Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

[Evan] Bayh Says He Won't Support [Rice] for Secretary of State

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Tafiti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:04 AM
Original message
[Evan] Bayh Says He Won't Support [Rice] for Secretary of State
Edited on Wed Jan-26-05 10:07 AM by Tafiti
The article hints that he may be looking to run for President in 2008. Is this a principled stance, or a political one?

<snip> (from Indianapolis Star)

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana said Tuesday that he would vote against elevating national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to secretary of state because the Bush administration has to be held accountable for mistakes in Iraq.

"I believe that she has been a principal architect of policy errors that have tragically undermined our prospects for success," said Bayh, one of the earliest Democratic supporters for Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

Bayh's criticism of the war's handling suggests his interest in running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, said Thomas Mann, a political scientist at the Brookings Institution.

"Defending the Bush administration's record on Iraq is the kiss of death for a Democratic presidential candidate," Mann said.

Edited to add link: http://www.indystar.com/articles/5/212439-9145-010.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
kmla Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. At this point, I would have to say it is a political stance.
As my Senator, my opinion of him is extremely lukewarm. Bland. He will have to have a few hundred more of these votes to win me back.

Until then, my early support goes to Wes Clark, or maybe Bill Richardson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tafiti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. He's my Senator as well.
And I absolutely agree with you. As soon as it mentioned the possible run, I thought, of course he's voting against her. Otherwise, I would've been really surprised, actually.

I read the transcript of his "speech" before the Senate, and it's pretty good, but again, looks like he had an ulterior motive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Color me cynical
but let's just wait for the actual vote to see how he ends up voting in the end. Wouldn't be the first time he does a trial baloon and ends up going the other way. Then again - he does, from time to time, surprise me - a rather tepid to cold constituent of his.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tafiti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. Nah, I think he'll go through with it.
As the article says, defending the Bush administration would be the "kiss of death" for a Dem pres. candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. good point
and that is my current read of his lurch right (past the center) since 2000 - that he went further than he needed to for hoosier voters - and that instead it was due to presidential aspirations. I just think that some of his cautious stands have demonstrated a poor political strategy for that endgoal. Thus this rationale for this vote makes perfect sense to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thinkingwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. I'm actually shocked
I'll believe it when it's a done deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
18. Agree, it's political.
He had NO problem parroting the official "WMD" line after meeting with Shrub, McCain, and LIEbermann for snacky-poos and Bridge in that "Rose Garden meeting" before the War for Oil was sprung.

A public apology for not realizing he'd been lied to sooner would be a great first step...

It must be that DC water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WyLoochka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. Maybe his Dad is
haunting him. That would be a good thing, if he finally came to his senses, and started following his father's "values" rather than Al From's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Southsideirish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
5. Sounds like he's learned that to get a following you have to be "Howard
Edited on Wed Jan-26-05 10:20 AM by Southsideirish
Dean"-like. In other words be bold and courageous.
But why would we want HIM when we already have the real Howard Dean?
Oh, I know - Bayh would be more polished and slick than Howard - sort of the new "un-Dean" Dean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UL_Approved Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
6. Did Boxer and Kerry get these guys to have some fortitude?
I wonder if the Kerry/Boxer thing had something to do with this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
7. I like Evan Bayh, but only as Senator from Indiana
For a Democrat to be electable in Indiana he is probably about the best that we can do, and I'm usually pleased with his votes on domestic issues.

But as a presidential candidate I fear that he would offer only trifling differences of policy from the current Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ally_sc Donating Member (238 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
8. go senator...
wish we had some more that felt the same but we can take all we can get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cocoa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
9. what about the substance of the criticism?
instead of covering the politics of the criticism, how about some reporters actually look into exactly how incompetent and dishonest Rice has actually been?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Plaid Adder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
10. Holy shit. If the Weasel is on this wagon,
you KNOW the tide has turned.

Bayh has never in the whole time he's represented me shown a single grain of spine about anything. He's the only one whose office actually refuses to take positions in the form letters they send you after you write to them about something.

This is a sign that the Democrats have decided that they have to attack Bush in order to be politically viable. Nothing else could have convinced that weasel to do this.

Things are lookin' up,

THe Plaid Adder
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tafiti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
11. Here's the actual transcript of his remarks:
Thank you, Mr. President. It's a pleasure to be on the floor of the
Senate today with my friend and colleague from Indiana. I have often
felt that events around the world and particularly in Iraq would have
gone so much better if those in the position to make policy for our
country had listened to his wise council and advice.

It is not often that I find myself in disagreement with my friend but
on this occasion, I do. I rise, Mr. President, to express my
opposition to the nomination of Condoleezza Rice and her proposed
promotion to that position of Secretary of State, not because I object
to her personally-I do not. Not because I oppose the mission of
establishing freedom and democracy in Iraq-on the contrary, I support
it. But because I believe that she has been a principle architect of
policy errors that have tragically undermined our prospects for
success in this endeavor. Those in charge must be held accountable
for mistakes; we must learn from them, correct them, so that we may
succeed in Iraq.

Mr. President, if the President of the United States will not do this,
then those in the Senate must. The list of errors is lengthy and
profound and unfortunately many could have been avoided if Dr. Rice
and others had only listened to the counsel offered from both sides of
the aisle. From the beginning of this undertaking, we have had
inadequate troop strength to accomplish the mission. The mission was,
of course, not to simply realize regime change in Iraq, but instead to
recognize and accomplish nation building at its most profound. We
have violated a fundamental tenant of planning for war, which is plan
for the worst and hope for the best. Instead all too often in Iraq,
we have hoped for the best, instead we are reaping the worst.

The advice to have greater troop strength was not partisan. Our
colleagues Senator McCain, Senator Hagel and others virtually pleaded
with the Administration to provide for greater security through
greater troop strength on the ground. Those pleas, Mr. President,
fell on deaf ears. We have never had a realistic plan for the
aftermath of this conflict. The State Department made plans, they
were disregarded; the CIA warned of the potential for a growing
insurgency, their concerns were dismissed; Senator Lugar held hearings
that were prescient in this regard, pointing out the importance of
planning for the aftermath and the inadequacy of the preparation for
the aftermath before the war. The results of those hearings were
ignored.

Mr. President, this is no ordinary incompetence. Men and women are
dying as a result of these mistakes-accountability must be had. We
dismissed the Iraqi Army. In my trip to Iraq in December, one of the
top-ranking officials told me that things would be 100% better-100%
better-if we had only not dismissed the Iraqi Army, not the Generals,
not the human rights violators, not those who should be held
accountable for their own actions, but the privates, the corporals,
the sergeants, the lieutenants, the captains, those who should be on
our side providing for stability and safety in Iraq, and now
tragically are being paid to kill Americans. Because we sent them
home and said that they had no future in the Iraq that we were hoping
to build.

Likewise, we disqualified all former Baathists from serving, even in
lower levels of the bureaucracy in that country. They could've helped
us run the nation. They could've helped us reassure the Sunni
community that we wanted to incorporate them in the future of Iraq.
Instead, many of them are fighting us today as well.

All of these mistakes, Mr. President, have substantially undermined
our prospects for success and tragically so. The chaos that has
arisen from the lack of security and stability has fed this
insurgency. I asked one of our top ranking officials in Iraq in
December, which was growing more quickly, our ability to train Iraqis
to combat the insurgency or the insurgency itself? His two-answer
response: "the insurgency."

Unfortunately, Mr. President, in some regards we have even succeeded
in discrediting the very cause for which we are fighting and dying
today. I listened intently to the President's Inaugural Address on
the steps of this Capitol in which he spoke repeatedly about the need
to advocate freedom and liberty and democracy around the world, not
only because it is in our interest, but because it is in the interest
of peace and stability across the world as a whole. And in that
regard, he is right, but I couldn't help but recall the words of a
member of the Iraqi Electoral Commission, a Turkman from Kirkuk, who
finally looked at me in Baghdad and said, "Senator, you do not
understand. For too many of my people, when they hear the word
democracy, they think violence, they think disorder, they think death
and economic disintegration." It doesn't get much sadder than that,
Mr. President.

It's heartbreaking that the sacrifices that have been made, the
idealism of our troops, America's prospects for success in Iraq, our
very standing in the world have too often been undercut by ineptitude
at the highest levels of our own government. I think of a visit six
months ago with some of our colleagues to Walter Reid Army Hospital to
visit with some of the soldiers who have returned. They are
constantly on my mind. I think of their idealism, their heroism,
their perseverance in the face of an adversity that those of us who
are not there can hardly imagine. We have a moral obligation to
provide better leadership than that which has been provided in this
conflict. Too often this administration has suggested that the
refusal to admit error, to learn from error, to correct error is a
virtue-when lives or limbs are at stake, it is not.

As a former executive of our own state, I have always believed that
accountability for performance is vitally important to success. If
this president will not provide it, then it's up to those of us in the
Senate to do so. I believe with all of my heart that our country is
strongest when we stand for freedom and democracy. We are attempting
to accomplish the right thing in Iraq. We have been the authors of
much of our own misery. As a result of that, I cannot find it in my
heart or in my mind to vote for a promotion of Dr. Rice.
Accountability is important, Mr. President. I will vote no and urge my
colleagues to do the same.

Thank you and I yield the floor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. If he votes against Rice that is great, but....
his speech sounds like that of a neo-con pretending to be a democrat. He doesn't really take issue with Rice at all. He mostly takes issue with military decisions and supports the neo-con position as he does so.


From the beginning of this undertaking, we have had
inadequate troop strength to accomplish the mission. The mission was,
of course, not to simply realize regime change in Iraq, but instead to
recognize and accomplish nation building at its most profound. ...

We have never had a realistic plan for the
aftermath of this conflict. The State Department made plans, they
were disregarded; the CIA warned of the potential for a growing
insurgency, their concerns were dismissed...

...We dismissed the Iraqi Army....

Likewise, we disqualified all former Baathists from serving...

...The chaos that has arisen from the lack of security and stability has fed this
insurgency....

... I listened intently to the President's Inaugural Address on
the steps of this Capitol in which he spoke repeatedly about the need
to advocate freedom and liberty and democracy around the world, not
only because it is in our interest, but because it is in the interest
of peace and stability across the world as a whole. And in that
regard, he is right...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BiggJawn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Uh-Huh, like I thought...
"Not because I oppose the mission of
establishing freedom and democracy in Iraq-on the contrary, I support
it. "

Uh, Evan? you realize that was, like, the 4th Tertiary Mission? About Nr. 8 on the list down from "He has Weapons of Mass Destruction..."

"We have been the authors of
much of our own misery. As a result of that, I cannot find it in my
heart or in my mind to vote for a promotion of Dr. Rice."

Well, she COULD get that Freedom Medal like Bremer and General Country Club did.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GetTheRightVote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
14. I called him today to thank him & the phones were crazy with callers
I could hear them in the background. They are getting tons of calls.
Keep calling our Senators so they know we are behind them.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElaineinIN Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. I just emailed him
Also asked him to oppose gonzalez, too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark Bayh 2008 Donating Member (173 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. This sets up my 2008 ticket perfectly
CLARK BAYH 2008

LET'S START EARLY THIS TIME.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElaineinIN Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
16. He saved himself, just in time!
Edited on Wed Jan-26-05 11:07 AM by ElaineinIN
I wrote him on social security and got back the most mealy mouthed, fence sitting, non-reply I have ever seen. I was really mad--but madder when I saw Josh Marshall's report on TPM that Bayh was telling people he was against reform at private meetings with presidential donors in big money areas. Apparently, if you've got money, he'll tell you the truth, but if you vote for him, you can just wait. This time yesterday I was about ready to vow never to vote for him again, never mind give money or time--which I've done heavily for local, Indiana and national candidates

But if he actually goes through with this, I'll give him a second chance. If he really wants to gte back in my good graces, let's see him vote against Mr. Torture is Quaint, too

Edit for spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-26-05 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. I believe he is also weak on choice.
And B O R I N G. He would not excite the support or get as many votes as Kerry. He might make a good Secretary of Education, but that is as far as he should go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poppyseedman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-05 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
23. Thanks, I burst out laughing
Is this a principled stance, or a political one?

There isn't a politician on the hill or anywhere else for that matter, that takes a principled stand without first checking the political consequences.

Never forgot, the first obligation of a politician is to get re-elected. Democratic, Republican or whatever stripe of the day they are.

Long gone are the days of the citizen legislators. They are all politicians first. The power and money is far too enticing

Of course Bayh is taking a political stance, look at his record.

I'm not cynical, just a realist

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC