Feb
25
2010
2

I guess it’s easier to blame Bayh than to blame themselves. #rsrh

I just wanted to break this not-really-gently, to the relevant indivduals involved:

While many Senate Democrats share Bayh’s frustration with Washington partisanship and stalling on major bills, some are angry that he’s stepping all over their 2010 message: that the 111th Congress has been one of the most productive in a generation, that the stimulus stemmed the tide of job losses and that Republicans, not Democrats, deserve most of the blame for the paralysis afflicting Capitol Hill.

It ain’t Bayh that did the stepping.  At least, it wasn’t just Bayh.  His fellow caucus members have done an absolutely wizzo job at making sure the American populace recognizes that this ‘2010 message’ of the Democrats has pretty much no relationship whatsoever to ordinary, boring, Reality Non-Unicorn.

Umm.  Thanks?

Moe Lane

Feb
25
2010
--

Baron Hill (D, IN-09) does not play well with others.

Which most people reading this already knew: but it’s now the Democrats’ turn to learn that. I don’t think that they’ll enjoy the lesson:

Within hours of Indiana Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh’s retirement announcement last week, establishment Democrats in Indiana and Washington were signaling that Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) was their preferred favorite to succeed him. And by Friday, the last day to file for office, Ellsworth had announced his intention to run for the Senate seat.

It had all the makings of a neatly wrapped package, with just one exception: Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.) hadn’t signed off on the succession plan.

Now Hill is suggesting he’s seriously weighing a campaign — and other candidates are making calls to committee members to feel out support — and the process of choosing a Democratic Senate nominee could prove to be a lot messier than originally anticipated.

I was pleased to hear that Senator Evan Bayh had decided to not run for re-election; it meant that we’d pick up a Senate seat. I was also pleased to hear that Rep. Brad Ellsworth had decided to go for the seat; it meant that we’d pick up a Senate and a House seat. But if Baron Hill ends up being the nominee, then Bayh’s sudden retirement will mean that we will pick up a Senate and two House seats: the Democrats can’t make their Senate pick until after the primary and they’ve already picked the sacrificial victim for IN-08.  And the progressive base doesn’t really like Ellsworth, anyway (NSFW language).

Some day I hope to hear just what the Obama administration specifically did to Evan Bayh, to fuel this revenge.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

Feb
16
2010
1

Yeah, Democrats: you know that $13 million war chest of Bayh’s?

The one he’s not going to be needing anymore?

Somehow I suspect that not much of it is going to find its way to the DSCC.

Via Hot Air.

Moe Lane

“That would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months.” Wow, thanks! That’s going to be great for our campaign ads this fall, Senator. We can pretty much use that one everywhere.

Crossposted to RedState.

Feb
15
2010
2

2010 SEN +4 to +8 R at this point…

…and that +4 is me being nice and assuming that the Democrats will take two of the open R seats (they won’t) and keep two of Cook’s Democrat Tossup seats (they won’t do that, either). One of each sounds more likely, making the final total at least +6… and if we run the table at +8 it’s a 51/49 Senate.

By the way: that’s not the worst-case scenario. That’s a scenario that assumes that Senators Boxer, Feingold, Gillibrand, & Schumer don’t do anything stupid. Or Candidate Blumenthal.

Snickering based on this latest Cook Political Report survey.

Moe Lane

PS: Sen. Bayh really handled this retirement announcement… poorly. And what is Bayh going to do with that 13 million war chest, anyway?

Crossposted to RedState.

Mar
25
2009
1

Obama’s Organizing for America targets… Evan Bayh.

No, you’re not misremembering. Bayh’s a Democrat.

Fresh from their general campaign last Saturday of utterly failing to convincing Congress to do anything, Organizing for America is now engaged in regional spamming of their email lists to go after of individual legislators considered either hostile or insufficiently favorable to the President’s plan to saddle the next three generations with even more crushing, unnecessary debt. This is primarily targeting Republicans: in fact, based on admittedly extremely limited communications with other people who might get spammed, I’m concluding OFA is not generically targeting Democrats. But they did go after Evan Bayh:

OFA sent an email to Indiana residents on Wednesday asking them to phone Republican Rep. Steve Buyer, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar and Democratic Sen. Bayh to let them “know where you stand on President Obama’s budget.”

Bayh has been one of the Democratic party’s most outspoken members against President Obama’s spending, penning recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal to outline his opposition to the $410 billion omnibus bill the Obama signed. He also announced he leading a 15-member working group of moderate Senate Democrats last week. Bayh said the group was informally called “the practical caucus.”

Bayh, of course, is hated by progressives – it’s one of his more endearing traits, really – and he’s certainly been on the administration’s radar since he announced his so-called “Gang of Fifteen.” While supposedly there were no public problems between the White House and the centrist Democrats over this unwillingness of the latter to blindly follow the former over the cliff*, it’s not really a secret that President Obama likes to have deniable proxies do his dirty work for him**. Which is probably why Bayh is scheduled to be personally targeted by Moveon.org, Campaign for America’s Future, USAction, and the rest of the usual suspects: apostasy is always the worst of sins to the True Believer.

Speaking as a Republican, I wholeheartedly support this activity, and think that it should be encouraged. Although I think that there are limits.

Moe Lane

*Note that they might still do it anyway.

**Eric Flint, in writing of Henry Clay in 1824: The Arkansas War:

Granted, Clay had always been a rough political fighter, even if he wore gloves. Porter had admired that trait in times past, and he wouldn’t have objected if the gloves came off. The problem was that Henry was doing the opposite as time went on. He was adding more gloves at the same time his blows were getting lower.

Crossposted to RedState.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com