Lugar

As for pandering to the base, I somehow doubt that. Bayh's success in Indiana is very much down to the fact that he reaches beyond the base - if he appealed to the base and that alone, I somehow think he'd never have one an election in Indiana let alone five (three by landslide margins - and it's that fact, which has Republicans pretty fearful of a Bayh candidacy. He'd have to work at it, victory would not be handed on to him on a plate

You also point out that Bayh doesn't look presidential. Well, Bush looks anything but except that he is President - for reasons that continue to elude me

Dave

[Ben.]

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 voting against Condi Rice was not so much pandering to the base but more of a point of principle - he felt Condi Rice and others were responsible for a number of errors in the run-up to and aftermath of Iraq and, therefore, she didn't warrant promotion to Secretary of State. No-one can accuse Bayh as being soft on national security or defence

Conservative commentators were delighted by what Bayh did and saw it as an opportunity to write him off politically in Indiana. In fact, recent polling suggests very much the contrary to their desires and deservedly so

In fact, Bayh had voted against Condi because he felt there other suitable nominees for Secretary of State and, in responce to his critics, he cited Indiana's own Dick Lugar

As for pandering to the base, I somehow doubt that. Bayh's success in Indiana is very much down to the fact that he reaches beyond the base - if he appealed to the base and that alone, I somehow think he'd never have one an election in Indiana let alone five (three by landslide margins - and it's that fact, which has Republicans pretty fearful of a Bayh candidacy. He'd have to work at it, victory would not be handed on to him on a plate

You also point out that Bayh doesn't look presidential. Well, Bush looks anything but except that he is President - for reasons that continue to elude me

Dave

As usual I find my self agreeing with you Hawk.

I don’t know which Evan Bayh, Ford thinks he is talking about but Bayh is a moderate he has voted for restrictions on abortion, voted in favour of hawkish measures on national defence and never sought to apologise to his base for either, as you say his vote on Condi’s nomination was because he believed that Dick Lugar was a better candidate… to say that Bayh’s voting record is indistinguishable from either Edwards or Kerry is simply delusional…

The fact that Ford focuses most of his fire on Warner suggests to me that Ford simply doesn’t know that much about Evan Bayh and rather than admit to it would like to stick to a flawed preconception… indeed likening either Bayh or Warner to Edwards or Kerry is just plain out-loud funny.

Ford’s little rants against both Warner and Bayh just gets worse when he somehow argues that all moderate democrats are some how cowards and yet moderate republicans are at the same time worthy of respect while their democratic counterparts are to quote Ford “Spineless”… a fine double standard if I ever saw one. Ford’s argument he would claim rests on the notion that neither Warner nor Bayh have political courage, firstly you do not need to be a political partisan or moderate to demonstrate political courage, indeed Rick Santorum and Russ Feingold are just as much brave politicians as Chuck Hagel and John Breaux, but saying that neither Warner nor Bayh have exhibited political courage is to ignore the facts…

Warner demonstrated great political courage in one of his first ventures as Virginia Governor, he introduced a tax rise to help increase funding for education in his state, which Ford castigates him for, not only did he get his tax rise passed by the GOP controlled legislature, in a deep red state but he remains very popular despite the best efforts of the national and state GOP. How many first term governors could have not only got such a contentious measure passed but emerged as both a more popular and stronger politician?

As for Evan Bayh. His politician career is a litany of occasions where he has challenged the liberal leadership of the party and argued for the socially moderate, hawkish brand polices that characterised the Democratic Party of Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. He has repeatedly fought against the pro-choice lobby and advocated a foreign policy approach which he believes is in the country’s best interests not because it wins him friends at the DNC, or brings in the cheques from the Liberal pressure groups.     
       
… I really am surprised by you Ford, normally you’re a reasonable sorta guy but all of a sudden your acting like a jerk, laying into politicians for being cowards or empty suits when neither is ture, I’m not supporting Warner for the nomination I agree he’s inexperienced, but liberal? A political coward? He is neither I’m afraid and nor is Evan Bayh.     

I’m sorry you find the fact that I describe myself as a moderate democrat “insufferable”, but it is nothing new, the fact that I oppose Roe V Wade, support the right of schools to choose to hold prayers before lessons,  believe in an assertive foreign policy, recognise the need for social security to be reformed, support the rights of states to make their own minds up on many issues and believe that by and large low taxation can stimulate economic growth places me on the right or conservative wing of the party, at the same time I’m quite happy to admit to some populist or should I say liberal that I believe that universal health coverage for all Americans is a goal that we have a moral obligation in seeking to achieve, what is more I believe the state does have a role in bring jobs to deprived areas and fighting to promote American exporters and protect American jobs.

Am I wrong to describe my self as moderate? Are my beliefs without credibility because they are not radical? I really have to say I expected more than name calling from you Ford.


                                       

[Democratic Hawk]

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 voting against Condi Rice was not so much pandering to the base but more of a point of principle - he felt Condi Rice and others were responsible for a number of errors in the run-up to and aftermath of Iraq and, therefore, she didn't warrant promotion to Secretary of State. No-one can accuse Bayh as being soft on national security or defence

Conservative commentators were delighted by what Bayh did and saw it as an opportunity to write him off politically in Indiana. In fact, recent polling suggests very much the contrary to their desires and deservedly so

In fact, Bayh had voted against Condi because he felt there other suitable nominees for Secretary of State and, in responce to his critics, he cited Indiana's own Dick Lugar

As for pandering to the base, I somehow doubt that. Bayh's success in Indiana is very much down to the fact that he reaches beyond the base - if he appealed to the base and that alone, I somehow think he'd never have one an election in Indiana let alone five (three by landslide margins - and it's that fact, which has Republicans pretty fearful of a Bayh candidacy. He'd have to work at it, victory would not be handed on to him on a plate

You also point out that Bayh doesn't look presidential. Well, Bush looks anything but except that he is President - for reasons that continue to elude me

Dave

As usual I find my self agreeing with you Hawk.

I don’t know which Evan Bayh, Ford thinks he is talking about but Bayh is a moderate he has voted for restrictions on abortion, voted in favour of hawkish measures on national defence and never sought to apologise to his base for either, as you say his vote on Condi’s nomination was because he believed that Dick Lugar was a better candidate… to say that Bayh’s voting record is indistinguishable from either Edwards or Kerry is simply delusional…

The fact that Ford focuses most of his fire on Warner suggests to me that Ford simply doesn’t know that much about Evan Bayh and rather than admit to it would like to stick to a flawed preconception… indeed likening either Bayh or Warner to Edwards or Kerry is just plain out-loud funny.

Ford’s little rants against both Warner and Bayh just gets worse when he somehow argues that all moderate democrats are some how cowards and yet moderate republicans are at the same time worthy of respect while their democratic counterparts are to quote Ford “Spineless”… a fine double standard if I ever saw one. Ford’s argument he would claim rests on the notion that neither Warner nor Bayh have political courage, firstly you do not need to be a political partisan or moderate to demonstrate political courage, indeed Rick Santorum and Russ Feingold are just as much brave politicians as Chuck Hagel and John Breaux, but saying that neither Warner nor Bayh have exhibited political courage is to ignore the facts…

Warner demonstrated great political courage in one of his first ventures as Virginia Governor, he introduced a tax rise to help increase funding for education in his state, which Ford castigates him for, not only did he get his tax rise passed by the GOP controlled legislature, in a deep red state but he remains very popular despite the best efforts of the national and state GOP. How many first term governors could have not only got such a contentious measure passed but emerged as both a more popular and stronger politician?

As for Evan Bayh. His politician career is a litany of occasions where he has challenged the liberal leadership of the party and argued for the socially moderate, hawkish brand polices that characterised the Democratic Party of Truman, Kennedy and Johnson. He has repeatedly fought against the pro-choice lobby and advocated a foreign policy approach which he believes is in the country’s best interests not because it wins him friends at the DNC, or brings in the cheques from the Liberal pressure groups.     
       
… I really am surprised by you Ford, normally you’re a reasonable sorta guy but all of a sudden your acting like a jerk, laying into politicians for being cowards or empty suits when neither is ture, I’m not supporting Warner for the nomination I agree he’s inexperienced, but liberal? A political coward? He is neither I’m afraid and nor is Evan Bayh.     

I’m sorry you find the fact that I describe myself as a moderate democrat “insufferable”, but it is nothing new, the fact that I oppose Roe V Wade, support the right of schools to choose to hold prayers before lessons,  believe in an assertive foreign policy, recognise the need for social security to be reformed, support the rights of states to make their own minds up on many issues and believe that by and large low taxation can stimulate economic growth places me on the right or conservative wing of the party, at the same time I’m quite happy to admit to some populist or should I say liberal that I believe that universal health coverage for all Americans is a goal that we have a moral obligation in seeking to achieve, what is more I believe the state does have a role in bring jobs to deprived areas and fighting to promote American exporters and protect American jobs.

Am I wrong to describe my self as moderate? Are my beliefs without credibility because they are not radical? I really have to say I expected more than name calling from you Ford.                                        

Agreed, Ben. I share your surprise with Ford, whom I'd actually found to be one of the more sound/reasoned Forum Republicans

Dave

[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.

[tarheel-leftist85]

Republicans speculate that Tom Vilsack would be a formidable candidate?  Hah, like Hillary "Media Whore" Clinton.  Is it b/c he restored voting rights to murderous felons?  Y'all won't spew that in our face in '08!  I can see the revolving door ad revamped from 1988.  There really is no savior for either political party (it's usually just hype).  But a good barometer of a Democrat's formidability is how Republicans tout (or don't tout) them.  That's why Fox News and just about every conservaitve blogger who even mentions Warner just KNOWS he'll run for the Senate next year.  That's why Fox News softballs Hillary--they let her get by with all her crap, right now.  They know what'll happen.  Mark Warner is no John Edwards.  He's the nightmare of Republicans who mislead America into thinking Democrats are card-carrying Commies.  Vilsack couldn't win Iowa--much, much less the Presidency.  For Evan Bayh it's IN and IA.  For Warner it's VA and NV.  Not to mention OH, NM, AR, and MO.  We'll have to see whether Florida has any hope of being a populist state (as some on the forum have given me some assurances).