Did Evan Bayh "Show Us the Money"?

When Senator Evan Bayh stepped down, I was angry. He left Democrats in the lurch because D.C. legislators don’t play nice?!? It was the political equivalent of “taking my ball and going home.”

Then I really thought about it.

Partisans don’t own the souls of our elected officials. We’re entitled to have them serve in the right way while in office and to have them exit while mitigating collateral damage. That’s it. We can’t make them stay, in particular when they’re cut from the executive “get things done” cloth, not from the “bloviate on C-SPAN and demonize the other guy” exterior.

The exit timing was a Bayh masterstroke. By waiting until the last minute, Bayh faked Mike Pence and Todd Rokita into staying sidelined though polling showed Bayh wasn’t a sure thing. Also, the Senator ensured there would be no costly primary like the one that caused the party’s 2008 gubernatorial implosion.

Instead, Bayh threw the choice of who filled his shoes to the Indiana Democratic Party State Central Committee’s 33 voting members, and he did so only after ensuring 8th District Congressman Brad Ellsworth had the votes to replace him.

Had Senator Bayh waited until after his re-election to resign, Governor Mitch Daniels would have appointed his successor, who would have served until a special election. Democrats would not have gotten the seat back.

In fact, the only real downside to Evan Bayh’s departure was that Ellsworth had little time to raise money for a 2010 election.

But how big a problem could that be? After all, the GOP has been playing host to a resource-consuming, five-way free-for-all (Dan Coats, Marlin Stutzman, John Hostettler, Don Bates, Jr., and Richard Behney) and Bayh was holding roughly $12 million in the bank, even after refunding contributions designated for a general election in which he will no longer participate.

A maximum mitigation effort would have Bayh legally laundering his money by giving it to every federally-qualified candidate or party committee with even the remotest Indiana connection, knowing it would wander home to Ellsworth. Or Bayh could always donate it all to the state party. No, it couldn't go directly to Ellsworth, but once state party and all the legislative party committees were covered, they could start directing all their prospective donors to give to Ellsworth instead.

We all knew the Senator would tip the cup. We just didn't know whether he'd pour it out or just let some drips fall.

I'd be lying if I said I was optimistic. Despite his considerable accomplishments, objective party folk will tell you off-the-record that the Senator has a lackluster record sharing his wealth unless the recipient's campaign helps him.

I’ll never forget one candidate who who was offered then-Governor Bayh’s support. The candidate recounted that the Governor was cordial as they talked about Bayh’s appearance at a fundraiser and in some joint political communications. But as soon as talk turned to Bayh donating money directly from his extremely flush campaign committee, the candidate said, "I could literally hear (Bayh’s) sphincter muscles clinch.” This was a key Bayh ally making the request.

But couldn't his circumstances now make him more sensitive to the need to rise as the consummate team player?

We got an answer today when the Indiana Democratic Party issued a release saying that Evan Bayh donated one million dollars to the state party, "the largest donation ever by an individual not on the ballot." Bayh called it a "million dollar vote of confidence in Brad Ellsworth and Indiana Democrats."

Call the Senator a victim of his astonishing fundraising prowess, but that's not nearly enough, even for a guy hoarding money for a 2012 gubernatorial run.

I have no doubt the Senator will stump for and attend events for candidates, but Mitch Daniels is investing his personal and political capital in untold numbers of state representatives in an effort to control legislative maps.

As insane and ungrateful as this will sound, I have to ask. Why did Bayh only give a million?

No, Bayh hasn’t become President (or even Vice-President), but he is a shrewd political operator. Thus, while I know I’d donate to him if he is generous with his current funds, he undoubtedly knows too many Democrats have less kind spirits about his exit. Moreover, he's raised money nationally from people who were thinking about sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom some day. Now that he's coming back to a smaller pond, it will be harder to recapture the dollars.

Basically, any goodwill engendered by spreading his largesse might not be enough to help him get it back dollar for dollar. But if he keeps it, the cash plus his statewide standing makes him the prohibitive favorite for 2012 if he wants to make a go. If he rolls into 2011 with at least eight or nine million, there’s no way he doesn’t clear the Democratic gubernatorial field the millisecond he declares. More importantly, if Democrats retain the U.S. House of Representatives, with eight or nine million, Mike Pence has to think very carefully, in particular if he becomes minority leader. Without it, he's "back home again in Indiana."

Accordingly, Democrats who look to Senator Bayh as Santa Bayh in 2010 will find more lumps of coal in the stockings than presents, though there is always the possibility that he's checking the list twice with an eye toward giving more. I hope so.

Because if Democrats lose the Indiana House of Representatives and Evan Bayh still has $8 or $9 million in his account on November 3, 2010, a lot of Democrats won't be quick to forgive, even if we know he's our best chance to end the Daniels-Skillman administration.

Did Evan Bayh "Show Us the Money"?

Ellsworth Vows to Vote Yes

Congressman and Senatorial aspirant, Brad Ellsworth, has vowed to vote in favor of healthcare reform. On his website, Ellsworth states:

“Like most Americans I was frustrated by this process throughout. Unfortunately many in both parties made snap judgments on whether or not they would support this bill based on politics, not policy. I was sent here to look at all sides of the argument in a thoughtful manner and I knew that the status quo was no longer acceptable. I needed to answer only one question when deciding whether to support this reform: will this bill benefit Hoosiers? Put simply, in my core I know it does.”

“There is no issue more important or more personal to every single Hoosier than our health and well-being. My job is to look beyond all the political games, study the bill carefully, and do my best to make the right decision for Indiana.”

“After months of meetings and conversations with thousands of Hoosiers, health care experts and pro-life advocates, I am confident supporting health care reform is the right decision for Hoosiers.”

“Starting this year, children with pre-existing conditions will never again be denied coverage. Indiana small businesses will get the tax breaks they desperately need to reduce their health care costs and invest those savings in growing their businesses and creating jobs for Hoosiers. And our seniors will see significant savings on their prescription drug bills as we start to close the Medicare Part D donut hole.

“As a pro-life Hoosier, one of my central concerns has been preventing federal funding of elective abortion. Throughout my brief time in Congress, I have held firm to my pro-life principles, even when it meant going against my party, and I am proud of my 100% pro-life voting record on abortion-related issues. I have spent time listening carefully to constituents, pro-life leaders, policy experts and reading all the details of every bill. After assurance from the Catholic Health Association, Catholic Nuns and pro-life advocates I am confident in my heart that this bill meets my pro-life principles and upholds the policy of no federal funding for elective abortions. More than that, it invests $250 million in support services for women facing unplanned pregnancies and over a billion dollars to help families afford adoption services. These investments will reduce the number of abortions in America.”

“In addition to meeting my pro-life principles, the plan reduces costs, improves access to affordable insurance options, covers pre-existing conditions, and does not add one penny to the deficit – my five principles for health care reform.”

Now every Democrat who wanted healthcare reform needs to pony up and gear up for Ellsworth because his foes will be coming to get him. And they will be merciless.

Ellsworth Vows to Vote Yes

For Brad Ellsworth: A Slate of Retorts to Anti-Healthcare Claims...Including Abortion

Spencer Valentine, my colleague and friend at A Loyal Opposition, has implored Democratic Congressman (and all-but-certain U.S. Senatorial candidate) Brad Ellsworth to "follow through" on his prior favorable healthcare vote.

Spencer tells the Congressman that, when he does the right thing and votes yes, we will help him make the case. But, as Spencer does a pretty compelling job making the case now, I figured I'd jump on board and help make the case to the Congressman, courtesy of Slate (arguably one of the best reads in a person's day).

Dear Congressman Ellsworth:

As you deliberate on healthcare reform, I hope you will keep in mind the following:

1. Don't buy the "government takeover" myth. I've written repeatedly that the government won't employee anybody or own any hospitals, clinics, pharmaceutical companies, or medical device makers. All the government will do is provide some people subsidies to buy private health insurance.

Of course, do not fear conceding in the interest of intellectual honesty that America is spending more public dollars on healthcare, but this trend will continue even without reform. In fact, without reform, it might get worse.

As Slate notes, in 1990, health care expenses were split 60/40 private/public. By 2000, that rate had changed to 55/45 (with two years with a Republican President and six years with a Republican House during that decade). During eight years of all-GOP Whitehouse (and mostly Congress) from 2000 to 2008, the rate fell to 52/48 private/public.

As the recession boosts poverty, more people are eligible for Medicaid, and the reduction in payroll jobs has caused losses in job-related insurance. Wellpoint earnings were below expectations yesterday because it estimated it will lose 400,000 individual policy holders this year. And those people are going where exactly? To no coverage? If all 400,000 stay healthy, great (except every healthy person who bails raises the rates for everybody else, making further exodus even more likely).

But what if these folks who abandoned coverage get catastrophic injuries or illnesses? Hasn't "the market" just given us 400,000 possible "free riders?" Most importantly, didn't the "public share" of our healthcare debt get greater with a Republican-supported prescription drug benefit in 2003? But what elected Republican is talking about dismantling Medicare? Not one. As an aside, if a "government-run system" is so terrible, why aren't Republicans talking about giving our veterans private insurance? Don't they value our veterans, Congressman?

America is going to end up in the same place on public medical expenses with or without reform. Democrats just hope to save more people and money through preventive care in the process.

2. "The Market" Won't Stop Insurance Companies From Hosing Us.

Indiana bears a black mark because some of the biggest insurance companies profitting off of rescission practice have roots here. "Rescission" is when a company invalides a policy after claims are filed based on technical violations on the application.

Slate notes that three health insurance companies - Assurant Health, Wellpoint, and the hypocritically-named Golden Rule - saved $300 million by rescinding nearly 20,000 policies based on omissions policyholders made in filling out enrollment forms that had nothing to do with the claims filed. When asked to pledge to stop this practice except in cases of intentional fraud, the CEOs of all three told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks."

A lawsuit now charges that Assurant Health has engaged in "recission profiling" by launching investigations into fraud among HIV-positive clients. You think insurance companies don't do the same thing with cancer?

3. A holdout for the Stupak Amendment is Stup-id and Intellectually Dishonest. Congressman, there is nothing in this bill that says the federal government will pay for abortion. What the bill says is that IF a person enrolls in an insurance plan that provides abortion coverage, they must pay $1 per month into a separate segregated fund. But anybody who doesn’t want it covered can select an abortion-free plan, and in the Senate version of the bill, every exchange much have at least one abortion-free plan.

Stupak might argue, however, that the bill may commit tax dollars in the form of subsidies to somebody who could then choose to select a plan that provides such services. In other words, not only won’t Stupak and his supporters fund choice federally, they won’t even fund an individual's choice to fund a plan that funds a choice.

There's not only hypocrisy at work here, there's also terribly tortured line-drawing. How many times have you heard a Republican say, "We don't want to take your tax dollars because we trust you to spend it in the right way more than government?" How does that trust evaporate if the government is the one that gives you the dollars in the first place?

There are literally hundreds of ways government puts money into people's hands. Does anybody say, "Hey, we can't give you your crop subsidy, military pension, social security, educational grant, or mortgage interest deduction unless you let us know you won't use any part of those dollars to pay for an abortion for you or anybody you know." Every time I file my taxes, I check that I want $3 to go the public financing of presidential elections. What if one of the candidates favors federal-funding of abortion, and (s)he gets elected and changes the law? Have I just "funded" abortion?

Stupak has said that he won't vote for a bill without his language, but, as Slate's Tim Noah points out, it "can't be shoehorned into President Obama's package, because it's nonbudgetary and therefore ineligible for inclusion in a budget reconciliation bill."

In short, Stupak obviously wants the bill to fail, and so does anybody who clings to Stupak's amendment. In fact, Congressman, I'm starting to wonder if the "Stupak amendment" is a canard for conservative districts where a majority of people (particularly folks inclined to vote for Democrats) would benefit but where representatives are afraid a vote would be unpopular before November, 2010.

While I do not say this is the case for you, how easy would it be for your bluedog colleagues to go home and say to working-class, pro-life constituents, "Boy, I really wanted to do this for you because I know you needed it, but it would have funded abortion! You understand, right?"

Pro-life folk need to take a step back and ask what is more important: symbolic politics or actually reducing abortions? If you agree with the latter, Congressman, you might like to know that if your choices are: (1) kill the bill and do nothing; or (2) expand access to all medical care, including unsubsidized abortions, only the latter will reduce abortion rates.

The New England Journal of Medicine has a study that bears this out. Romneycare provides direct funding for abortions, but two years later, even though non-elderly insurance rates rose six percent, the abortion rate dropped 7.4 percent among teens and 1.5% overall. In other words, you give people access to information and all medical services, and some won't get pregnant in the first place and some will have children because they know medical care will be available.

As Spencer stated, Democrats stand ready to help you.

Give us the chance.

For Brad Ellsworth: A Slate of Retorts to Anti-Healthcare Claims...Including Abortion

GOP Encourages Communication With Dems; Churns Phony Opposition to Healthcare

It seems lately that with every fiber of its being the Republican Party stays on one message: No.

Whatever President Obama wants, don't give him. No matter what. No matter how much he agrees with us.

And now they've wed their "Go with No" mantra with a nice slice of "divide and conquer" by targeting Indiana Democrats in conservative districts.

Via blast email from the Indiana GOP, entitled "Alert: Help Stop Democrats Healthcare Reform!" -

Last summer, you helped us generate thousands of phone calls and e-mails into the offices of Reps. Brad Ellsworth, Baron Hill and Joe Donnelly regarding the health care legislation that Democrats in Washington are trying to force on the American public. Once again, we need your help in this effort.

Since last summer, Reps. Ellsworth, Hill and Donnelly voted for the House version of the bill after months of pretending to have the same concerns as Hoosiers: How much will it cost? Will you get to keep your doctor? Will premiums go up? Will quality of care go down? Months later, we still don't have definitive answers to those questions and the Senate passed an even more egregious bill.

Now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is talking about passing that same Senate bill through the House. We must encourage Reps. Ellsworth, Hill and Donnelly to stand with Hoosiers and oppose a government takeover of health care. They already ignored our concerns once, but with a renewed effort and a worse piece of legislation, we might convince them to oppose their own party's bad idea!

Please contact these Congressmen today and tell them that Hoosiers won't stand to have this legislation thrust upon us.

If you want healthcare reform, Democrats, you better get to work offsetting this Republican-orchestrated astroturf opposition. Contact Baron, Brad, and Joe.

While it's masterful political strategy to call this a "government takeover" of healthcare given how people hate the word "government," it's intellectually dishonest.

Under no Democratic plan will the government own hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, or medical device manufacturers or employ a single medical provider. What the government will do is cut checks and negotiate rates, just like with Medicare.

How many elected Republicans have called Medicare a "government takeover" or asked that it be dismantled? Not one. In fact, when Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) proposed a budget that talked about even cutting Medicare benefits, House Minority Leader John Boehner and his colleagues ran away from it, though when pressed Boehner couldn't name a single substantive disagreement he had with that budget.

There are robust discussions to be had on healthcare. Most Americans do favor market-based solutions. The problem is that "the market" has almost never delivered solutions Americans want in healthcare.

Has the market done away with prohibitions on pre-existing conditions? No.

Has the market kept premiums down? No.

Has the market kept healthcare costs down? No.

Did the market create portability in coverage? No.

Did the market ensure that medical decisions were made by doctors and not HMOs? No. (This is why "the government" tried to pass the Bi-Partisan Patient Protection Act).

Some may contend that the problem has been "the market" is artificially restricted because you can't sale insurance across state lines. That's an excellent point. But each state has a Department of Insurance that heavily regulates insurance products sold within its boundaries. If companies sell across state lines, who ensures that companies in Ohio haven't denied claims arbitrarily for customers in New York? Who ensures that all plans sold comply with minimum terms that even Republicans would claim they want? Who ensures comparable pricing structures so people can make informed comparisons? It will have to be some entity with federal authority, won't it?

Another Republican Party disconnect is on the notion of forcing people to buy insurance. Oh, the horror! But isn't that precisely what forty-seven states, including Indiana, require before you can operate an automobile? If you drive without insurance, you get a suspended license; drive with a suspended license, go to jail. Why aren't Republicans talking about dismantling these laws in 47 states?

Because many Republicans right now aren't serious about dismantling anything except the Obama administration.

Here's the truth about insurance. The more people in a pool who don't file claims or really even need the insurance, the cheaper it is for everybody. In other words, there has always been and always will be a subsidy from good case to bad case.

A healthy person might want to play the "healthcare lotto." I know because did. I was self-employed, young, single, and healthy, and I could get coverage for $258 a month. Instead, I opted out and spent my money having nice dinners with friends. Fortunately for me, the gamble paid off. But I was precisely the person Wellpoint points to as the cause of its 39% premium increase in California. When you let healthy people (or good drivers) walk away, there are fewer payors to subsidize the remaining people in the pool, and the irony is, the more the premiums go up, the more people will walk away, if they can.

This is how you know the GOP is not serious about eliminating pre-existing conditions. As soon as insurance companies can't "cherry pick" (i.e., offering coverage only to the healthiest people least likely to ever file a claim), premiums will go up unless you ensure that people can't leave the "national" pool. You might let them go from one company to another, but they can't walk away completely, or the premium cost containtment breaks down.

And this setup is precisely what Medicare is, except you have to think of senior citizens as the ones with the "pre-existing" condition of old age. They pay less in "premiums" than they'll use in claims, which is why the system has to be subsidized by healthy people. And guess what? Medicare pays less for services than private insurance. Why? Because it's "government" at the switch negotiating rates, not thousands of smaller insurance companies with less bargaining power.

Republicans also claim they want to empower consumers by advertising prices for services just like at Jiffy Lube. This is a talking point with common sense appeal. But has "the market" made anybody list prices? No. As it stands, there is no website or pricing sheet I can get at a hospital to show me what a tonsillectomy runs. So who is going to compel price listings if not "government?"

Of course, I need to be able to compare apples to apples, or competition doesn't work. But how do I compare the value of an appendectomy? Republicans say they want performance measures for healthcare providers advertised. But to compare appendectomies to appendectomies, we'd need uniform criteria and data collection methods. Has the market developed that to date? No.

What if hospitals fudged their numbers? Would the market impose a penalty on them? Of course not. "The market" wouldn't even know. Detecting wrongdoing by insurance companies, doctgors, and hospitals and penalizing it is what "government" does. (Lawsuits can serve this purpose as well, but Republicans do everything they can to limit those and the resulting damages).

But at the end of the day, all you need to remember is that sixteen years have passed since the Republicans killed the last effort to reform healthcare, and the House Republicans plan will increase coverage by only three million people. Has "the market" gotten thirty-six million Americans coverage they don't have now? No.

In short, when more Republicans get real on what America needs to get healthy, I'm in the market to listen.

GOP Encourages Communication With Dems; Churns Phony Opposition to Healthcare

Ellsworth Goes Official; Williams Onslaught Locally?

Brad Ellsworth is officially a candidate for United States Senate, reports Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star.

The other news of the day is that the filing deadline ended at noon, and word circulating around the election board is that the Brian Williams for Mayor campaign has delivered close to 200 declarations of candidacy for precinct committee person. (I am still trying to confirm the numbers).

This matters because every person elected in May as a PC will cast a vote in next year's mayoral slating. While having a Williams supporter on the ballot does not guarantee a May victory, every Williams supporter elected as a PC gets to pick his or her vice-PC, who also gets a vote, so it's a two-for-one effect.

Before today, the Marion County Clerk's Office listed 813 candidacies for county offices, precinct committee person, and state convention delegate.

The level of activity this year has been pretty amazing, it's been driven by not only the mayoral campaigns, but by Democratic affinity groups, such as Organizing for America, to get as many of PCs who are proponents of their views elected as possible.

While we should expect some ruffled feathers among elected officials or long-time party folks who are upset about being challenged for PC roles, we'll be stronger for it because people who want this will have to start connecting in their neighborhoods earlier than they might without the competition. Anything that makes you sharper sooner is for the good of the party, so we should not complain.

(Excuse me, but I need to go finish my first campaign letter for PC since I have an opponent now. Grrr!)

Stay tuned....

Ellsworth Goes Official; Williams Onslaught Locally?

Will Democrats Forget to Carry the One on Ellsworth Political Calculus?

Jon Easter has a terrific post on the discussion of Brad Ellsworth among Marion County Ward Chairs and Vice Chairs, and it's not pretty.

But here's the agonizing aspect of not being able to get everything you want in politics.

For independent voters (gobs of whom Democrats will need to win to keep Evan Bayh's seat in a GOP-leaning state), Ellsworth is the closest thing to a rock star the party has. His pedigree is perfectly suited to deflect the traditional Republican attacks: soft on crime, gun swiping, fiscally irresponsible, anti-family (whatever that means), socialist, and ultra-liberal.

Ellsworth comes from law enforcement, all of his votes has been "pro" anti-terrorism, pro war funding, against raising the debt ceiling, for "pay-as-you go," and on the "gag" issues for most politicians - guns, abortion, and gays - he's followed the GOP (and his district's) lead, not his party's.

Ellsworth is labor-friendly though. He voted for 14 of 17 AFL-CIO items in 2009, which was the same as Baron Hill and Joe Donnelly. (Only the legally-beleaguered Peter Visclosky and the labor stalwart Andre Carson did better).

Look at statewide Democrat losses, such as Joe Kernan's, and you'll see that few can muster the votes Frank O'Bannon and Evan Bayh put up down there. The key to victory among independents is to ensure that they stay focused on household economics, not the "gag" issues. In my mind, that really leaves only two candidates: Ellsworth and Baron Hill.

Hill is better on choice. He voted with Planned Parenthood 71% to Ellsworth's 0% in 2008. Hill is better on immigration. He only got 54% from the Federation for American Immigration Reform to Ellsworth's 100%. Hill is marginally better on GLBTG issues, and he's more willing to meet with state GLBTG leaders. Hill got a 50% rating in 2007-2008 from the Human Rights Campaign; Ellsworth got a 30%. But Ellsworth is marginally better on labor with a lifetime AFL-CIO record of 87% to Hill's 78%. (Of course, this is a tricky metric itself because Hill is stronger for some unions than Ellsworth and vice versa).

But Ellsworth hasn't done but anything politically ill-advised like get caught in Youtube video that became a sensation in an age of silly gotcha politics. Also, when the GOP runs their inevitable "Democrat morphs into Obama" ad, it'll be easier to make it stick with Hill, who used his superdelegate vote to courageously endorse Obama early on.

In short, independent battle? Leans Strongly Ellsworth.

But it's not enough to win the independents if you can't get your own people energized enought to get out the vote. Base battle? Unanimous decision for Hill.

But what if the choice isn't really having Ellsworth or Hill, but rather, Ellsworth as the only electable candidate versus...gulp...Dan Coats or John Hostettler? That's a terrifying prospect that could make anybody double-check the math.

Indiana Democratic Party, please tell me you're polling Hoosiers as I write this.

Will Democrats Forget to Carry the One on Ellsworth Political Calculus?

Ellsworth has Hell's Worth of Nightmare Votes to Explain to Democratic Party

Bil Browning with The Bilerico Project has an excellent Huffington Post entry on 8th District Congressman Brad Ellsworth's less than stellar record on human rights.

But the GLBTG community probably isn't alone in experiencing that sinking feeling in their gut.

Ellsworth received 0 ratings from Planned Parenthood in 2008 and 0 from the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) in 2007. On his healthcare vote, Ellsworth issued the following statement:

"As I considered the proposal, I weighed it against my 6 key principles of reform: First, the bill must prevent federal tax dollars from funding abortions. Together with pro-life Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Joseph Pitts (R-PA) and other pro-life members and organizations, I fought to ensure federal funds are not used to provide abortions. Our amendment has the support of the National Right to Life Committee, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and other pro-life organizations, and its passage ensures federal tax dollars will not be used to pay for abortions."

In 2007-2008, Ellsworth got "A" grades from English First and the Federation for American Immigration Reform. I doubt Indiana's newly-formed Latino Democratic Caucus can be too thrilled.

Brad Ellsworth seems tailor-made to placate ultra-conservative independents and soft Republicans in Southern Indiana. But he's got to get selected by his own party first.

Ellsworth has Hell's Worth of Nightmare Votes to Explain to Democratic Party

Let the Bayh Intrigue Begin

The Democratic Party family have displayed all of the five phases of grief today following Evan Bayh's official announcement of resignation, but I'm going to focus on two:

ANGER

A recurring theme is that the Senator left the party hanging because there is no time to get the necessary signatures to qualify a candidate for the primary ballot. But this doesn't mean the Democrats won't have a candidate. It just means that the state central committee picks that candidate. In that respect, the timing is absolutely beneficial because it ensures there won't be a costly, divisive primary like the one that demolished the party in the 2008 gubernatorial election.

In addition, by waiting until the last minute, Bayh bluffed his strongest opponent, Mike Pence, out of the field. Now Pence won't be able to able to run unless the other GOP contenders step aside for him. Does anybody see that happening?

In short, if Senator Bayh was going to go, he did it in the best way to do it.

People are also angry about the money hole Bayh seemingly put us in. Whoever steps up won't have Bayh's 13 million or six years to raise it, and Bayh can't just hand it over. All Bayh can give his successor is $4,000 ($2,000 for the primary and $2,000 for the general). Bayh can transfer an unlimited amount to the DNC and DSCC, but all they could give back to his successor is $42,600 per election.

This leaves the option of transfers to "other party committees," which can give $5,000 per election. In short, if Evan Bayh is committed to saving his party, expect the most massive cash flush in Indiana history. Senator Bayh can send money to tons of federal candidates and party committees with the hope that all these dollars will find their way back to his successor in a money swap, hopefully, without too much of a "processing fee." In other words, Bayh's successor will be in the millions in short order if Bayh likes him/her.

The second dominant emotion of the day? Disbelief.

Nobody is buying the "excessively partisan" rationale for Bayh's retirement, but this may be because it came out of the blue for most of us, and nobody can figure out what happened in the past twenty-four hours that made D.C. suddenly intolerably partisan. Senator Bayh was in D.C. in 1994 during the "contract on America" and during Clinton's impeachment, and he knew last year how committed the GOP is to demolishing everything Obama. Moreover, if Republicans refused to support a bi-partisan deficit reduction commission they once championed because Obama said yes, this is how you pay them back? By taking away bi-partisanship's best voice in the senate?

But these are all secondary considerations now for a party in search of a candidate. There are a slew of names circulating: Woody Myers, Baron Hill, Jonathan Weinzapfel, Joe Hogsett, Jim Schellinger, Bart Peterson, and Brad Ellsworth, Joe Kernan, and Kathy Davis. For my money, Ellsworth makes the most sense. He has a strong law enforcement background and southern support, which would make him formidable, a la Frank O'Bannon. The problem is that we'd hand over a sure thing in the 8th, so this is a dicey prospect given the House of Representatives might be in jeopardy.

But perhaps the most intriguing question of the day is this: when Evan Bayh said he's "an executive at heart" and gave an extended defense of his life's work, did anyone wonder if he was looking at coming home to be governor in 2012? Why would a man riding off into the sunset feel the need to recount his accomplishments?

It's getting interesting.

Let the Bayh Intrigue Begin

George Bush: The Great Avenger?

Man, this is going to be painful. But I'm trying to give respect where it's due.

Few people remember that former Indiana Congressman John Hostettler (R), who was defeated last election cycle by Brad Ellsworth (D) in Indiana's 8th District, was one of six Republicans who voted in 2002 against the original authorization for the Iraq War. In a flag-waving district, that was a courageous stand on principle and a vote that many Democrats now wish they had made.

Also, you have to tip your hat, even if grudgingly, to somebody who has a chance to score easy political points but doesn't because of his philosophy. In 2004, Hostettler introduced the Marriage Protection Act, which defined marriage federally as between a man and woman. But when the constitutional amendment was proposed in 2006, Hostettler said no because he does not believe the constitution should be amended easily. That's a principled man.

Of course, it bears mentioning that being "principled" is no compliment if the principles are terrifying, such as a tunnel-vision effort to inject one's personal theology into the public sphere.

Hostettler's greatest hits?

- The original MPA sponsorship

- Repealing D.C.'s extension of health coverage to employees' domestic partners

- Defeating abortion under any circumstance. This single-mindedness prompted Hostettler to adopt the belief that abortions cause cancer, which he astonishingly chose to share with some cancer survivors who came to his D.C. Congressional office. (That's kind of like hosting a group of blind kids and telling them they shouldn't have masturbated so much).

- Sponsoring legislation to deny the ACLU attorney's fees awards when they succeed in enforcing the 1st Amendment

- An effort to make Alexander Hamilton roll over in his grave by stripping the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals of its budget after it removed the 10 Comandments from a courthouse in Alabama. Hamilton, in Federalist 78 states: "The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution."

- Trying to repeal the portion of the IRS code that says religious groups and churches CAN'T engage in political activity without losing their tax-exempt status

Apparently, not happy with this level of notoriety, Hostettler authored a book, Nothing for the Nation: Who Got What Out of Iraq, which is shocking.

I haven't read it, but Hostettler apparently argues that we went to war in Iraq for two reasons.

First, President George W. Bush wanted to avenge a 1993 assassination attempt on his father by the Iraqi Intelligence Service. (I first heard this contention from Chris Rock in his comedy special, Never Scared, and my reaction was, "DUH!")

Second, we charged to war because a cabal of influential Jewish-Americans wanted us to take Saddam out to secure Israel's safety. Because of historical persecution of Jews and its offshooting conspiracy theories about media control by the Jews, many discussions about Israel have become taboo. This is another area where people fear facts, as I stated in a prior post.

Do I think Jews led to the war in Iraq? Absolutely not. I vote for war profiteering and the allure of low hanging fruit. I honestly think Bush's thought was, "If my daddy could smoke them easily in 1991, why can't I do it in 2002?"

But I'm honest enough to say that our support of Israel puts us at odds with quite a few countries. This is a fact. You know how we know? Because all of these countries tell us explicitly they are mad about our support for Israel.

Why are we so afraid to say that? Here. It's easy. Our support of Israel makes us hated! Wheee! Look at me! Now you try. See how easy that is.

And here's the thing. SAYING that our support makes our lives tougher doesn't mean you don't get to ask questions like, "Shouldn't we support the only democracy in the Middle East, even if it's tough?" "Shouldn't we be loyal to them because they've been loyal to us?" Or "Even if we quit supporting Israel, won't these other countries still be angry at us for other reasons, meaning we'd could 'Et Tu Brutus' Israel for no real geopolitical gain?!?"

And agreeing that some Jews in America clearly influence our foreign policy in the Middle East doesn't keep you from asking whether the Congressional Black Caucus influences how we treat Africa, or whether the Kennedys and other Boston pols have influenced policy regarding Ireland. I even heard "a rumor" about Cuban-Americans influencing our policy on Cuba.

(Actually, what I heard from a colleague who served as a field operative of a now defunct presidential campaign, was that Florida's electoral votes are being held hostage by a rabid anti-Castro enclave who will only give us back the part of Florida they turned into their personal Cuba when America gives them the REAL Cuba back. And until then, we can expect an unrelenting wave of rhumba and samba dancing).

I say this somewhat facetiously, but if we are all Americans first, which is what we all claim, NOBODY, regardless of what country you came from, should advocate anything that does not clearly advantage America first. Being an America first means you have to write your grandmother in the home country and tell her she's hosed because we need to build some roads in Sheboygan, Wisconsin before we can send humanitarian relief, or we need cheap gas for our SUVs, and we don't want to upset the delicate diplomatic balance we've struck with an oil-producing nation-state.

Seriously, if you are going to wring your hands over "influences" in America, don't single out the Jews just because Spielberg has more money to throw around. What about John Zogby, the famed pollster and head of the Arab-American Institute?!?! Maybe he uses his polling data for nefarious, anti-Israeli purposes!?!)

Please. There are no "conspiracies" here. Many Jews strongly support Israel. They write letters, they vote, and they contribute to elected officials to achieve that goal. And so do a lot of other ethnic and religious groups, including Christians from the 8th District. This is part of the American experiment called democracy. If you don't like it, organize, write letters, and contribute in opposition to the position or person that irks you. It often works, which is why John Hostettler is a "former" member of Congress. But don't act like it's some "secret conspiracy" when you can find all the evidence on-line at the Federal Election Commission.

Oh, I almost forgot. The “shocking news” part of the Hostettler book is that I didn't know until I heard about this book that he's literate.

George Bush: The Great Avenger?