... how else to demonstrate it. That he took potshots at both side s is not so really bipartisan either, it just comes off as grumbling, and I really don't think I'm operating in a vacuum on this. There are dozens of articles out now saying similar things, I liked the one from the Economist earlier this week "All this makes his sudden recasting as a Senate reformer a bit suspect. It's not clear whether Mr Bayh holds these views deeply, or whether they are post facto rationalisations of an emotional decision to quit."

Let me not cite such examples as proof I'm right, just that there is clearly some basis for where I'm getting my points on this.



I tend to find his posts refreshing, I often disagree with them, but there's a full-blown vent backed by logic not typically found in most people's rants that often appeals to me. There always do seem to have a core point to me.



No, Bayh is definitely not a partisan hack. However, he, like a lot of centrists senators, often tries for this 'above the fray' appearance which under the microscope seems less bipartisan than 'what am I bid?'. His article, to me, seems more like self-adulation then a well meant attempt to fix things, if the latter were the case, stay in, fight for re-election, keep pounding 'work together', there are plenty of centrists on both sides the overwhelm a filibuster or threaten to kill a vote they think isn't bipartisan enough. They're all jumping ship and it's hard for me to accept these snow white motives they keep claiming.



If he'd limited to just saying we could use a more bipartisan atmosphere I would have agreed or at least had no real objections.
It's when he started getting into specifics, he spent 4 paragraphs, roughly a quarter of the article, complaining about the results of SCOTUS's ruling, while he himself has an 11 million dollar campaign war chest. This is a strong GOP issue, he did not attack the dems in any similar fashion and degree, everything else was 'both sides' except again for the quarter or so devoted to talking about how awful a long-standing core issue of the GOP is. How is this not throwing a rock?



If it's invisible to you, I can't help that, it wasn't to me, and it wasn't to a lot of other people. IF we're wrong, we're wrong, but I've outlined the parts we see as this, so 'invisible' is not the right word, you just don't think that what it was, but you're forcing me to take a strong stance on an article that meant little to me other than to spark some resentment and merit a quick agreement to Cannoli, which you asked me to expound on. As I've said, I do not view this article as some massive hit piece on the GOP, just that it smacks of hypocrisy and an attempt to rise above the fray that high-lit that he wasn't above the fray and maybe has the wrong attitude and reasons for attempting to rise above. The voice of moderation is often laudable, and sometimes it's just vain and disconnected, nobody need to get between the Axis and the Allies and tell them to work together and 'rise above their common differences'. You asked me to go into details, I did so, saying at the time that it was a rush job, just giving my impressions, then my follow up was similarly condensed. Now you're telling me I'm feeling this way over nothing, and I simply don't see that. My take remains the same, Bayh has retired for personal reasons, and like many people making a hard decision, he has engaged in some rationalizing that is not entirely consistent or friendly toward his former coworkers. It isn't a flamethrower piece, but it has all the flavor of someone who quit because he looked like he might get fired and only now sees a lot of the nasty things that went on at his workplace.