Anyone else developing hopes for Evan Bayh??? **Democrat Senator for Pres in 08**

5LiterMustang

Senior member
Dec 8, 2002
531
0
0
The more I hear this guy speak the more I get pumped up about him for a possible presidency run in 08. I really am starting to like this guy, does anyone else think he may have a shot?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Well, he does represent one of those "confused" red states, could probably snage a few other midwestern states, and the liberals in NE and West wouldn't have any other choice.

The real question is whether he's got bank. McCain was 10x the man and a far superior "candidate" than the current tool in the White House. But money talks.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
My three main issues are:

1. Less illegal immigration
2. More fiscal conservancy
3. No more war

We'll have to see how he stacks up.
 

5LiterMustang

Senior member
Dec 8, 2002
531
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
My three main issues are:

1. Less illegal immigration
2. More fiscal conservancy
3. No more war

We'll have to see how he stacks up.

I agree
I agree
I agree

However on the third point, I would imagine we agree in different means. I dont want war but I feel takin ga stand is necessary, now that we're in Iraq pulling out is NOT the answer. We do need to get tougher with N Korea and Iran.

I wonder what he would do with taxes....I'm going to look up what he did as govenor.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam
My three main issues are:

1. Less illegal immigration
2. More fiscal conservancy
3. No more war

We'll have to see how he stacks up.

I agree
I agree
I agree

However on the third point, I would imagine we agree in different means. I dont want war but I feel takin ga stand is necessary, now that we're in Iraq pulling out is NOT the answer. We do need to get tougher with N Korea and Iran.

I wonder what he would do with taxes....I'm going to look up what he did as govenor.

I really only support the use of our military for defensive use. I would like to see troops deployed on the Southern border, to stop the ongoing invasion.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
Originally posted by: EatSpam
My three main issues are:

1. Less illegal immigration
2. More fiscal conservancy
3. No more war

We'll have to see how he stacks up.

Yes, the Democratic should definitely run on the first two agendas. We need to nationalize the upcoming 2 elections against 8 years of Republican rule and decisions.
As for Bayh, he has the resume - private practice lawyer, former Sec. of State of Indiana, Governor, and Senator. The man received more votes in Indiana for his reelection for Senate in 2004 than GWB did carrying Indiana. He has a great family name in Indiana and would be a favorite son there and be almost unbeatable in that state.
He is currently the only possible Democratic candidate besides possibly Clark in Arkansas or Warner in VA that could turn a solid red state blue (Indiana has 11 EVs!). He would have midwestern appeal and could help in the farmbelt areas like Iowa, Minn. and Wisconsin.

I could see he developing his campaign as the alternative choice to the frontrunner HR Cinton by making the case that he would be more electable. He doesn't have much name recognition outside his state and he tends to be not very charismatic in his speeches. He doesn't yet have a "defining role or agenda" which he will need.

Clinton has an inside straight to the nomination but Bayh or Richardson could surprise.
 

5LiterMustang

Senior member
Dec 8, 2002
531
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam
My three main issues are:

1. Less illegal immigration
2. More fiscal conservancy
3. No more war

We'll have to see how he stacks up.

I agree
I agree
I agree

However on the third point, I would imagine we agree in different means. I dont want war but I feel takin ga stand is necessary, now that we're in Iraq pulling out is NOT the answer. We do need to get tougher with N Korea and Iran.

I wonder what he would do with taxes....I'm going to look up what he did as govenor.

I really only support the use of our military for defensive use. I would like to see troops deployed on the Southern border, to stop the ongoing invasion.

So do you consider yourself a pacifist? Just curious since thats what everyone said prior to WWI and WWII. WWII bit us in the butt hardcore because we chose to pretend things weren't going on.
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
See, this would be wonderful if the DNC actually cared enough on such issues. All they're concerned about is capping on the GOP. I would love seeing an almost-Libertarian Bayh get elected.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam
My three main issues are:

1. Less illegal immigration
2. More fiscal conservancy
3. No more war

We'll have to see how he stacks up.

I agree
I agree
I agree

However on the third point, I would imagine we agree in different means. I dont want war but I feel takin ga stand is necessary, now that we're in Iraq pulling out is NOT the answer. We do need to get tougher with N Korea and Iran.

I wonder what he would do with taxes....I'm going to look up what he did as govenor.

I really only support the use of our military for defensive use. I would like to see troops deployed on the Southern border, to stop the ongoing invasion.

So do you consider yourself a pacifist? Just curious since thats what everyone said prior to WWI and WWII. WWII bit us in the butt hardcore because we chose to pretend things weren't going on.

Basically yes. I think using our military to meddle in the affairs of other countries is counterproductive and only breeds resentment. I think political and economic sanctions are the best ways to approach foreign issues. If a problem touches our soil, then I might entertain a military option, but only to defend our soil. I don't support sending our military halfway around the world. That's what covert operation type things are for, if absolutely necessary.
 

5LiterMustang

Senior member
Dec 8, 2002
531
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam

Basically yes. I think using our military to meddle in the affairs of other countries is counterproductive and only breeds resentment. I think political and economic sanctions are the best ways to approach foreign issues. If a problem touches our soil, then I might entertain a military option, but only to defend our soil. I don't support sending our military halfway around the world. That's what covert operation type things are for, if absolutely necessary.

Ok, then I ask you this...
Do you think we did the right thing by staying out of WWII until we were attacked?
Why do you favor political and economic sanctions when they only hurt the people who are already being oppressed? Leadership/dicators of other countries will not suffer the consequences of economic sanctions only the citizens will.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
61,316
16,828
136
Just... for the love of all that's good... I don't want Hillary Clinton as the democratic nominee.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Hillary would be my choice. she is bright, great communicator, has a master politician and master political mind as her husband, she knows whats it like living in the White House and dealing with pressure, she has had a wonderful career and has been a good New York state senator. it is time for her to move up

she is the most recognized democrat by far. women love her. that alone should be enough reason for her to get the nomination. plus she can raise the most money out of any democrat. she would be the best hope for the democrat party. i like her a lot and would vote for her even though i never vote. she is amazing. go Hitlery
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Just... for the love of all that's good... I don't want Hillary Clinton as the democratic nominee.

I absolutely agree!!!


Don't know much about Bayh. Will try to read up on the guy.

Also, I would like to see fiscal conservatism return to DC (less spending, deficit cutting and more tax cuts if possible. At the very least, cut the spending and deficit cuts.

Edit: I have read about Bill Richardson, Gov. of New Mexico, and think he woud be a solid (if not spectacular) choice to run for President. Maybe adding Bayh and Richardson would be a good choice. Hopefully, I can read about it after work.

I wonder if people like these men can get past the primaries, especially northern states such as New Hampshire. hmmmm?
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
New Hampshire is a swing state, they'd be more accepting of a fiscal conservative democrat like Bayh.

I think Bayh has more potential as a President, Richardson as the VP.
 

5LiterMustang

Senior member
Dec 8, 2002
531
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Hillary would be my choice. she is bright, great communicator, has a master politician and master political mind as her husband, she knows whats it like living in the White House and dealing with pressure, she has had a wonderful career and has been a good New York state senator. it is time for her to move up

she is the most recognized democrat by far. women love her. that alone should be enough reason for her to get the nomination. plus she can raise the most money out of any democrat. she would be the best hope for the democrat party. i like her a lot and would vote for her even though i never vote. she is amazing. go Hitlery

and nothing you listed has anythign to do with her ability to run the country...she's a politician? great! thats the last freakin' thing we need, she's a socialist PERIOD. Dont belive me? read HER BOOK! She would be bad freakin' news. Bayh > Hillary
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
Yeah coming from a pretty big social liberal, Hilary would be a bad choice for the nation.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam

Basically yes. I think using our military to meddle in the affairs of other countries is counterproductive and only breeds resentment. I think political and economic sanctions are the best ways to approach foreign issues. If a problem touches our soil, then I might entertain a military option, but only to defend our soil. I don't support sending our military halfway around the world. That's what covert operation type things are for, if absolutely necessary.

Ok, then I ask you this...
Do you think we did the right thing by staying out of WWII until we were attacked?
Why do you favor political and economic sanctions when they only hurt the people who are already being oppressed? Leadership/dicators of other countries will not suffer the consequences of economic sanctions only the citizens will.

Absolutely. There was no need for us to meddle in Europe and Asia's problem until it became our problem.

Political and economic sanctions must be made so that they affect leadership more than the people in the country. I would agree that political/economic sanctions that only hurt the populace aren't useful.
 

5LiterMustang

Senior member
Dec 8, 2002
531
0
0
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam

Basically yes. I think using our military to meddle in the affairs of other countries is counterproductive and only breeds resentment. I think political and economic sanctions are the best ways to approach foreign issues. If a problem touches our soil, then I might entertain a military option, but only to defend our soil. I don't support sending our military halfway around the world. That's what covert operation type things are for, if absolutely necessary.

Ok, then I ask you this...
Do you think we did the right thing by staying out of WWII until we were attacked?
Why do you favor political and economic sanctions when they only hurt the people who are already being oppressed? Leadership/dicators of other countries will not suffer the consequences of economic sanctions only the citizens will.

Absolutely. There was no need for us to meddle in Europe and Asia's problem until it became our problem.

Political and economic sanctions must be made so that they affect leadership more than the people in the country. I would agree that political/economic sanctions that only hurt the populace aren't useful.

Well at least your intellectually honest...care to explain whyyouthink hitler deserved to be ignored by us? if he had beaten england, there would be a good chance we would be speaking german today
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Bayh looks promising as a moderate centrist, fiscal conservative, and popular leader from a traditional "Red State." Almost another Clinton in fact, and so he might have a shot in 2008 (probably the Dems only shot even, as Hillary cannot be taken seriously). But his records as a gun control nut and litigation lawyer panderer are not promising.
 

EatSpam

Diamond Member
May 1, 2005
6,423
0
0
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam
Originally posted by: 5LiterMustang
Originally posted by: EatSpam

Basically yes. I think using our military to meddle in the affairs of other countries is counterproductive and only breeds resentment. I think political and economic sanctions are the best ways to approach foreign issues. If a problem touches our soil, then I might entertain a military option, but only to defend our soil. I don't support sending our military halfway around the world. That's what covert operation type things are for, if absolutely necessary.

Ok, then I ask you this...
Do you think we did the right thing by staying out of WWII until we were attacked?
Why do you favor political and economic sanctions when they only hurt the people who are already being oppressed? Leadership/dicators of other countries will not suffer the consequences of economic sanctions only the citizens will.

Absolutely. There was no need for us to meddle in Europe and Asia's problem until it became our problem.

Political and economic sanctions must be made so that they affect leadership more than the people in the country. I would agree that political/economic sanctions that only hurt the populace aren't useful.

Well at least your intellectually honest...care to explain whyyouthink hitler deserved to be ignored by us? if he had beaten england, there would be a good chance we would be speaking german today

I don't believe Hitler could have beaten us on our own soil or even come close. England and Germany are a long way from here. There would be no place for him to stage his army or navy where we wouldn't have percieved a threat and destroyed him.
 

5LiterMustang

Senior member
Dec 8, 2002
531
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Bayh looks promising as a moderate centrist, fiscal conservative, and popular leader from a traditional "Red State." Almost another Clinton in fact, and so he might have a shot in 2008 (probably the Dems only shot even, as Hillary cannot be taken seriously). But his records as a gun control nut and litigation lawyer panderer are not promising.

Link to gun control issues? thats a big deal for me, if he's a wacko take the guns away type htats no good and I've read a dozen articles on the guy and seen NOTHING on gun control...


eat spam good post, I could argue it with you but dont really wanna derail my htread anymore.