I'd originally posted my +1 to Cannoli because I more or less agreed with the core point, that Bayh was taking potshots at the right in what was phrased as 'classy bipartisan resignation'. There's a feeling on the right, dating back to the Wellstone Memorial,that a lot of the left likes to take situations where they are basically safe from criticism to lob subtle, and often not-so subtle, attacks at the right. Normally when someone goes, be it by retirement, resignation, or death, they get a by on criticism, but you're not supposed to use those kind of situations to throw rocks. It's like the 'you lie' thing, uncalled for, but then at SOTU, POTUS lobs a direct attack at SCOTUS, on this very issue of campaign finance reform, which violates the basic courtesy that keeps 'You Lie' as wrong and separates us from the PM's addresses to the parliament. None of us wants things to go down that road, and yes, things are getting more that way than in the past and yes everyone is guilty in this, but the manner and flavor of his article, placed in the format he had it from the title, just seemed to be contradictory to the whole concept he was trying to discuss. It's like someone saying "I'm going to be the bigger man here and take the high road" a comment that always seems to miss the concept behind being the bigger man and taking the high road.

Now, I'd bet the right has done it to the left too, but we've seen an awful lot of this sort of thing recently. I do agree with a lot of the points he's covering, but the way he did it, well it sounds so much like someone saying 'Well, we need to calm down and work together here, we need to stop arguing, we're both wrong, you are always so irrational when we argue and I maybe could be a bit more diplomatic in trying to tell you how wrong you are' that just sets things off on the wrong foot. For the sake of argument I'll cede that he didn't mean it that way and that the other side does it too, it's just that since his core premise is how we need to cut out the 'other side does it too' stuff, he is not setting a great example in this. He should have just left it with 'Things have become too partisan, it wasn't that way, or didn't seem so much that way in my time, or my father's time' that would have been classy and appropriate, as is, his article seems to have strong elements of the very thing he seems to be objecting too. I'm not going to beat up on someone for expressing Golden Age Nostalgia, we all do it in some way or another over something, and it's probably excessive to say he was being hypocritical, but the whole article just struck me the wrong way. There's classy and there's rude, and the two rarely mix together well, and it just came off to me that way. I'm happy to debate his individuals points on their merit, but he seemed to be raising them in the wrong venue. Hope that made sense, trying to keep it short and to the point instead of addressing the individual arguments, and my brain is a bit fried right now.