All right, it will have to be a condensed version though
Isaac Send a noteboard - 24/02/2010 10:57:50 PM
I have a meeting tonight, perhaps ironically it is for my political party.
Cannoli is quite correct in his assertion that the primary motive for resigning was probably the steep uphill battle he would have been likely to face, many of the more conservative democrats, or at least those from more conservative areas, have been resigning and this is usually considered the reason why.
Sen. Bayh is correct in this, although I feel him to be as guilty as any other.
Obviously I agree with him on the challenges, but I doubt we'd agree on any of those reforms or solutions.
Golden Age comments are rarely accurate, congress has been fighting amongst itself from the begininning with a viciousness that would bring glee to the Roman Senate, minus the assassinations and military coups of course.
So, hie's pointing out his father was friendly with people who disagreed with him, but significantly not with any normal republicans, just members of his own party who at the time were best known for being racists, and some moderate GOP. You know, I have close friendships with many liberals, and I'm definitely not a moderate republican. I've never felt this was something to be proud about, I'd feel ashamed if I realized I didn't have friends who differed with me politically. His comment regarding his father is basically 'Well, I have friends who disagree with me religiously, I'm a baptist, but I have friends who are methodist or even Catholic'
This is not really true, Liebermann endorsed McCain. Powell endorsed Obama. I've also got to say I wouldn't like people from one party endorsing someone from another over 'friendship' any more than I'd like someone hiring someone else over friendship.
This is politics, people are not elected on the chumminess, or to make friends, they are welcome to do so, but I don't want my senator abandoning his principles over friendship, they are elected to legislate, not make friends.
The senate is notorious for its good old boy mentality, he's putting a nice face on something people on both sides having been yelling about for years. This comment rightfully summons images of a bunch of guys smoking cigars in a back room.
Not really sure how this is even relevant, they don't actually vote much, they mostly sit on committees, and whoever is specifically interested in a bill throws out its ups or downs, then people vote.
A room full of lawyers figured out how to conduct a trial, very impressive.
This is silly, how would another ceremonial event help? A hundred people in a room can't have honest dialogue, because over two hours they get maybe one minute a piece to speak. So you have committees for things and as he certainly knows those committees of meet privately for chat, food, drinks, etc typically not all members at once but why would they? That's what the committee meetings are for.
First amendment was designed to protect political speech. They were very clear on their main purpose with this. I do not believe in any limitations on any person or entity inside the country spending money on elections. He's trying to imply this is some backdoor corruption as opposed to a firm core ideological belief the right has openly held for years.
I totally disagree with him
This sort of stuff already happens and has always happened, you want people's money, you have to convince them they are getting a good deal. I don't send money into to candidates who don't support my values, why on Earth should he think corporations or unions should? What if they did do something as blunt as a questionairre? How is that any different that orgs that put out ratings? NARAL ratings of 90%, NRA rating of 15%, etc. It's more than one person deciding so they do it in some prepared way 'candidates who don't meet X standard don't get our money, if they don't legislate that way they don't get our money again'. That isn't corruption, just spin.
No, politicians always play this game because they are trying to get technical about corruption. No one is supposed to be able to buy or blackmail your vote. Politician answer 'make it so the people in question have to give me money anyway', correct answer 'So you didn't like my stance on this, and now you're not giving me money, ah well'. He's trying to imply a politician should be expected to be allowed to obfuscate his stance on something for the purpose of raising money, that to me is a big sign of untrustworthiness.
On the right, we thought this was a pretty good reform. Less government control where it isn't needed in our eyes. Why's it okay for GM to try to convince me their cars rock with outright propaganda but not for them to say 'hey, X is definitely motor-city friendly and we support him'
No matching funds, ever, it's welfare for politicians.
I don't remember him objecting during his first ten years in office, or his father.
This logic amazes me, he knows full well that the reason the filibuster hasn''t been 'abused' so much in the past was because the side that could filibuster didn't want to hold up a bill that the majority of americans wanted. In this case, the majority did not, so the GOP had only to gain by styming it, normally, holding up bills cost you votes in the next election, and that's why it isn't done. I want congress to filibuster unpopular bills.
I also have to say, I never like when people try to change the rules midgame because now they don't like them.
All this would sound better if he had said it when he wa sin the minority.
Both sides are devoted to the national welfare, they disagree on what it is, comments like this always have a 'why don't we agree to a compromise, you give me what I want, and I tell everyone how you dragged things out'
Translation: Now that I don't have to get re-elected, I will do as I please, and this will not be very similar to what I previously said on the campaign trail.
A little quicker and abrupt of a commentary then I'd like to give, but I've got to go.
Why I’m Leaving the Senate
Cannoli is quite correct in his assertion that the primary motive for resigning was probably the steep uphill battle he would have been likely to face, many of the more conservative democrats, or at least those from more conservative areas, have been resigning and this is usually considered the reason why.
By EVAN BAYH
Published: February 20, 2010
BASEBALL may be our national pastime, but the age-old tradition of taking a swing at Congress is a sport with even deeper historical roots in the American experience. Since the founding of our country, citizens from Ben Franklin to David Letterman have made fun of their elected officials. Milton Berle famously joked: “You can lead a man to Congress, but you can’t make him think.” These days, though, the institutional inertia gripping Congress is no laughing matter.
Sen. Bayh is correct in this, although I feel him to be as guilty as any other.
Challenges of historic import threaten America’s future. Action on the deficit, economy, energy, health care and much more is imperative, yet our legislative institutions fail to act. Congress must be reformed.
Obviously I agree with him on the challenges, but I doubt we'd agree on any of those reforms or solutions.
There are many causes for the dysfunction: strident partisanship, unyielding ideology, a corrosive system of campaign financing, gerrymandering of House districts, endless filibusters, holds on executive appointees in the Senate, dwindling social interaction between senators of opposing parties and a caucus system that promotes party unity at the expense of bipartisan consensus.
Many good people serve in Congress. They are patriotic, hard-working and devoted to the public good as they see it, but the institutional and cultural impediments to change frustrate the intentions of these well-meaning people as rarely before. It was not always thus.
Golden Age comments are rarely accurate, congress has been fighting amongst itself from the begininning with a viciousness that would bring glee to the Roman Senate, minus the assassinations and military coups of course.
While romanticizing the Senate of yore would be a mistake, it was certainly better in my father’s time. My father, Birch Bayh, represented Indiana in the Senate from 1963 to 1981. A progressive, he nonetheless enjoyed many friendships with moderate Republicans and Southern Democrats.
So, hie's pointing out his father was friendly with people who disagreed with him, but significantly not with any normal republicans, just members of his own party who at the time were best known for being racists, and some moderate GOP. You know, I have close friendships with many liberals, and I'm definitely not a moderate republican. I've never felt this was something to be proud about, I'd feel ashamed if I realized I didn't have friends who differed with me politically. His comment regarding his father is basically 'Well, I have friends who disagree with me religiously, I'm a baptist, but I have friends who are methodist or even Catholic'
One incident from his career vividly demonstrates how times have changed. In 1968, when my father was running for re-election, Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader, approached him on the Senate floor, put his arm around my dad’s shoulder, and asked what he could do to help. This is unimaginable today.
This is not really true, Liebermann endorsed McCain. Powell endorsed Obama. I've also got to say I wouldn't like people from one party endorsing someone from another over 'friendship' any more than I'd like someone hiring someone else over friendship.
When I was a boy, members of Congress from both parties, along with their families, would routinely visit our home for dinner or the holidays. This type of social interaction hardly ever happens today and we are the poorer for it. It is much harder to demonize someone when you know his family or have visited his home. Today, members routinely campaign against each other, raise donations against each other and force votes on trivial amendments written solely to provide fodder for the next negative attack ad. It’s difficult to work with members actively plotting your demise.
This is politics, people are not elected on the chumminess, or to make friends, they are welcome to do so, but I don't want my senator abandoning his principles over friendship, they are elected to legislate, not make friends.
Any improvement must begin by changing the personal chemistry among senators. More interaction in a non-adversarial atmosphere would help.
The senate is notorious for its good old boy mentality, he's putting a nice face on something people on both sides having been yelling about for years. This comment rightfully summons images of a bunch of guys smoking cigars in a back room.
I’m beginning my 12th year in the Senate and only twice have all the senators gathered for something other than purely ceremonial occasions. The first was during my initial week in office. President Bill Clinton had been impeached and the Senate had to conduct his trial. This hadn’t happened since 1868, and there were no rules in place for conducting the proceedings.
Not really sure how this is even relevant, they don't actually vote much, they mostly sit on committees, and whoever is specifically interested in a bill throws out its ups or downs, then people vote.
All of us gathered in the Old Senate Chamber. For several hours we debated how to proceed. Finally, Ted Kennedy and Phil Gramm, ideological opposites, were given the task of forging a compromise. They did, and it was unanimously ratified.
A room full of lawyers figured out how to conduct a trial, very impressive.
The second occasion was just days after Sept. 11. Every senator who could make it to Washington gathered in the Senate dining room to discuss the American response. The nation had been attacked. The building in which we sat had been among the targets, and only the heroism of the passengers prevented the plane from reaching its destination. We had to respond to protect the country. There were no Republicans or Democrats in the room that day, just Americans. The spirit of patriotism and togetherness was palpable. That atmosphere prevailed for only two or three weeks before politics once again intervened.
It shouldn’t take a constitutional crisis or an attack on the nation to create honest dialogue in the Senate. Let’s start with a simple proposal: why not have a monthly lunch of all 100 senators? Every week, the parties already meet for a caucus lunch. Democrats gather in one room, Republicans in another, and no bipartisan interaction takes place. With a monthly lunch of all senators, we could pick a topic and have each side make a brief presentation followed by questions and answers. Listening to one another, absent the posturing and public talking points, could only promote greater understanding, which is necessary to real progress.
This is silly, how would another ceremonial event help? A hundred people in a room can't have honest dialogue, because over two hours they get maybe one minute a piece to speak. So you have committees for things and as he certainly knows those committees of meet privately for chat, food, drinks, etc typically not all members at once but why would they? That's what the committee meetings are for.
Perhaps from this starting point, we can move onto more intractable problems, like the current campaign finance system that has such a corrosive effect on Congress. In the Senate, raising in small increments the $10 million to $20 million a competitive race requires takes huge amounts of time that could otherwise be spent talking with constituents, legislating or becoming well-versed on public policy. In my father’s time there was a saying: “A senator legislates for four years and campaigns for two.” Because of the incessant need to raise campaign cash, we now have perpetual campaigns. If fund-raising is constantly on members’ minds, it’s difficult for policy compromise to trump political calculation.
First amendment was designed to protect political speech. They were very clear on their main purpose with this. I do not believe in any limitations on any person or entity inside the country spending money on elections. He's trying to imply this is some backdoor corruption as opposed to a firm core ideological belief the right has openly held for years.
The recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, allowing corporations and unions to spend freely on ads explicitly supporting or opposing political candidates, will worsen matters. The threat of unlimited amounts of negative advertising from special interest groups will only make members more beholden to their natural constituencies and more afraid of violating party orthodoxies.
I totally disagree with him
I can easily imagine vulnerable members approaching a corporation or union for support and being told: “We’d love to support you, but we have a rule. We only support candidates who are with us at least 90 percent of the time. Here is our questionnaire with our top 10 concerns. Fill it out.” Millions of campaign dollars now ride on the member’s response. The cause of good government is not served.
This sort of stuff already happens and has always happened, you want people's money, you have to convince them they are getting a good deal. I don't send money into to candidates who don't support my values, why on Earth should he think corporations or unions should? What if they did do something as blunt as a questionairre? How is that any different that orgs that put out ratings? NARAL ratings of 90%, NRA rating of 15%, etc. It's more than one person deciding so they do it in some prepared way 'candidates who don't meet X standard don't get our money, if they don't legislate that way they don't get our money again'. That isn't corruption, just spin.
No, politicians always play this game because they are trying to get technical about corruption. No one is supposed to be able to buy or blackmail your vote. Politician answer 'make it so the people in question have to give me money anyway', correct answer 'So you didn't like my stance on this, and now you're not giving me money, ah well'. He's trying to imply a politician should be expected to be allowed to obfuscate his stance on something for the purpose of raising money, that to me is a big sign of untrustworthiness.
What to do? While fundamental campaign finance reform may ultimately require a constitutional amendment, there are less drastic steps we can take to curb the distorting influence of money in politics. Congress should consider ways to lessen the impact of the Citizens United decision through legislation to enhance disclosure requirements, require corporate donors to appear in the political ads they finance and prohibit government contractors or bailout beneficiaries from spending money on political campaigns.
On the right, we thought this was a pretty good reform. Less government control where it isn't needed in our eyes. Why's it okay for GM to try to convince me their cars rock with outright propaganda but not for them to say 'hey, X is definitely motor-city friendly and we support him'
Congress and state legislators should also consider incentives, including public matching funds for smaller contributions, to expand democratic participation and increase the influence of small donors relative to corporations and other special interests.
No matching funds, ever, it's welfare for politicians.
In addition, the Senate should reform a practice increasingly abused by both parties, the filibuster. Historically, the filibuster was employed to ensure that momentous issues receive a full and fair hearing. Instead, it has come to serve the exact opposite purpose — to prevent the Senate from even conducting routine business.
I don't remember him objecting during his first ten years in office, or his father.
Last fall, the Senate had to overcome two successive filibusters to pass a bill to provide millions of Americans with extended unemployment insurance. There was no opposition to the bill; it passed on a 98-0 vote. But some senators saw political advantage in drawing out debate, thus preventing the Senate from addressing other pressing matters.
Admittedly, I have participated in filibusters. If not abused, the filibuster can foster consensus-building. The minority has a right to voice legitimate concerns, but it must not employ this tactic to prevent progress on everything at a critical juncture for our country. We need to reduce the power of the minority to frustrate progress while still affording them some say.
This logic amazes me, he knows full well that the reason the filibuster hasn''t been 'abused' so much in the past was because the side that could filibuster didn't want to hold up a bill that the majority of americans wanted. In this case, the majority did not, so the GOP had only to gain by styming it, normally, holding up bills cost you votes in the next election, and that's why it isn't done. I want congress to filibuster unpopular bills.
Filibusters have proliferated because under current rules just one or two determined senators can stop the Senate from functioning. Today, the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to stop a vote; senators are rarely asked to pull all-nighters like Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
For this reason, filibusters should require 35 senators to sign a public petition and make a commitment to continually debate an issue in reality, not just in theory. Those who obstruct the Senate should pay a price in public notoriety and physical exhaustion. That would lead to a significant decline in frivolous filibusters.
Filibusters should also be limited to no more than one for any piece of legislation. Currently, the decision to begin debate on a bill can be filibustered, followed by another filibuster on each amendment, followed by yet another filibuster before a final vote. This leads to multiple legislative delays and effectively grinds the Senate to a halt.
What’s more, the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster should be reduced to 55 from 60. During my father’s era, filibusters were commonly used to block civil rights legislation and, in 1975, the requisite number of votes was reduced to 60 from 67. The challenges facing the country today are so substantial that further delay imperils the Republic and warrants another reduction in the supermajority requirement.
I also have to say, I never like when people try to change the rules midgame because now they don't like them.
Of course, the genesis of a good portion of the gridlock in Congress does not reside in Congress itself. Ultimate reform will require each of us, as voters and Americans, to take a long look in the mirror, because in many ways, our representatives in Washington reflect the people who have sent them there.
The most ideologically devoted elements in both parties must accept that not every compromise is a sign of betrayal or an indication of moral lassitude. When too many of our citizens take an all-or-nothing approach, we should not be surprised when nothing is the result.
Our most strident partisans must learn to occasionally sacrifice short-term tactical political advantage for the sake of the nation. Otherwise, Congress will remain stuck in an endless cycle of recrimination and revenge. The minority seeks to frustrate the majority, and when the majority is displaced it returns the favor. Power is constantly sought through the use of means which render its effective use, once acquired, impossible.
All this would sound better if he had said it when he wa sin the minority.
What is required from members of Congress and the public alike is a new spirit of devotion to the national welfare beyond party or self-interest. In a time of national peril, with our problems compounding, we must remember that more unites us as Americans than divides us.
Both sides are devoted to the national welfare, they disagree on what it is, comments like this always have a 'why don't we agree to a compromise, you give me what I want, and I tell everyone how you dragged things out'
Meeting America’s profound challenges and reforming Congress will not be easy. Old habits die hard. Special interests are entrenched. Still, my optimism as I serve out the remainder of my final term in the Senate is undiminished. With the right reforms, members of Congress can once again embody our best selves and our highest aspirations.
In my final 11 months, I will advocate for the reforms that will help Congress function as it once did, so that our generation can do what Americans have always done: convey to our children, and our children’s children, an America that is stronger, more prosperous, more decent and more just.
Translation: Now that I don't have to get re-elected, I will do as I please, and this will not be very similar to what I previously said on the campaign trail.
A little quicker and abrupt of a commentary then I'd like to give, but I've got to go.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
- Albert Einstein
King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
"Why I'm Leaving the Senate" - Evan Bayh on the state of the US Senate
- 24/02/2010 10:10:55 AM
600 Views
Most of us like Evan
- 24/02/2010 01:13:34 PM
252 Views
"Why I'm Glad to See You Go" by a citizen and taxpayer
- 24/02/2010 05:10:40 PM
413 Views
+1 *NM*
- 24/02/2010 06:31:46 PM
85 Views
You cannot be serious. Might I ask you to write an actual reply? I'd like to hear your thoughts. *NM*
- 24/02/2010 09:20:49 PM
91 Views
All right, it will have to be a condensed version though
- 24/02/2010 10:57:50 PM
247 Views
Only you could call that condensed. 
- 25/02/2010 01:34:50 AM
214 Views
- 25/02/2010 01:34:50 AM
214 Views
Condensed in topic 
I'll try for brevity this time
- 25/02/2010 04:45:38 AM
232 Views
I'll try for brevity this time
- 25/02/2010 04:45:38 AM
232 Views
I really don't see how you can read that tone into it, because it just isn't there.
- 25/02/2010 10:27:10 AM
209 Views
I've explained where I'm deriving this from, if you don't see it I'm not sure...
- 25/02/2010 03:06:53 PM
222 Views
You know, you really need to stop that habit of replying to every single paragraph.
- 24/02/2010 10:07:10 PM
269 Views
Re: You know, you really need to stop that habit of replying to every single paragraph.
- 25/02/2010 05:47:02 PM
254 Views
Okay, I get that you're strongly libertarian and want far smaller government.
- 25/02/2010 06:56:34 PM
232 Views
And not 1 mention of term-limits 
*NM*
- 24/02/2010 07:33:47 PM
87 Views
*NM*
- 24/02/2010 07:33:47 PM
87 Views
We have this thing called "a ballot box." Why shouldn't directly elected legislators be re-eligible? *NM*
- 25/02/2010 05:50:31 PM
94 Views
Well I rather liked it.
- 24/02/2010 11:30:08 PM
210 Views