So Evan Bayh is one of my Senators.

I wrote him an e-mail a while backabout the partial birth abortion ban. This afternoon, I have a reply, and folks, I really would like someone to tell me WHERE the HELL is anything Democratic in this postion?!

"I believe that we, as a society, must do everything possible to
prevent the unwanted pregnancies that give rise to this difficult situation.
In particular, I believe that adoption should be encouraged and that
abstinence should be emphasized to young people as the best way to
avoid unwanted pregnancies. "
<snip>
"I was also proud to establish Project
RESPECT, a comprehensive program of radio and television advertising
and grants to faith-based and community organizations intended to
reduce teen pregnancy by promoting abstinence."

"As you may know, S. 3, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, was
introduced in the Senate on February 14, 2003. After much discussion
and thoughtful consideration on the language and ramifications of this
legislation, I voted in support of the ban. S. 3 was approved by the
Senate on March 13, 2003, and has recently passed the conference
committee between the House and the Senate."

And a better question is when will Bayh just go on and switch parties so he can STOP fucking up MINE!

I should get used to being disappointed with him - but this has me incensed. Thanks for sharing.

The only good thing about him I can see is the numerical one of a legialator in the D column. But even then, if he is a DINO, that can;t even be counted on.

Everytime I see him I think -- THAT's what the Republican party ought to be. Decent, pro-business conservative. But he's NOT what the Democratic Party ought to be.

to encourage sexual activity among teenagers. I must not have gotten that memo.

I was also unaware that Democrats couldn't seek to promote adoption as an alternative to abortion. The last time I checked, Democrats were supposed to be pro-CHOICE, not pro-ABORTION. Well, in my book, that means that a woman should have the choice of aborting an unwanted pregnancy OR carrying the pregnancy to term and putting the child up for adoption.

And while I probably wouldn't have supported the ban on partial birth abortions,I think it's ridiculous to suggest that anyone who did can't be a Democrat. Bayh may not get a 100% rating from NARAL, but he's still the most pro-choice Senator Indiana has had in at least 23 years.

nobody said it's a democratic position to promote teen sex
and you know that but don't care because it doesn't help your
phoney arguement. Now, what the poster did imply is that
abstinance is not the final word on sex education.

but hey you knew that anyway.

where Bayh is concerned, for me. I see abstinence, and that tells me he supports Bush's policies, polcies which DO NOT work. Abstinence is fine for parents/caretakers to stress but the government should not be keeping facts from teenagers who may well ignore the abstinence message and do it anyway. It's not encourage or discourage, it's discourage WITH information should they choose to disregard the former advice.

Now here's my huge source of anger with this message I recieved- He opens it with "I believe..." Well Senator Bayh, I didn't vote for you so you could shove YOUR beliefs down American throats. I voted for you so you could represent MY beliefs to the Senate! When do you suppose he'll get over himself and start representing his constituents instead?

For God's sake he's in Indiana. That's been one of the most consistently republican states for years now.

That said I agree with you that these policies don't work, and I wouldn't support the bill to ban partial birth abortions...

And I find it funny, as a Kucinich supporter, you're worried so much about choice. Kucinich voted against choice, for years (he even voted against family planning overseas), and made an about face when he decided to run for president.

Here in Indiana, most democratic voters are still pro-choice. Bayh is popular across parties. Voting against the partial ban would not lose him too many votes - as the republicans who vote for him tend to be the fiscal moderates/business class (centered primarily in Indianapolis). These folks are not rabid anti-abortion.

He got smacked a little shortly after going to the Senate for voting on some measure (can't remember which) by letters asking if he still represents "Hoosier Values". I think it futher reined him in. He was a centrist governing in Indiana. But I am not alone in thinking that he has moved further to the right (in spectrum) since going to Washington. Again, in terms of sheer numbers voting for him in Indiana in three statewide elections - where he ran as a moderate, he is safe - regardless of his vote on this issue.

So which constituents is he representing with this vote? He could have written the same response, but then after the 'careful study' part gone into the "devil is in the details" types of (legitimate) problems with the bill to justify a vote against it. That would have satisfied many of the moderates from both parties that support him in very solid numbers. But he chose not to.

I, personally believe, he is very politically ambitious. Some votes, imo, given the departure from how he governed (two terms) in Indiana, suggest to me that he is positioning himself as a future candidate (or even desirable now as number two) for national office. Thus the vote in that perspective appears to be more about 'future' constituents than current ones.

the DEMOCRATIC Senator and Richard Lugar is the REPUBLICAN Senator?

Ok the point of that question is simply this, isn't it simple logic that Bayh was voted in by the majority of the Democrats in the State of Indiana and that being a member of that party, not to mention the Chairman of the DLC it's the Democratic position, the Democratic consitutuents he's SUPPOSED to represent up there?

Call me kooky, but suggested a mssive increase in cigarette taxes, ostensibly to "help" tobacco farmers, isn't what I would call a Democratic move. Calling for Democratic candidates to drop out of the Primary race isn't particularly Democratic. Opposing Partial Birth abortion (a compltely mythical procedure, btw.) without a health/life of the woman exception isn't particularly Democratic.

I will grant that I probably over-reacted to the reference to abstinence in the e-mail. In re-reading HIS words, it does seem clear that he'd prefer to see abstinence stressed while still providing information on safer sex, contraception, etc. I also have no problem with adoption being put forth as a preferable option over abortion. I think that the Bush administrations underhanded tactics at denying public health information to those who need it most has me a bit wary of anyone putting abstinence out there as a primary goal.

As for Indiana being a conservative and traditionally Republican State, folks, I'm seeing some major changes on that front. The Michael Moore appearance this past Monday was prime evidence. There was a line all the way around the venue waiting to get in. They counted heads in the end so he spoke to a packed house floor to rafters. He mentioned two Democartic candidates by name. Wesley Clark and Dennis Kucinich. Clark got applause for the mention, the mention of Kucinich had people standing cheering and applauding.

As a resident, I can safely say I have more respect for Senator Lugar as a representative in Congress than I do for Senator Bayh. Why? Because Senator Lugar represents the people who elected him and whose party platform he promised to support. Bayh has gone out of his way to udnermine the Democratic Party Platform and move us all right. If I wanted to go right, I would, but I don't so I'll stick with the Democratic Platform that brought me to the party, thanks anyway Senator Bayh.

To whomever mentioned my support of Kucinich, I respect that the man has spiritual beliefs that made it very difficult for him to reach the politically Pro-Choice position. I respect him twice as much for deciding his spiritual beliefs were not meant to be forced on the women of this country. I respect the fact that he's come to the position of most supporters of choice in this country, that abortion is by no means a pleasant solution but for now it's the only one we have and for the sake of women and families all over this country, it MUST be protected by law.

But see, Bayh isn't a flaming Socialist, so he's a "Republican" to some people.

Your term.

I know - it is reflexive to ignore the comments - some insightful - of those who live in Indiana - and who listen to other Hoosiers daily.

I would respect you much more in these discussions if you would avoid the reflexive and ridiculous "me, too" moment of dissing everyone - and instead would respond to those points made BY hoosiers - talk to the points raised in posts.

But this dismissive attitude towards "Indianans" - suggests perhaps an innate 'ism'... Indianism (aversion to Hoosiers?)

The reality is that he is the safest Dem in the state. He isn't going anywhere.

Another reality is that his staff often seems less responsive, and less intellectually astute than that of our other senator. Form letters are sent that often have nothing to do with the topic/position raised. There seems very little ability to 'listen' and respond to complex issues.

A third reality is that while I have more intellectual respect for Sen. Lugar and his staff, Sen. Bayh does on vote more often for positions that I would prefer than does Sen. Lugar.

While I would love to see a more progressive figure replace Bayh, I don't see it happening anytime in the near future. First Bayh wouldn't lose the primary regardless of who is doing the challenging, and second, if he did, oh my goodness let's think of the possible replacements... Libertarian and fundy John Hostetler? Or McIntosh? Maybe a return of Dan Coates? Maybe Quayle gets restless to be back in the spotlight? Of course our real loonies (though Hostettler fits in that category as well) probably wouldn't have a chance: Dan Burton, and Steve "Let's use tactical Nukes in Afghanistan" Buyer.

All of that said, my biggest fear about Bayh, is that he is an opportunist. He is also perceived as having 'movie star looks and the ability to attract voters' (remind anyone of another rather vacuous Indiana Senator - at least Bayh does have some governing experience). He has moved into a power of influence through chairing the DLC. Though the influence of the DLC appears to be on the wane, so this position may not buy the opportunity it might have a couple of years ago. My fear is that he becomes an "attractive" pick for the number two running spot. Vice president Bayh. Blech.

After all, who'd have thought a three-term senator like Birch Bayh could ever lose to a pipsqueak like Dan Quayle. But it happened. And one reason it happened is because he became too closely associated with those out-of-touch liberals in Washington. I think Evan is striking just the right balance.

The Reagan sweep and momentum.... moved many union moderates more to the right.

The Quayle campaign was devoid of substance, except using an exceptionally graphic tv ad on abortion. That swayed an unexpected wave for Quayle.

In the state - the republicans became emboldened and tried legislatively to break the Unions (I believe trying to go "right to work"). By the late 1980s - the union moderates and dems who voted for Quayle - turned on the republicans. My brother-in-law, a NRA member and socially conservative unionman - swore (and continues to swear) to never vote for another republican. When there is a choice, he will vote for an independent (Perot, Perot, and Buchanon). He has also continued to support young Bayh.

There are moments of political shifts that can lead to the unexpected. And there are culminating events, that can change that shift. Bayh is in a much better position than his father.

Also you assert that Birch grew more liberal and thus Evan is working not to do the same. What you miss is that Evan appears to have become MORE conservative in DC. THis is not about 'avoiding' the situation of his father (in your assessment) it is about swinging the opposite direction.

I do a lot of work with some of the behind the scenes political brokers and their business associates in this state. Some dems and some - may have either d or r affiliation - but they swing their money towards what is considered the moderate - safe and steady candidate. These folks are very conservative - not in a political sense but in a not liking big swift changes and they are very leery of the far right in the state. They work to ensure moderates of both parties are the candidates (sometimes, if it is a throw away election, they are less involved). These folks love Evan. This and other borderline votes, wouldn't change an iota of that support (and access to campaign $$s). This is why some of his votes appear to be appealing to a constituency that is outside of Indiana.

I'm really sorry that he is your Senator. How often does he vote with the republicans? Hope he's not as bad as Zell Miller.

By Robin Toner
THE NEW YORK TIMES
Thursday, June 5, 2003

WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives approved legislation Wednesday night that would outlaw what some call partial-birth abortion, putting the anti-abortion movement on the brink of a major victory.

The 282-139 vote in the House came after eight years of struggle. Congress twice passed similar bills, but then-President Clinton vetoed them both times. The Supreme Court dealt the anti-abortion movement another serious blow three years ago, ruling that several similar state bans on that type of abortion were unconstitutional.

Several abortion rights groups, including Planned Parenthood Federation of America, National Abortion Federation and American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, said they would sue to block the legislation once the president signs it.

They asserted that it infringes on a woman's right to choose an abortion, under the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, and is just as unconstitutional as the bans rejected by the Supreme Court three years ago.

The House overwhelmingly passed a ban on the procedure last year, but the Senate, still under the control of the Democrats, never brought it to the floor for a vote. When Democrats lost their Senate majority last fall, it removed the last political impediment to the abortion ban becoming law.

http://www.statesman.com/asection/content/auto/epaper/editions/thursday/news_e3edbed916eaa1a80049.html

Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said, "This is a broad, unconstitutional bill that sacrifices women's health and future fertility on the altar of extreme right-wing ideology."

“The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to assure women have access to contraceptives, affordable health insurance and family planning services, not criminalize doctors who provide them.” Michelman concluded, “Anti-choice lawmakers have their priorities backwards. They should be working to promote policies that give women full control of their lives and health and the ability to prevent unintended pregnancies, not banning safe, legal abortion procedures.”

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about/newsroom/pressrelease/pr20030604_pbahouse.cfm

Bayh is not Barabara Lee or Maxine Waters. I guess that some DUers expect all Democrats to be like them. Bayh represents a conservative state.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe has to actually represent all of his constituents and not just a bunch of hard core left-wing activsits?

Has it ever occurred to you that Indiana is a Republican state and that maybe he has to be more moderate if he wants to say in office?

thread and to respond to them instead of making a blanket statement. Above I state why your reflexive argument - in this case - does not hold true.

Please respond there instead of showing your aversion or form of classism against Hoosiers.

I know what Indiana is, thanks. I'm out there talking to Hoosiers daily about their political beliefs.

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that Dick Lugar is a better representative in the Senate than Bayh. Lugar actually follows his party's platform for the most part. He listens to his consitutents and what they want him to say for them. Bayh does not. Last week there were two bills we wanted to discuss with him. He didn't bother to show up for either meeting. I believe Senator Lugar did.

I don't elect my representatives in Congress to speak for themselves, period. They are supposed to speak for me and for others like me who voted them into office. Bayh does not do that.

Abortion
(Back to top)

2003 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in the first half of the 108th Congress, Senator Bayh voted their preferred position 20 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2002, Senator Bayh voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2002 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important, Senator Bayh voted their preferred position 80 percent of the time.

2001-2002 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Bayh voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important from 1995 to 2001, Senator Bayh voted their preferred position 80 percent of the time.

2001 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Bayh voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.

2000 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Bayh voted their preferred position 90 percent of the time.

1999-2000 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Bayh voted their preferred position 11 percent of the time.

1999 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Bayh voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.

Source: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=CNIP9107#Abortion

then I may as well turn in my party card too.

Good job, Carlos. I suspect now that some people try to "refute" you, not by using actual evidence like you did, but by ignoring the facts and using a lot of loaded language.

To suck up to Bush's policies on camera.

I can't stand the man. Save your breath, Carlos and Dolstein. Some of us actually live in Indiana and know EXACTLY how Republican or Democratic this state is. People constantly overblow the RW tilt of this state.

Heck, Indiana had one of the few Republicans who voted against the damn Iraq resolution, so even our Republicans are hard to peg.

But Bayh can kiss my cat's furry butt for all I care.

It seems that people might not know that in Indiana we have a Democratic Governor . . .

and even though fav "Mitch Daniels" is in the race - even the business mods in Indy (dems and repubs alike) are clamoring for the new governor (former lt governor) to reconsider and get into the race.