Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Democrats scramble to replace retiring Bayh

1. National Democrats -- stunned by Sen. Evan Bayh's (D) announcement Monday that he would not seek reelection -- have begun to mull their options to replace the popular two-term incumbent. With several thousand signatures due today, it's almost certain that no Democrat will qualify, meaning that the party's state central committee will select the candidate. (Talk that a little known Democrat was within range of securing enough signatures to make the ballot today proved premature.) While the state central committee has until the end of June to pick a candidate, national Democrats will push to have the decision made sooner rather than later. There appear to be five serious candidates in the mix: 1) Brad Ellsworth: Ellsworth beat then-Rep. John Hostettler (R) in 2006 to claim the Republican-tilting 8th district. Ellsworth is a handsome and telegenic presence, and a favorite of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who recruited him into the race during his tenure as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. But, Ellsworth has run in only one real race and a statewide bid would be a major step up. 2) Baron Hill: Hill, who has held the southern Indiana 9th district from 1998 to 2004 and then again from 2006 to the present, is a former basketball star who has shown an ability to run and win in a swing seat. Hill's problem? He voted for the health care and cap and trade bills, which could prove very unpopular in this swing state. 3) Jim Schellinger: Schellinger, an Indianapolis-based architect, ran for governor in 2008 but lost narrowly to former Rep. Jill Long Thompson in the primary. In a year favoring outsiders, Schellinger's profile as a successful businessman who has never held elected office could be appealing. 4) Joe Donnelly: Donnelly beat then-Rep. Chris Chocola (R) in 2006 to claim this South-Bend area seat. While Donnelly has already filed for reelection to his 2nd district seat, sources familiar with the process insist he left the door ajar to a possible Senate bid. 5) Vi Simpson: A longtime state legislator, Simpson is the best known woman in the mix for Bayh's seat. Simpson has served in the state Senate since 1984 and has deep experience on budgetary issues, a potential argument in her favor given the current economic climate in the state and nationally.

2. The national implications of Bayh's retirement are considerable. Political handicapper Charlie Cook now carries 10 Democratic-held seats in his most competitive categories, meaning that if Republicans run the table and don't lose any of their own vulnerable seats they could take back the Senate. With so little room for error, however, it's still a long shot for Republicans to take over the upper chamber. To expand their chances, the GOP must continue to expand the playing field, with Senate races in Wisconsin and Washington State the most likely possibilities. In Wisconsin, former governor Tommy Thompson (R) has yet to remove himself fro consideration but no serious Republicans expect him to challenge Sen. Russ Feingold (D). In Washington, there is some talk that former state senator Dino Rossi (R) could enter the race against Sen. Patty Murray (D) just before the state's June 11 primary. The other possible impact of Bayh's retirement is that it could convince a colleague or two to follow him out of the Senate. The most likely potential retiree is Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) who trails several little known Republican candidates in Arkansas. Senate Majority Harry Reid (Nev.) is in a similarly precarious position in his reelection bid but has insisted he is running again. Rumors that Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) was considering retirement, which spread like wildfire on blogs on Monday, are entirely untrue, according to one senior Democratic aide.

3. Former Arizona representative J.D. Hayworth formally announced his primary challenge to 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain on Monday, setting the stage for what will almost certainly be a bruising intraparty fight that will draw considerable national attention. "There are two John McCains," Hayworth said at his announcement. "The one who campaigns like a conservative and the one who legislates like a liberal." Hayworth also won the endorsement of Chris Simcox, a co-founder of an anti-illegal immigration organization who had been running against McCain. McCain communications director Brian Rogers accused Hayworth of using "blatant lies and fabrications" about the senator in his announcement speech. McCain already has run radio ads hitting Hayworth as a big spender during his time in Washington and is likely to make the former congressman's association with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff an issue in the primary as well. (Hayworth struggled to answer questions about his ties to Abramoff during an unsuccessful reelection bid in 2006.) Hayworth is hoping to tap into the national tea party movement that has led to a revolt against some of the GOP establishment candidates, a phenomenon most notable in Florida's Senate primary race where former state House Speaker Marco Rubio's candidacy has been fueled by conservative discontent with Gov. Charlie Crist.

4. Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum will head to Iowa next month, confirming (again) his interest in running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Santorum will headline an Iowa Christian Alliance gathering on March 8 in Windsor Heights, Iowa. "I look forward to returning to Iowa to speak to the Iowa Christian Alliance about how to best tackle the many issues that our nation is facing today including health care, national security and the attack on our culture," Santorum said in a statement. The Iowa Christian Alliance is headed by Steve Scheffler, a Republican National Committeeman and an influential voice among social conservatives in the Hawkeye State. While Scheffler's organization did not endorse a candidate in the 2008 Iowa caucuses, he urged evangelicals to oppose the candidacy of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. Santorum, assuming he runs, is the longest of longshots. He is positioning himself to be the social conservative darling but is likely to have significant competition for that vote from better known candidates like former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and South Dakota Sen. John Thune.

5. Political insiders have long known that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney never stopped running for president after he lost the 2008 nomination fight to Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). He continued to raise large sums through his Free and Strong America PAC, travel the country in support of candidates and keep his core group of advisers from the '08 campaign together. Now, Romney has tasked one of those advisers -- Matt Rhoades -- to run the PAC and, in so doing, begin in earnest the preparation process to run for president in 2012. Rhoades, who served as communications director for Romney presidential bid, will move to Boston in the coming weeks to take over control of Romney's political operation. (The news of the Rhoades's move was first reported by Politico's Mike Allen.) Rhoades had been working at the DCI Group since the 2008 election and also did a stint as research director at the Republican National Committee during the 2006 election and worked on the Bush re-election effort in 2004. He is extremely well regarded in GOP insider circles and his hiring reinforces Romney's status as a prime mover in the 2012 race. "Matt Rhoades is best in class in every way -- unbelievably hard worker, extremely creative, good manager, very high talent to ego ratio, consistent loyalty even with the chips are down," said Ken Mehlman, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee.

By Chris Cillizza  |  February 16, 2010; 5:33 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Evan Bayh won't seek re-election, Senate majority in play?
Next: Predicting the 2010 midterm election outcome

Comments

I think that Jacob is actually the bad guy.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 17, 2010 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Did anyone else watch "Lost" last night?

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 17, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Are you around today?

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 17, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Ha ha, very funny, FairlingtonBlade.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

@DDAWD - I think it's quite fair and right to refuse to engage with those who make points you consider odious. Other posters are free to decide how they wish to proceed. So, I mind not at all if Elijah or 12bar decides to have a confab.

For my part, I stopped engaging with JD when the sanctimony of following our gracious host's directives ended the moment said gracious host ruled one of JD's pet causes out of order. JD3 is kinda funny, though. The brick wall is occasionally entertaining to engage in that you get an oddly distorted reflection of what you said. Not to mention with interesting use of the caps lock key.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 16, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

As I said, before, if there's anything I've posted that you have questions about, please ask.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote I mean, I think it's EVERY day that he talks about killing someone or makes some joke about someone dying or he makes some racist comment.
---------------------------------
No kidding, I see what you describe. If I met this guy in a bar, I'd be backing slowly away.

What's up with this dude?

I mean he says he's a lawyer and he's talking about people like he's a gangster. Talk about no concern for other people! I've known a few lawyers in my time, but I never heard one as crude and brutal as jaked. Actually, I never heard anyone but a drunk talk like him.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 16, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Well, obviously no problems will be solved on this board. I'm not trying to single you out, elijah. I'm just talking about a general willingness to engage with the person despite the terrible things he says on a consistent basis. It's just a testament to what people find acceptable. It's not eeven about whether you agree or disagree with him. It's just about the willingness people have to acknowledge his existence. I mean, I think it's EVERY day that he talks about killing someone or makes some joke about someone dying or he makes some racist comment. Obviously there's no minds to be changed here. To talk to him is a tacit condoning of these views. Not that you agree with him, but you feel that it's ok to say these things.

It's not exactly weird to me, but it is kind of discomforting to see.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 16, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse


I don't think so 12bar. Jake, tell me if I'm wrong, but I think he feels so certain that his side is right, and that my side is evil (or at least bad for our country) that winning, for him, is means to an end. That end being his idea of what IS best for our country. I don't think most conservatives...actually most "true believers" from either side, are just about winning for winning's sake. If so, they wouldn't be true believers, they would be narsicists. I think they really feel that our nation NEEDS them to win.
How am I doing, Jake?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 2:53 PM
---------------------------------
We have no disagreement between us. I agree that winning and being able to dictate the conditions of winning (conservatism) are bundled together so they are inseparable.

People who believe that their side is the only right view (and that other views are evil) inherently distrust politics, which is the art of the possible (in other words, compromise). Compromise is viewed as defeat.

True believers inherently distrust democracy because democracy implies that the majority gets to win. And the majority may not be made up of the true believers. True believers do not have enough faith in the endurance of a democracy to await their turn.

Hence, the term "true believers" is a good description for someone who believes their beliefs are the only true ones. That's why churches tend to be hierarchical rather than democratic.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 16, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

No, eliajah24, I don't think that your side is evil. Take abortion, for instance, those who knowingly abort unborn children who they consider human life are "evil" but the rest of you are tragically misinformed or misinforming. Does that help explain my position?

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

The only way the centrists can save themselves - and save the democratic party - is to get Obama to resign before he does any more damage to the democratic party. The damage is extensive.


The democrats really do not realize what their position is.


The democratic agenda has completely imploded - it is gone - the American public has rejected it.


So where do the democrats go ???


If the democrats get rid of Obama, and go into the fall election as a re-vamped party, they have a chance. Otherwise, the anti-Obama forces will be energized and ready to pounce on ALL the democrats.


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 16, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


Are you saying that forgiveness is an inherent trait of white males ???


Somehow that is a racist statement


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 16, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

We aren't talking about hate, Ddawd. We're talking about idiology. It's easy to condemn someone for their views that we find ugly. But that doesn't solve the problem. I'm not interested in condemnation. I'm interested in problem-solving.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Man, you can really tell the white male makeup of this board just by the amount of forgiveness jaked gets with his hate speech.

Posted by: DDAWD | February 16, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I don't think so 12bar. Jake, tell me if I'm wrong, but I think he feels so certain that his side is right, and that my side is evil (or at least bad for our country) that winning, for him, is means to an end. That end being his idea of what IS best for our country. I don't think most conservatives...actually most "true believers" from either side, are just about winning for winning's sake. If so, they wouldn't be true believers, they would be narsicists. I think they really feel that our nation NEEDS them to win.
How am I doing, Jake?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

I don't think so 12bar. Jake, tell me if I'm wrong, but I think he feels so certain that his side is right, and that my side is evil (or at least bad for our country) that winning, for him, is means to an end. That end being his idea of what IS best for our country. I don't think most conservatives...actually most "true believers" from either side, are just about winning for winning's sake. If so, they wouldn't be true believers, they would be narsicists. I think they really feel that our nation NEEDS them to win.
How am I doing, Jake?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

You didn't answer disrespectfully. I am simply letting you know that I will answer any of your questions in a civil manner, as long as you do the same.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 2:51 PM | Report abuse

12bar, you are great for my ego. Thanks dude.
For the record, I don't expect anyones value system to mesh with mine. I only expect people, particularly people who care enough about government that they post their strong opinions on this blog, to care deeply about their nations well-being. And I believe (perhaps naively) that if we can acknowledge that commong ground, we might find more.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 2:31 PM
-------------------------------
You make the point: the value you assume is that everyone wants the nation's well-being. After all, you are a soldier so being value-oriented is part of a soldier's culture (in the best cases, of course). I'd guess that Jake is interested in the nation's well-being, but he has a hierarchy of values, and winning is somewhere up at the top. That is SO clear from every post from him.

But, keep going, man. I said I admire your idealism, and you trying to talk with Jake is example #1 of that.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 16, 2010 2:40 PM | Report abuse

JakeD2
If thinks stand the way they are now, I believe the topping point has been reached.
When even a far-left state like Mass. elects a Republican few of us have ever heard of before, after Comrade Obama campaigned there for the Democrap Socialist candidate to fire up the troops, the handwriting is on the wall. Ditto for New Jersey's gov.

On a side note
I'm hoping McCain loses to JD Hayworth. It probably won't happen though.

Posted by: armpeg | February 16, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Did I answer you disrespectfully, Jake? I guess we got a little snippy, but I didn't think either of us got out of hand. If so it wasn't intentional.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 2:35 PM | Report abuse

12bar, you are great for my ego. Thanks dude.
For the record, I don't expect anyones value system to mesh with mine. I only expect people, particularly people who care enough about government that they post their strong opinions on this blog, to care deeply about their nations well-being. And I believe (perhaps naively) that if we can acknowledge that commong ground, we might find more.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 2:31 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

It wasn't MY advice. As long as you answer my questions in a civil manner, I will ALWAYS return the same courtesy.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

Let me quote the Governor General of Canada


"I officially declare the games of 2010 OPEN."


.

Posted by: 37thand0street | February 16, 2010 2:26 PM | Report abuse

But isn't that the problem, Jake? We don't just talk in this country. True believer or not, why can't we just talk? Why is my idiology so offensive to you, that you can't take the time to hear where the other side is comming from. I'm not delusional enough to think I can sell you on my side, but how do we bring this country together for the common good, if we can't respectfully discuss our differences? How is anyone harmed by a deeper understanding of the viewpoint of our loyal opposition?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

@elijah,

Do you know that you are the exception on this blog? There are true believers all over the spectrum, bashing each other and calling each other vicious names that civil people wouldn't say out loud.

There are folks who spend a heck of a lot of energy gaming the straw polls, because they mistake their own intense preferences for reality. Then other true believers come along and say, OMG, how can this straw poll be right? LOL. It's a straw poll, not reality!

I always read your posts because I like your positive attitude. You always expect that the poster has some kind of value system that would mesh with yours. Some would call you idealistic, but hey idealism is what made this country great. Seems like we need more of it, not less.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 16, 2010 2:21 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

As a devout Christian, I love every human being -- so it's not even a question of whether I "like" you -- what I am saying (again) is that you should follow the advice offered and try to avoid true believers like myself.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

armpeg:

The Republicans haven't quite reached the topping point yet (incumbents are well-entrenched, and it takes quite a bit to defeat them ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

What are you saying, Jake? You don't like me anymore?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Ajackson, I appreciate your honest assessment of your own side. I'm not sure if you were speaking of your own opinion, or that of conservatives as a group, but I wanted to address the claim (by you or them) that "the republican party is the party of the nation's founding principles", particularly the "One nation under God" part. that phrase was not added to our pledge until the 1950s, when our government wanted to distenguish us from the "godless commies". Until then, seperation of church and state was accepted. Yes, the majority of our country were christians, but that was their faith, not thier patriotism. I reject the idea that one cannot love America without loving God. I (as an example) don't know that there is a god, but I served my country in Iraq, and am still a reservist. Odds are that I will spend Christmas in Afghanistan. I also reject the idea that Liberals don't respect our founders. We do. We just don't deify them. Thomas Jefferson was a great man. The world is a better place because of the impact he had on our founding documents, as well as his time as president. He was also a slave owner. Our founders left a great legacy, but our history is not all honorable. But the most important part of their legacy, was a challenge to future generations. To correct the mistakes that they made. The founders themselves knew that they weren't perfect. They didn't know what their flaws were, perhaps, but they knew that they existed. And they knew that the principals that governed them, might go out of date, as the world evolved. That was why they wrote Article V of the Constitution. So that future generations of leaders could correct their mistakes. That is what Liberals believe in.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh 'retiring' before the midterms in November from a Senate seat he would probably have won, is another indicator of what will probably happen then. Evan Bayh is smart enough to see the comming bloodbath the Democrap Socialists will be getting because of Comrade Obama's Communist agenda--which by then will make our economy much worse--and he's getting out while the Obama Titanic is still above water. This will politically free him from all blame for Obama's and the Democrap Socialist Party's economic mess they've caused, when voters get the chance to throw these Communist bums out--as they did in Mass., the most liberal, most Democrap Socialist state in the union, and a Kennedy seat. By being free of Obama's leach, Evan Bayh won't get blamed for the mess Obama made of things, and he'll be able to run either against Obama, or for In. Governor.
Smart, Evan, smart!

On another tack.
The political landscape can change fast in politics, but as things stand now, I agree with Dick Morris, who'se smart in these things. The Democrap Socialists will lose both houses of congress in November. About the only way they'll keep congress is if they'll impeach Obama for the incompetent ahole that he's proven himself to be.

Posted by: armpeg | February 16, 2010 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone else want to actually discuss the five thread topics?

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Well, elijah24, you ARE indeed accusing me of violating the "spirit" of the law, so maybe it would be better if you try to avoid true believers like me from now on too.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Jake, I'm not accusing you of a crime. Have YOU been reading the posts? Do I really need to put the disclaimer on every sentence? Here: you find whatever LEGAL means necessary to win, justified. better?
I assume that when your party chooses a candidate it is based on your best assessment of all the candidates. And while i might not agree with your choice, I should not have a voice in that decision. If we were to play that game last year, Ron Paul would have been your nominee, and Barack Obama would have won 47 states. Maybe more. What you propose may not be against the letter of the law, but you know d@mn well that it is against the spirit. But again, you don't care, because its all about the "W".

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 1:42 PM | Report abuse

sorry2say wrote>>>Why is the word "replace" used in the title to this article? Is this to assume that whomever runs as the democrat will win the election?

No silly - "replace" as in replacing the Democratic CANDIDATE.

Posted by: angie12106 | February 16, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

RealNews1 states:
Against Universal nationalized health care, something that EVERY European country has, Canada has, Israel has, Japan has, China has, in fact all developed nations have.
----

What you fail to also state is how high income taxes, gas taxes, value-added taxes (VAT), etc, are in these countries as well as how these universal health care systems function.

Do you realize that if all you have in Canada is the government-provided option, you get to wait... but if you spend extra money to get a private plan, you go to the top of the list and get better care?

Have you ever seen what happens to really sick people in some of these European countries? How about, as an example, my mother's cousin... where the ambulance REFUSED to take him to the hospital when he was suffering from cancer (which happened to kill him within the next week or two from that incident) all because they said that there wasn't really anything they could do? Whether or not this is true is irrelevant because they REFUSED treatment.

The "universal health care" idea, while admirable, is as flawed as some of these for-profit systems. We do not live in Utopia. We live in the real world. Get your head out of the clouds.

As for Sen. Bayh's retirement, yes he was part of the problem. Far too many Congressmen and Senators are more beholden to that stupid little letter after their names or that organization of some kind... be it a corporation, PAC, union, or otherwise... instead of to the people who voted them into office and the betterment of the nation.

Posted by: kiltedknight | February 16, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

elijah24,

You are not wrong, you are right on. There is a belief that the republican party is the party of the nation's founding principles, morals and values. One nation under God, marriage is between a man and woman, Biblical based, Judeo-Christian beliefs. As a Christian, I support this. The problem is the republicans and their conservative followers pick and choose from those beliefs the ones that support their agenda. They tend to forget that the Constitution also says ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. They also forget that God is a loving and forgiving God. They tend to push people away instead of drawing them in as Christ did. So, I don't support them because of that. They also called their opponents anti-American just to win elections. The sad part is, they were getting votes off of this practice until 2006.

Posted by: ajackson3 | February 16, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

@elijah,

You are making some excellent points about the differences between Jake, a true believer and you. True believers think the other side is evil, and in true warrior fashion, must be defeated for all time. And that's why winning is all.

You do not seem to have this intensity of feeling, hence your desire to improve the government whoever wins.

There are true believers on either end of the continuum, Jake is representative of the right end. I try to avoid true believers on either end, not because I disagree so much, but because I find the discourse to be too emotional and narrow.

Of course, that is coming from a moderate like you, elijah. I suspect the true believers prefer the company of other true believers.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 16, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

No one made deals with corporate lobbyists faster than DINO Evan Bayh. He wasn't sick of the problems of DC, he was part of the problem of DC.

Posted by: angie12106 | February 16, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Was Operation CHAOS (Independents / Republicans switching party registration during the Democratic primaries with every intention of voting for the Republican in the general election) immoral? Is it immoral for my wife and I to move to CT so as to campaign for Peter Schiff?

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

elijah24:

Maybe the problem is how you are defining "best" vs. "worst" possible candidates. I hardly think that Gov. Palin is the WORST POSSIBLE candidate that the Republicans could nominate. I could also vote (again) for a pro-life, tax-cutting, strong on national defense Dem like JFK. Again, you use language like "whatever means are necessary to achieve those ends, are justified" when I (repeatedly) told you I would never condone any behavior that was illegal. So, that's ONE "means" right there. Are you even reading my posts?

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

"Replace" him on the ballot, in the race to "replace" him in the Senate.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Why is the word "replace" used in the title to this article? Is this to assume that whomever runs as the democrat will win the election?

Posted by: sorry2say | February 16, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

The title of this article illustrates how out-of-focus our elected officials are and how out-of-focus the media and we the people have become when it comes to our elected officials and their governing. The democrats are scrambling to replace a lost, the republicans are scrambling to make a gain. The media reports the political impact of a party losing a seat the one gaining a seat. No mention on finding a person who will govern in the best interest of the people. This is why Congress gridlocks. They are all trying to push, enforce their agenda not the people's.

Posted by: ajackson3 | February 16, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

No Jake, it's not illegal, but it does show a fundamental difference between you and me. You want to see the worst possible candidate from my side. I want to see the best from yours.
The fact is that my candidate, no matter how good, could lose a race. And your candidate, no matter how bad, could win. It is anti-American in my opinion to wish for the worst possible candidate from ones opponent. If a Republican wins in 2012, fine. Let it be the best Republican for the job. Someone like John Thune. But dear God, don't let it be a Sarah Palin.
I guess it comes down to the fact that I am not so unbendingly convinced that my side should and must win every election. Your side should win some too. And when you do, I want the best Republican. You seem to think that Democrats, and Liberals in general, have no right to EVER win an election. That your side is on a mission from God to stop the abortionists, and keep "THA GAYS" from getting married, and whatever means are necessary to achieve those ends, are justified.
If I'm wrong please explain how and provide some support for your position.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, yeah, yeah! Let's get a Democrat in the mix. Any Democrat! It doesn't make any difference if this person is qualified, we just need a Democrat. We have so little time to get this done. Why didn't Bayh give us a heads up on this? Oh, why, oh, why? We don't care if this person understands how government works. Hey! None of the rest of us do, either, but we've got to get a Democrat in the mix!!!

Posted by: georges2 | February 16, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Palin Criticizes Fox Cartoon Character:

"In recent weeks, Fox News analyst Sarah Palin has waged a high-profile war on the “r-word,” calling for White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s resignation after he called liberal activists “f-ing retarded.”

Her latest target is the Fox cartoon Family Guy. In a recent episode, the character Chris Griffin dated a girl with Down Syndrome. “My mom’s the former governor of Alaska,” she told Chris. Calling it “another kick in the gut,” Palin and her daughter Bristrol took to Facebook to attack the show:

People are asking me to comment on yesterday’s Fox show that felt like another kick in the gut. Bristol was one who asked what I thought of the show that mocked her baby brother, Trig (and/or others with special needs), in an episode yesterday. Instead of answering, I asked her what she thought. Here is her conscientious reply, which is a much more restrained and gracious statement than I want to make about an issue that begs the question, “when is enough, enough?”:

When hate radio host Rush Limbaugh used the word “retarded” over 40 times on a recent show, Palin gave Limbaugh a pass because “he was using satire.” “I agree with Rush Limbaugh,” Palin told Fox News host Chris Wallace, referring to Limbaugh’s belief that he was just joking.

Family Guy is “best known for combining controversial topics with off-color jokes.” Indeed, the show has distastefully satirized mental disabilities in the past, but Palin never objected until now."

Now, there's no question that this was tacky and nasty. But this show ridicules people with mental disabilities all the time. So why do you suppose Fox viewers give it such high ratings, unless they like this kind of thing?

And why is the most 'conservative' network the ONLY one to run really offensive stuff like this?

Posted by: drindl | February 16, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Maybe if McCain would have gone after Obama as hard as he is Hayworth, McCain would be President today.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 1:04 PM | Report abuse

That was supposed to say "kill the chances of moderate republicans". I have no reason to suspect that tea party people (no i will not call them patriots) are in the assasination business.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Not at all (e.g. I mentioned it was not illegal, neither was Operation CHAOS during the 2008 Dem primaries).

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 12:59 PM | Report abuse

"Bayh's stepping down PROVES that the d-crat party is so left-wing extremist that it can't accommodate anybody who is a moderate centrist. I just can't wait for the Lame Stream Media to point that out - but I won't hold my breath until they do so"
==

This is ironic comming from someone calling himself "Tea Party Patriot". Your organization is doing everything in its power to kill moderate republicans like Charlie Crist. Your people even sensured Lindsay Graham for being willing to discuss the possibility of compermise with democrats. Is our politics polarized? Of course. But don't act like its only our side that is running out the moderates. And don't fool yourself into thinking that you are helping to solve the problem by pointing that accusing finger accross the aisle. And if you aren't a part of the solution, you know what you ARE a part of.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse


So for you it's just "win at all costs?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 12:31 PM
--------------------------
elijah, I really like you. You always expect the best out of posters. You've reminded me of my higher values, that I sure don't always follow.

I do think, though, that Jake is telling the truth. Wherever he places fairness on his value scale, he places winning higher. I figured that out a while back, so unless I want to share that value with him, I just don't converse with him.

Posted by: 12BarBlues | February 16, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Bayh's stepping down PROVES that the d-crat party is so left-wing extremist that it can't accommodate anybody who is a moderate centrist. I just can't wait for the Lame Stream Media to point that out - but I won't hold my breath until they do so

Posted by: TeaPartyPatriot | February 16, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse

So for you it's just "win at all costs?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

No.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 12:09 PM | Report abuse

I just love how democrats and republicans constantly bash each other over the same old horse manure! It doesn't matter who is in office nowadays. Bayh will just be replaced with another rich or soon-to-be rich politician who will simply take their marching orders like a good democrat or republican.

Over the last 40 odd years the American people (read: middle class) have been taken to the cleaners by BOTH PARTIES. As a side note, it may come as a shock to republicans, however, that most tax cuts on income were started by democratic administrations beginning with JFK.

Furthermore, spending has gone unchecked by BOTH PARTIES during this time period and usually as a matter of national security ala COLD WARS (Soviet Union), HOT WARS (Vietnam) AND WARS OF EXPEDIENCY (Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf Wars I & II, Wars on Terror).

The only winners here as a result of all this SPENDING is anyone connected with the good ol' Military-Industrial-Oil complex.

They just want the American people to continue to get mad as hell and rant against everyone else except them. By all means, support the men and women actually serving their country in uniform, but don't tread on the corporations of America!
America must stop these senseless wars!

What we really need is some sanity around here. I don't necessarily disagree with voting all incumbents out, but in the end all members of the two reigning parties just end up like the rest.

It's time for a revolution, albeit a peaceful non-violent one, and one that truly resonates with the middle class. The tea party thing is a faux revolution but I will at least admit that they doing something, anything.

Posted by: cracamcon | February 16, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

"Bush created almost 8 trillion dollars of debt..."

Much as I dislike George the Worst, this is incorrect.
In his eight years in office, he nearly doubled the national debt, from $5.73 T to $10.63 T, see
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np .
That is an increase of $4.9T, not $8T.

Posted by: dotellen | February 16, 2010 11:55 AM | Report abuse

The Washington primary is on August 17, not June 11.

Posted by: FoamingSolvent | February 16, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

It's not illegal, Jake. But if she cant get them together herself, it's an indication that she can't gather the support or the money she'll need to mount a serious campaign. Independants are one thing, but Republicans have a vested interest in putting a weak candidate on the Democratic side of the ballot. She knows this, and should not accept a gift to herself, at the expense of the party, if it means she'll lose in the general election anyway.
Would you not feel the same way if she were a republican getting support from Firedoglake.com?

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

It's just AMAZING! how we got here. No tea parties for 8 years... The country had gone to Hell long before Obama but nobody cared. WHY? You can no longer hide what everybody can see. It just doesn't add up! Bush created almost 8 trillion dollars of debt, NO PROBLEM, Obama adds 1 trillion and GOD IS DEAD!

Posted by: minco_007 | February 16, 2010 10:55 AM
-------------------------------------------
Bush created $8TN of debt? Please provide the source of your misinformation.

Posted by: jmk55 | February 16, 2010 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Lets face the FACTS: Republicans have been and are utter complete lunatics.
Which translated means that Republicans are paid agents of Big corporations (Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Military, Big Banks, etc.) and to get away with this Con Job they say any insane thing, such as "Government cannot do anything..." which translated means pay Taxes and get nothing for your Taxes, more on this below.

To see what Lunatics Republicans are consider some of their positions & beliefs, Republicans were and are for:

1-The Iraq War that has wasted, to date, $2Trilion dollar of our money set aside how many innocent people it has killed.
2- Republicans are for the gargantuan US Military that is literally bankrupting the American people, given that US economy is
now only 15% of World economy whereas the US Military budget is LARGER than the Military budget of every country on
planet Earth combined!!! DO that simple math and you will see this Military budget is the KEY cause of US Deficits.


But Republicans are:

Against Universal nationalized health care, something that EVERY European country has, Canada has, Israel has, Japan has, China has, in fact all developed nations have.

U can read full article here:
http://anoox.com/blog/Real_News.34034

Posted by: RealNews1 | February 16, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Why wouldn't it be legit? Is it illegal for Independents and / or Republicans to support a Democrat? Do you have open or closed primaries?

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 11:32 AM | Report abuse

yes they are, Jake. It's very unlikely that she gets it, although, Redstate.com is trying to mount a run to help her get them. I hope that if she gets the votes from a Republican organization, she has the grace to reject them, because clearly they are just trying to put a weak Democrat on the ballot. That said, if she does win, she might be a decent senator. So if she gets the petition together legitimately, I hope she wins.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Aren't the signatures due TODAY?!

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 11:16 AM | Report abuse

Hope they all leave so we can get some new and honest blood in the government instead of the same criminals and their families who have been in office for too many years.
Something has to be done now to stop all the Power Hungry criminals in our government.
They are all most likely hating the feedback they are getting about how evil they all are for what they have allowed to happen Every American citizen is fed up with the government and it's evil lies.The last ten years have been one nightmare after another and it keeps getting worse.
There is no longer the American dream because all of our politicians have eaten every bit of profit that has been made, and given everything else away to criminals.The profits were never put back into their own country because of their evil power hungry High Maintenance ways.They gave help to every other country except their own.
Just leave, all of you and let the real true citizen's of America get our country back without your so called help. Go back to college and learn how to get a real job to help your country or join up in the military and see how many freebees you get there.COWARDS........

Posted by: peggydlhk | February 16, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

I think it's pretty likely that someone will qualify to run in Indiana.

Posted by: jonminers | February 16, 2010 11:05 AM | Report abuse

From what I understand the Democratic party can only appoint someone to run if no one qualifies to run in the primary the normal way, which is to collect the appropriate number of signatures. There is somone in Indianana attempting to get on the ballot, Tamyra D’Ippolito, and if she does she becomes the Democratic canidate for Senate. Republicans should be standing out in the parking lot of every WalMart and Sams Club in the state to make sure she gets on the ballot.

Posted by: RobT1 | February 16, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Bayh's wife is on the board of WellPoint and has received a quarter million a year in stocks and options from the company -- which is now being investigated by the California Senate for its recent huge hike in premiums.

Partisanship and ideology my a$$. Bayh chose his moneymaker over the American people. I say good riddance, and don't let the revolving door hit you on the way out.

Posted by: pkotta | February 16, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

It's just AMAZING! how we got here. No tea parties for 8 years... The country had gone to Hell long before Obama but nobody cared. WHY? You can no longer hide what everybody can see. It just doesn't add up! Bush created almost 8 trillion dollars of debt, NO PROBLEM, Obama adds 1 trillion and GOD IS DEAD!

Posted by: minco_007 | February 16, 2010 10:55 AM | Report abuse

OBAMAs "HISTORICAL" presidency is going over like flatulence in Sunday School

Posted by: noHUCKABEEnoVOTE | February 16, 2010 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Bye Bye Blue Dog Bayh!

Posted by: lingo009 | February 16, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

This talk of Evan Bayh not seeking re-election to his Senate seat so he can challenge President Obama in the 2012 Democratic primary doesn't really resonate with me. Maybe Bayh isn't happy with the way Obama is doing things, but he strikes me as sharp enough to know that challenging a sitting president in the primary is a sure loss, and pragmatic enough to know that he won't gain anything from that loss.

On the other hand, I wouldn't discount talk that there's a deal in the offing for Bayh -- some important position in the Obama administration -- and that the Democrats don't want that to happen while he's a sitting Senator, as Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels would get to pick his replacement. I wouldn't discount the notion that he's got a sweetheart deal with a lobbying firm or something, either.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | February 16, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Blarsen, he isn't "a hair" from anything. Bayh is a total blue dog. He started the blue dog caucus within the Senate. As I pointed out before, he is regularly named the most conservative Democrat in the Senate.

John Adams, transparency is a sham. Neither side can opperate in a transparent government. And the people don't want a transparent government. They say they do, but then they gripe and complain at all the compromise and back and forth and hostility that goes into legislating. It is popular to talk about transparency right now, but it's one of those "careful what you wish for" situations. I'm not saying the details of a bill should be a state secret, but to put the negotiations on CSPAN does nothing but spread the partisan divide.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Let's see.....You're one of the top leaders in Washington, Money, Power, and Influence! You don't like the atmosphere in Washington?! Man up! and change it. The poor slob just can't admit publicly that the new rise of Racism amongst Conservatives and Tea partier's are unnerving him. The death threats to him and his family are mounting. The backlash of hatred after the election of an African American is astounding and a decent man like Bayh can't handle it. Especially when the terrorist threaten his family. The American taliban better known as the Tea Party along with Al Queda have taken extremism to a new height! You are not patriots, you are anti American terrorist!

Posted by: minco_007 | February 16, 2010 10:20 AM | Report abuse

How did anyone miss Andre Carson? He is brilliantly qualified as the grandson of that Democrat party darling Julia Carson. He can say, "yes, Mr. President" as well as anyone.

Posted by: mike9270 | February 16, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Could Bayh be planning a run at the Oval Office?
With the public finally noticing our Emperor is naked but still unhappy with the GOP, an experienced moderate Democrat could easily dethrone Obama in 2012.

Posted by: eldergent | February 16, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

I notice that the washington post articless that have to do with Obama
directly have removed the comment section.

hmmm the white house warned us that they were cutting off communication but they didn't tell us they were cutting off communication with the voters.

gee is this transparency? is this representative government?

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | February 16, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

Bayh is an ALLEGED democrat. He was basically against healthcare and is a hair from being a bluedog.

Posted by: blarsen1 | February 16, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

Self-inflicted demise of the socio-comms in Capitalistic America.

Who knew? Fools only know in the end.

O'Bama the unwise, the divider, the apologizer, the wrightist.

Time for change America.

Posted by: Accuracy | February 16, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

I find it odd that Chris Cillizza fails to mention the most important aspect of Bayh's retirement - Bayh hates Congress! Why not focus on the fact that he's leaving because the Senate (and the House) are useless institutions in getting the country's business done....

Posted by: WildBill1 | February 16, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Not sure that Rahm's involvement is helpful any longer!

They simply continue to drink the Kool Aid -- even after NJ, VA, and MASS! AMAZING!


America has not been impressed with:

*OBAMA STIMULUS

*OBAMA AUTO

*OBAMA CARE

*OBAMA SECURITY MEASURES

*OBAMA TARP

*OBAMA'S DEAF EAR TO THE CITIZENS

*OBAMA'S FAILURE TO ADHERE TO CAMPAIGN PROMISES (TO WIT: using C-SPAN to cover health care debates, and NO TAXES FOR FAMILIES MAKING $250K or less)

*OBAMA'S GITMO GOAT ROPING

*OBAMA'S FAILURE ON JOBS (Probably due to his total inexperience)

* This, coupled with the persistent arrogance of Team Obama (Geithner, Emanuel, Gibbs, Axelrod, Holder, Teleprompter King -- and the supporting cast of Pelosi and Reid) is not a winning card for any politician. What worked in Chicago DOES NOT WORK IN INDIANAPOLIS, nor is it desired!!

Posted by: wheeljc | February 16, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

It is a shame, both sides didn't hear what he said. He is still wasting his time.

Posted by: linda_521 | February 16, 2010 9:58 AM | Report abuse

The people of Indiana have a fix. They are going to replace this tax and spend democrat with a REPUBLICAN.


Evan Bayh will have on his resume voting for bills that will ultimately bankrupt an entire nation.


Thanks Obama, Pelosi and Reid for nothing.
------------------------------------
What exactly has been the contributions of the Republicans?

Posted by: citizen625 | February 16, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Barry half jokingly said, "You would think its some Bolshevik Plot", referring to his FAILED attempt to Nationalize Health Care.

Well, he is whole heartily endorsed by the Communist Party.

Posted by: jas7751 | February 16, 2010 9:49 AM | Report abuse

The Democrat's only hope is Ford winning in NY. He's a moderate and still more of a traditional Democrat rather than a Progressive, Liberal Democrat we now see heading Congress and the White House.

Posted by: 45upnorth | February 16, 2010 9:47 AM | Report abuse

More Rats leaving the sinking Obama ship.....hah!

2010 is the year to dump democrats


2011 Impeach Obama


2012 investigate ACORN, UAW, Move-On followed by trials and life time incarceration

Democrats are pure trash and it is time to take out the trash!!!

Posted by: georgedixon | February 16, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

The Democrats deserve what is happening to them. They are incompetent wimps who can't even pass health care reform or strong jobs bills.

The tragedy in all this is that neither party counts for much. The Republicans shill for the rich and stomp on the middle class, while the Dems are gutless wimps.

Posted by: tinyjab40 | February 16, 2010 9:36 AM | Report abuse

A few States (not including New Jersey) limit the Governor to replacing a Senator with someone from the same party as the Senator:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Vacancies.pdf

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Wow the hostility has started early today. Indpnt, if you think Evan Bayh is a tax and spend democrat, you clearly don't know much about him. He has been named the most conservative Democrat on several occasions over the last 12 years (including this one). Most Dems are happy to see him go, just not under these circumstances. The day before the filing deadline doesn't leave us much time to replace him on the ticket. Still, Dan Coats is a lousey candidate, and if we find a decent candidate, our side should still hold the seat.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Back on topic, I agree that it's still a long shot for Republicans to take back the Senate. But WI and MD are not the only possibilities. Specter could always switch back to the GOP. And don't forget that the REPUBLICAN Governor of New Jersey (or other GOP States) can appoint Republicans to any vacancies.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Here's a birther comment, drindl, or rather, a birther question. What is the name of the doctor in Hawaii who delivered President Obama? If this person will come forward it will shut those crackpot wingnuts up for good!

Posted by: philagumbo108 | February 16, 2010 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone else have something ON topic?

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Another name that should not be ignored in Indiana is Evansville mayor Jonathan Weinsapfel. He is an incredibly popular mayor, who has presided over the city during this recession, but managed to keep E'ville growing. He is smart, charismatic, effective, and (it shouldn't matter but for some reason it does) photogenic.
Rumor has it that he is interested in running for governor in 2012, but if he chooses to throw his hat in the ring for the senate seat, he may be the best candidate to beat Dan Coats.

Posted by: elijah24 | February 16, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Joke -- where's your birther comment? I don't see one yet. Are you buying gold and stocking up on supplies for when Obama declares martial law? I mean, what are you doing on this board? Obama might find out and come and take you away to an interment camp.

Isn't Glenn Beck on or something? Don't you have a Bircher meeting to go to?

Posted by: drindl | February 16, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

BTW, BHO at 56 (Research 2000).

Has anyone yet reported/find out the reality-based reason why Bayh is retiring? Whatever happened to journalists competing for a news scoop?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | February 16, 2010 8:57 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

Which topic # was that relevant too? Don't you have your talking points on Bayh yet? Try checking Daily Kos or TPM again.

Posted by: JakeD2 | February 16, 2010 8:55 AM | Report abuse

California Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, a subsidiary of health insurance giant WellPoint, announced recently that it would be hiking premiums for customers in the individual market by up to 39 percent. The looming hike unleashed a firestorm of criticism, and provoked two Democratic lawmakers to launch congressional probes into the matter. Even a spokesman for Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) was compelled to feign concern, telling reporters, “If the argument is that the WellPoint hike means we need reform, well, ‘duh.’”

Earlier today on Fox Business, WellPoint VP Brad Fluegel appeared to discuss the hikes. Fox hosts Charles Payne and and Stu Varney lashed out at WellPoint for increasing rates just when “it was safe to get out of the healthcare debate.” The hosts were uninterested with how the increasing rates would affect customers and struggling families in California. Instead, the pair attacked Fluegel for re-energizing advocates for health reform. Payne groaned, asking Fluegel why he didn’t “take Wall Street’s lead” and “wait for this to blow over and maybe a year from now try to hike rates”:

PAYNE: But Brad this is like Jaws 2, just when you thought it was safe to get out of the healthcare debate, you brought everybody back into it. [...] Didn’t someone though, wasn’t there a committee that said listen, let’s take Wall Street’s lead, do the minimum we can, wait for this to blow over and maybe a year from now try to hike rates?

VARNEY: You handed the politicians red meat at a time when healthcare is being discussed. You gave it to them! [...] You couldn’t see this coming? I mean really, you couldn’t see this coming? [...]

VARNEY: You actually did make a net in that quarter in twleve weeks, you made what, $500 million net profit didn’t you? You tell that to a politician and they’re going to say, ‘you made a half billion dollars in twelve weeks and now you put the price up 25%.’

Posted by: drindl | February 16, 2010 8:24 AM | Report abuse

Mikulski's next.

Buy bayh rats.

Posted by: Moonbat | February 16, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

SEN. LAUTENBERG FALLS, IS HOSPITALIZED, SAME DAY AS BAYH ANNOUNCES RETIREMENT. JUST A COINCIDENCE?

Did someone on the dark side order a microwave hit on 86-year-old Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to cause his fall and hospitalization -- perhaps precipitating a shift in the Senate balance of power even before Bayh retires? Or could such a thing just never happen in the USA?

Look at the venal comments on northjersey.com...
http://www.northjersey.com/news/national/021510_Lautenberg_taken_by_ambulance_from_apartment.html

...then read this before you answer:

SECRET HOMELAND PROGRAM SILENTLY IRRADIATES THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS WITH HARMFUL MICROWAVES FROM CELL TOWER WEAPON SYSTEM: VETERAN JOURNALIST

• Regional Homeland Security- administered fusion centers use a nationwide, precision-targeted microwave/laser electromagnetic microwave/laser weapon system to silently torture, impair, neurologically and physically subjugate citizens deemed to be dissidents or undesirables -- an American genocide hiding in plain sight.

• Financial sabotage, police-protected community "watch" vigilante harassment, warrantless GPS stalking of thousands of extrajudicially "targeted" citizens and entire families.

• Victims' own cell phones may be used to target them for silent impairment.

• How a young FBI agent's "I believe you" gave victim the faith to go public.

JOURNALIST EXPOSING SILENT GOV'T MICROWAVE CELL TOWER TORTURE HELD HOSTAGE TO A NATIONWIDE, POLICE-PROTECTED 'COMMUNITY WATCH' GESTAPO

• As the silent assaults continue, law enforcement enabled community watch goons vandalize, stalk and harass -- and pleas to authorities fall on deaf ears.

• Bucks County, PA- based MAGLOCLEN fusion center: "Mid-Atlantic States Ground Zero of a Multi-Agency Federal-Local Extrajudicial Gestapo

• When will Obama administration stop covering up -- and act to restore the rule of law?

http://nowpublic.com/world/u-s-silently-tortures-americans-cell-tower-microwaves
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
www.poynter.org/subject.asp?id=2 OR NowPublic.com/scrivener ("stories" list)

Posted by: scrivener50 | February 16, 2010 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Democrats have really made a mess of things.

Posted by: Moonbat | February 16, 2010 7:55 AM | Report abuse

If Bay was so sick of how Washington operates and knew that the "peoples' business" was not getting done, why not stay and change it from within? Of course we all know that wasn't why he left. After all, he is "executive" material.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | February 16, 2010 7:45 AM | Report abuse

The people of Indiana have a fix. They are going to replace this tax and spend democrat with a REPUBLICAN.


Evan Bayh will have on his resume voting for bills that will ultimately bankrupt an entire nation.


Thanks Obama, Pelosi and Reid for nothing.

Posted by: Indpnt1 | February 16, 2010 6:11 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company