"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Bayh to Moderate Status

Hunter notes that "Evan Bayh, Democrat Senator from Indiana and much-lauded moderate, voted 'no' on Condoleezza Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State. She was confirmed by a large margin regardless, but I can't help but see his 'no' vote as a surprisingly unpleasant gesture.

"What was he thinking? Is he that secure in 'red' Indiana?"

Certainly he does remain immensely popular, and his next Senate reelection campaign is not for a while, but I think there is more to it than that.

This is as far to the Left as I've ever seen Evan Bayh openly go. The vote suggests that he is trying to solidify his base among Democrats. It is quite possible that this vote--the first big one of this session--signals Bayh's intention to pursue the Democrat Party's nomination for president in 2008. It also suggests that he feels it necessary to move openly to the Left in order to have a plausible chance.

6 comments:

Tlaloc said...

Is it possible he simply wanted to send a message that lying to the american public should disqualify one from high ranking cabinet post? Probably not, but worth considering.

S. T. Karnick said...

Yes, right, that must be it. Evan Bayh, the conscience of the nation.—STK

Tlaloc said...

As I said "probably not." Most likely it was a politcal move. And yet why should we worry when he voted against someone terribly unqualified for the post, shouldn't we be questioning the judgement of the 85 yes votes? Votes to allow someone either ethically bankrupt or insanely incompetent to take a position of importance in our government...

Greg said...

Tlaloc, I defy you to name a single instance when Condi Rice lied to you.

And while we're on the subject, I can't help but post
this link.

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, I defy you to name a single instance when Condi Rice lied to you."


she said:
So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al-Qaida personnel who found refuge in Baghdad.

which was a lie.

she said:
But, yes, there clearly are contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq that can be documented. There clearly is testimony that some of these contacts have been important contacts and there's a relationship here.

also a lie.

she said:
The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the time—no one knew at the time, in our circles—maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery.

also a lie. The CIA misgiving were all the way up.

Shall we also get into the whole "Mushroom Cloud" thing?

Happy?

Greg said...

Cases 1 and 2 are laughable, Tlaloc. Saddam's agents met w/ bin Laden's agents on multiple occassions throughout the 90's. What they discussed is somewhat debatable, but the fact that they were in contact is not.

On your third point, you're not giving Condi Rice the benefit of the doubt. (Which is fine, after all, your bias is naturally not in her favor.) But really, why in the world would Condi Rice let Bush cite known or suspected forgeries?

If you take ten people and put them in a room, you'll have ten different opinions about the war in Iraq. That's fine and dandy. However, the opinion that Bush/Cheney and Co. cooked up WMD evidence and Saddam-bin Laden connections just so they could make a power (and oil) grab in the Middle East is a wrong one.

My gut feeling is that Condi Rice, while she first has to think about American interests, also cares about the future of the 25 million+ Iraqis who might now have a chance at freedom.

On a side note, I commend you for still posting on this site, Tlaloc. After all, you certainly have a unique view and make things more interesting. =)

Have a good one.