What the Republicans are thinking...

From Hunt For Red October
Captain Ramius: [in Russian] You speak Russian.
Jack Ryan: [in Russian] A little. It is wise to study the ways of ones adversary. Don't you think?
Captain Ramius: [in English] It is.

So... I like to visit the Republican sites... of them being FreeRepublic.com. Here's a nugget from their site regarding Sen Bayh's prospective candidacy...

---

This guy is what Democrats used to be like and should be like.

He could win the White House, if he gets the Dem. nomination.
---
If Bayh runs, he wins. Repubs are going to have a tough time keeping the presidency.

Bayh will take my state (Indiana) easily. The swing voters in the other states will pick him because he's handsome and friendly, and that's what the swing voters like.

The only way the pubs win is if the dems run a far lefty who can't disguise his or her far lefty-ness.
---
If Bayh gets the nomination he will win the Election by winning Indiana, Ohio and all the existing Blue States.
---
Hillary is 2008's Howard Dean. She'll charm the Democratic base, get all kinds of internet cash, but Bayh will trounce her in Iowa. The Dems are very, very tired of losing and they will not nominate another northeast liberal.
---
It would not be that big but he would run the Table in the Midwest and the GOP would not have a chance in IN, MI, WI, OH and WV each of which have been at least in play.
---
I don't think it'd be Reaganesque (that would probably come with Bayh's 2012 reelection) but I do think he'd sweep the Midwest and Southwest, obviously on top of the Northeast/Pacific liberal bastions, and he'd even cut into the South (AR, LA, FL and maybe VA, NC, TN).
---
Bayh would trounce Romney or especially Frist, IMHO. He would beat Jeb (who isn't running anyhow) and surely beat Condi and Cheney I think. I'm not so sure about Sen. Allen. I think Allen v Bayh would be another tight one. McCain would beat Bayh I think, but I dunno if he can get the nomination or who'd be worse for that matter. LOL
---
I can't decide who has a better chance of winning, Bayh or Clinton. The media much prefers Clinton, which may inflate her apparent ability to win. Bayh represents the direction that the Democrat party should turn in order to remain in existence, but Bayh has less name recognition. Clinton has the edge for now, but I wouldn't rule out Bayh.

Brazen Piracy by Sen Evan Bayh

Brazen Piracy

Intellectual property theft by foreign companies is hurting the U.S. economy and undermining crucial support for global trade.

By Evan Bayh

A South Bend, Ind., company that makes industrial adhesives and lubricants, ABRO Industries Inc., lost more than $10 million in business to a Chinese competitor in 2004. When the final tally is in for 2005, the company expects to see even greater losses.

The problem is not that ABRO doesn't work as hard as its competitor, or that it isn't as innovative. The problem is that the Chinese company, Hunan Magic Power Industrial Co., steals ABRO's ideas and sells knock-off products in virtually identical packaging with little threat of punishment. Repeated attempts to stop the Chinese company through trade complaints have proven fruitless.

Unfortunately, ABRO's story is not unique. Across the country, American businesses are losing work and American workers are losing jobs because of intellectual property theft by foreign companies. This brazen piracy hurts our economy, threatens our public health and safety, and increasingly weakens our national security, but little is being done to stop it.

The idea that through hard work, ingenuity, and persistence, every American has an opportunity to get ahead is at the heart of the American promise. But when we allow foreign countries to steal our ideas at the cost of American jobs, that opportunity to succeed disappears, too.

In my travels across the country, I've sensed a growing anxiety about the future and a deep concern about the loss of this promise. As our capacity to innovate increasingly determines our competitive position in the global economy, the risk of intellectual property theft will continue to grow.

The American people have a right to expect their government to do something about that. We must address the issue of intellectual property theft to reassure the American people about the future and to restore the promise of America.

If we can stem the flow of counterfeit goods, we can make a material contribution toward correcting our budget deficit and our current trade imbalance, strengthening our national security, and protecting American jobs.

Intellectual property theft is costing American jobs and undermining crucial support for global trade. Statistics show that the United States has lost 750,000 jobs because of intellectual property theft; the FBI estimates that it costs American businesses between $200 billion and $250 billion per year. The global trading system isn't going to work very well if we buy from other countries when they have a competitive advantage, but they simply steal our ideas and hard work when we have a competitive advantage.

Intellectual property theft also threatens our public health and safety. The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that more than 500,000 parts installed on airplanes each year are counterfeit. Counterfeit drugs make up 10 percent of the pharmaceutical market, endangering thousands of patients who depend on sensitive doses of medication to maintain their health. Recently, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in San Francisco seized 51 shipments of counterfeit Tamiflu pills. Lab tests revealed that the counterfeit drugs contained only trace amounts of the active ingredients for Tamiflu, the drug that may help fight outbreaks of avian flu.

The fight for America's economic future is also a fight against global terrorism and terrorist financing. There is alarming evidence that al Qaeda, Hamas, and other regional terrorist organizations are deriving an increasing part of their financing from intellectual property theft and counterfeiting. According to U.S. News and World Report, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was partially financed through the sale of counterfeit goods, particularly fake Nike T-shirts sold by a store on Broadway in New York City. Interpol has reported that seized al Qaeda training manuals are recommending the sale of fake goods as a revenue source for the organization's illegal activities.

The Bush administration's strategy for combating intellectual property theft has produced few results and offers little encouragement for cooperation among agencies in charge of intellectual property investigations. Most importantly, the current initiative doesn't include key agencies that could help us combat the threat that intellectual property theft poses to our national security.

To treat this threat with the urgency it deserves, I have introduced legislation with Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) that will aggressively fight the intellectual property theft that hurts American businesses and costs American jobs.

First, our legislation calls on the federal government to create a coordinated response to intellectual property theft. Essentially, we're going to give this the same priority and determination that we have already brought to the battle against money laundering and terrorist financing. We will create one organized task force to coordinate activities to stamp out intellectual property theft by the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, and Treasury, with the leader of the task force working in the White House to ensure that this problem gets the attention it deserves. We will add Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence to the task force, in recognition of the danger intellectual property theft poses to our national security.

We will also bring that same focus and determination to our global efforts. Under our legislation, the United States will be charged with taking the lead in bringing the world community together to fight global intellectual property theft, in the same way we already fight money laundering. Finally, we are going to require an annual report to Congress, with updates on the progress of this coordinated effort.

From terrorism to lost jobs, intellectual property theft affects Americans in almost every aspect of their lives. It's not often that in a single step you can help strengthen the U.S. economy, protect Americans' health and physical safety, and dry up terrorist financing. But the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Act would do exactly that. Globalization and trade can be good things. They offer new economic opportunities for American businesses and workers. But no country should be allowed to compete with an unfair advantage. The Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Act will help restore a level playing field and renew the promise of America.

Evan Bayh is U.S. senator from Indiana.

Sen Bayh takes a leadership role in the Ports Sale Debate

As usual Sen Bayh has stepped up and taken a leadership role in the Ports Sale debate...

"We have to stop outsourcing our homeland security," Bayh, D-Ind., said in a statement issued by his office.

"The Dubai takeover is a symptom of a much larger problem. Again and again, the current system for overseeing foreign takeovers has undermined our national security interests by rubber stamping deals like this one."

Bayh's release said his legislation would ensure that "national security takes priority in all future business deals, whether they involve port security or any other homeland security concern."

The senator's proposal would require the Director of National Intelligence, rather than the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), to approve sales.

A 2005 Government Accountability Office report requested by Bayh and two other senators found that CFIUS uses such a narrow definition of national security that it approves too many questionable takeovers without sufficient review, Bayh's office reported.

Political Derby Update

Political Derby is a fun little website that shows how candidates are doing in the 2008 election... here's their latest update...

1 Hillary Clinton - Previous Ranking - 1, 2 and 3
For the first time since the rankings debuted, Hillary has horses in her rear view mirror. She's let her tongue out of the cage lately and it's punished her with a few significant faux paus. Nevertheless, she can still walk down any street in any major American metropolis and democrats practically throw their wallets at her. We still predict about the only thing that could derail her would be a former lover coming out on Larry King with details of a scandalous affair.

2 Mark Warner - Previous Ranking - 4
Warner has become the "it" guy on the PAC circuit and is generating more buzz than Bode Miller at a pre-race kegger. Though he's still an unknown across most of the country, the self-made gazillionaire won't have problems buying his way onto the backstretch of the 2008 race. But will four short years as Virginia governor and a career in cell phones ignite the base? Just imagine the campaign rallies, "Can you hear me now? Gooood."

3 Evan Bayh - Previous Ranking - 5
There may not be a more popular member of the Senate. His approval ratings are so astronomical they make even the Pope envious. If he can remind voters he was a successful two-term governor before joining the Congressional morgue, Bayh has a legit shot to challenge Warner as the anti-Hillary candidate.

4 John Kerry - Previous Ranking - 6
Though he continues to boast a remarkably loyal following and his volunteer network remains strong, it's almost impossible to imagine democrats giving the Frenchman another shot at the brass ring. Besides, will voters put someone with "hoof in mouth" disease in the White House?

5 John Edwards - Previous Ranking - 7
The younger half of Team Kedwards appears to be biting at the bit and rearing to go. Insiders say he may have learned more in 2004 than originally thought. He's courting unions 'round the clock and is uniting with Lethal Weapon's Danny Glover to protest low worker wages for trial attorneys.

6 Bill Richardson - Previous Ranking - 9
You would think that a governor having his "least productive [legislative] session ever" would be having a harder time gaining momentum. But Richardson has managed to turn his legislative defeats into political capital by championing tried and true party issues such as healthcare and minimum wage. Could his record on the issues save him from his record on his resume?

7 Tom Vilsack - Previous Ranking - 8
Who can argue against a guy fighting for the common man? Although Rocky Balboa he ain't, this Governor has run up the capital's steps calling for an end to all that threatens "working families." Although his policies are about as well understood as the Italian Stallion after a face full of Russian knuckle, he seems to be gaining some momentum.

8 Wes Clark - Previous Ranking - Unranked
Teaming up with Verizon and T- Mobile may not seem like the most typical political maneuver, but with the spotlight on privacy this ex-general has skillfully maneuvered his career with the finesse that would make Sun-Tzu proud. Clark is also butting in on Hillary's territory by staking out a stance on Iraq that criticizes the war without being defeatist.

9 Joe Biden - Previous Ranking - 10
Gotta love Joe; he has no problem speaking his mind. He has already acknowledged Hillary as the one to beat and is formulating a strategy to do just that. Given his popularity in the media, if a hearing about domestic eaves dropping does occur, expect to see the world tour of the Biden Talking Head.

10 Tom Daschle - Previous Ranking - Unranked
Being an ousted party leader tends to dent one's political ambitions. But apparently that won't keep this former Senate leader from giving a go at the White House. For now his only constituency seems to be media outlets who couldn't wrangle their first, second or seventeeth choices. In the end, democrats may have higher expectations than a more genial Oliver Twist pleading "please sir, I want some more."

Others receiving votes:

Howard Dean - something's wrong; it's been too long since he said something wacky

Russ Feingold - starting to dance with Ms. Momentum, but still a national unknown

Dianne Feinstein - could enough democrats decide she's a better choice to top the ticket than HRC?

Al Gore - even if global warming became a key issue, Gore wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell

Barak Obama - not ready for the top of the ticket, but a "stay out of the way" strategy could make him an attractive #2

Sen Bayh on FoxNews Sunday

Sen Bayh spent the morning on FoxNews Sunday with Chris Wallace... here are some excerpts...

Sen Bayh on the Cheney Hunting Incident:

Video of U.S. REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., MINORITY LEADER: This is yet again another manifestation of the arrogance of power of the White House. They don't come clean with the American people, or they think they're above the law and above accountability to the American people.

WALLACE: Senator Bayh, above the law, arrogance of power — isn't that the kind of talk that makes Democrats look silly?

BAYH: Well, Chris, this was mostly a personal tragedy. This man got shot, was in the hospital, had a heart attack. I think more than anything, it goes to show how out of touch Washington is with the rest of the country.

We've got deep problems in this country — economic, national security, financial — and I think most folks understand this for what it was, a hunting accident. Now we ought to get on with the business of addressing the major problems that face the country.

WALLACE: So you think that the House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is out of touch?

BAYH: Well, I would have a respectful difference of opinion on the magnitude of this issue. And to get to your question, look, should the information have been disclosed quicker? Yes, no question about it. Should they be more forthcoming? Yes.

But I think we need to pivot, then, and address the major issues, not make a mountain out of a molehill. When we do that, I think we run the risk of damaging our own credibility with mainstream America.

Sen Bayh on Security:

WALLACE: Senator Bayh, you said recently that Democrats shouldn't be afraid of talking about national security, shouldn't be scared off by Republicans. But you acknowledge that since Vietnam — and let's put it up on the screen — Democrats have been viewed by the American people as congenitally weak, too soft to be entrusted with our national security, as concerned with protecting Americans from our own government as from suicidal terrorists.

When Democrats disagree with the president about the NSA wiretaps, about the Patriot Act, about the conduct of the war in Iraq, shouldn't voters continue to see them as too weak and too soft?

BAYH: No, Chris, I don't think so. And the perception is one that is inaccurate. But if it's a perception that most Americans perceive, it's one we've got to address. So, look, we can go down these issues that you've mentioned one at a time. We need to do what it takes to listen to Al Qaeda operatives, to know where they're calling from, to protect this country, period.

But there's no reason why we can't do that — and Senator Graham would agree with me on this — while also providing the American people some checks and balances to ensure that our civil liberties are being protected. It's a false choice.

If we only choose one as Democrats, not the other, then we run into trouble. The gist of my speech, as you know, was we've had an administration that's been tough for five years, but tough alone isn't enough. We need to be tough and smart. Too often we Democrats are viewed as being weak. We need to be both tough and smart.

WALLACE: But, Senator Bayh, I just — I mean, you, obviously, as an individual senator can take any position you want, but the fact is that your Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, said at a news conference we've got the tape, we killed the Patriot Act.

It was Nancy Pelosi who talked about getting out of Iraq. I mean, this isn't image or spin. These are positions taken by the leaders of your congressional party.

BAYH: Well, we're about to reauthorize the Patriot Act. There was an attempt to filibuster it this week. It was defeated. I think only three votes supported that. So the vast majority of Democrats, Chris, are in favor of protecting this country.

We know that it is a dangerous world. We know that sometimes you have to use force to protect this country. But we need to do it in a way that is both tough and smart. You have to do both to truly provide for our nation's security.

And the irony of all this is, Chris, this administration has done so much to actually undermine our nation's security, whether it's Iraq, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, energy dependence, on and on and on.

Our problem, Chris, is that we want to, you know, hide from this issue. We want to try to change the subject. We have got to take it head on and reassure the American people that we have what it takes in a dangerous world to protect this nation.

Sen Bayh on the NSA Wiretapping and Congressional Oversight:

WALLACE: Senator Bayh, how do you feel about congressional oversight? How do you feel about court oversight? And do you think the White House will go along with it?

BAYH: It's nice to have some bipartisan agreement on your show here this morning, Chris. Look, we need to do what it takes to protect this country, period. There have been some technological changes that have taken place over the last 30 years that means that we need to go about that a little bit different way, and this program is doing that.

But at the same time, I've seen no reason, as Lindsey pointed out, that we can't do what it takes to protect America while also safeguarding our civil liberties. If there are some practical problems, the administration needs to come to us and tell us what they are so we can work with them to address those.

But it is in the administration's best interest to ensure there is some neutral party overseeing this to make sure that it's done right. Otherwise, you're going to have a number of Americans out there who incorrectly think that J. Edgar Hoover has been brought back to life and that there could be abuses taking place. And we don't want people to have to think that.

Sen Bayh on the Sale of US Port Operations to a company from the UAE:

WALLACE: Let me ask you both about another program that just really sort of bubbled up to the surface this week. The Bush administration has just approved a company from the United Arab Emirates called Dubai Ports World buying and taking over some of the operations, as you can see there on the screen, of six of America's biggest ports.

Some of your colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, say that this is potentially a serious security breach.

Senator Bayh, should this sale be blocked?

BAYH: I think we've got to look into this company, Chris. I think we've got to ensure ourselves that the American people's national security interests are going to be protected. And frankly, I think the threshold ought to be a little higher for a foreign firm. There can't be a choice between profits and protecting the American people.

We have to do, even if it costs us a couple extra bucks, what it takes to protect this country. I'll give you one little example. About 80 percent of the magnets that make our smart bombs go are now made in China. It's not smart to rely on China to produce important weapons systems for this country, just like it's not smart to outsource our port security if there's any doubt.

So, look. We have to do what it takes to protect America. When in doubt, if it costs us a little more money, well, that's the price of freedom.

WALLACE: Would you like to see a congressional investigation of this?

BAYH: I think we need to look into it to reassure ourselves, yes.

Finally the obligatory Sen Bayh on the 2008 election:

WALLACE: Senator Bayh, one last area I want to get into with you. It's no secret that you are actively considering a run for president in 2008. Last year, a senator from Indiana, you visited 22 states. By the end of the year, you had about $10 million in hand.

But let's take a look at the polls, if we can. According to the Cook Political Report, in a Democratic horse race, Senator Clinton, as you can see there, is way ahead. Senator Kerry is next. And you're back — here you come — in eighth place at 3 percent. With all due respect, sir, why isn't this a waste of your time and money?

BAYH: Chris, I care about the future of our country more than I do the polls. And I'm deeply concerned about the direction in which we're going, and I'm deeply concerned that this city that we're in today, Washington, D.C., is broken and rather than being an instrument for addressing our challenges has become an obstacle.

So I'm thinking about what role I might play in doing something about all of that. And it involves something more important than reading public opinion polls. You know, you do what you think is right. The politics tends to take care of itself.

WALLACE: Senator, one last question in this regard. You talked about the fact that Democrats, fairly or not, are viewed as soft.

BAYH: You'll give me credit for managing expectations well, Chris?

WALLACE: Yes. Yes. I would agree that nobody is overestimated at this point.

You talk about the fact that Democrats are viewed as being soft on national security. Given people's perceptions of her, fair or not, wouldn't be it a hard sell for the frontrunner in those polls that we just saw, Hillary Clinton, to persuade people that she can be tough on national security?

BAYH: Oh, I don't think so. If you're referring to her agenda, Chris, I think that's irrelevant.

WALLACE: I wasn't referring to her agenda.

BAYH: Well, OK. No, look. This is a general perception for our party. It is an inaccurate one. It's one that we need to take on. It is a threshold issue for a future commander in chief. Can we be tough enough and smart enough to protect this country?

Anyone who's going to be the nominee of our party and the president of the United States needs to meet that threshold first.

After Sen Bayh and Sen Graham were on, Fmr Sen Alan Simpson came on and added this postscript:

SIMPSON: I just want to tell — let me just say, it was very interesting hearing Lindsey and Evan Bayh. Evan Bayh won't be in eighth place when the race narrows up. That's a very splendid man, and I served with his dad. Enough of that. And I know Lindsey, too. Go ahead. Shoot the works.

The Many Travels of Evan Bayh

Sunny Florida is a source for funds

With Congress in recess this week, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., has plenty of time to continue raising money and support for his potential 2008 presidential race.

Bayh heads to Florida on Sunday for a dinner hosted for him by attorney Mitchell Berger, a longtime Democratic donor and fundraiser.

Berger was a top fundraiser for Vice President Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign and worked on Gore's Florida recount effort. Berger raised money for the 2004 presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., after first supporting Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., in the primary.

After Florida, Bayh heads to Los Angeles on Monday and will be there through Friday morning for more meetings with potential supporters.

Campaign contributions generated either during the trip or in the future will go into Bayh's Senate campaign fund or his political action committee. The Senate funds can be rolled over into a presidential campaign if Bayh decides to run. The PAC money helps him travel the country and build a potential campaign team while deciding.

The team recently got a little larger. Bayh's PAC has hired Chris Hayler as a regional political director. Hayler, who worked on Kerry's Iowa campaign staff, helped set up Bayh's trip to Iowa last weekend.

Bayh's PAC has five full-time and three part-time employees though has not yet replaced Steve Bouchard, the New Hampshire native who was the PAC's executive director last year.

Bayh's Iowa trip was his third in the past year, and he has a third trip to New Hampshire planned for March 26-27. His agenda includes speaking at a spaghetti dinner fundraiser for local Democrats.

Bayh also has trips planned to Georgia and North Carolina.

Sen Bayh on TV this weekend!

Thanks Smithers!

Please watch Senator Bayh appear on Fox News Channel's Fox News Sunday program, this Sunday, February 19th, at 9:00am ET. He will be discussing recent events including the post-Katrina reconstruction process and Dick Cheney's hunting incident.

Later on Sunday, watch footage from Evan Bayh's recent trip to Iowa on C-SPAN's Road to the White House program, first at 6:30pm ET, with a repeat at 9:30pm ET.

Check your local television listings for exact times in your area.

Who knew he was a comedian?

Sen Bayh gets the best one-liner of the day at yesterday's Senate Banking Committee hearing with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke...

Bernanke garnered compliments from the senators, as he did from House members the day before, for his clear speaking style when discussing financial issues.

"Congratulations on being able to speak in plain English and not move the markets," said Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). "That's quite an accomplishment."

Sen Bayh in Iowa

For a guy who's not running for President, he's sure spending a lot of time in Iowa... *wink*

Anyways... he's generating a lot of headlines...

Visiting senator calls for more leak details - Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh said in Des Moines on Monday that if Vice President Dick Cheney urged a subordinate to leak classified information for political gain, "We've got to get to the bottom of it."

Bayh To Visit Statehouse - Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh is making another visit to central Iowa.
Bayh is scheduled to visit with members of the House Democratic Caucus at the Statehouse Monday afternoon.

Bayh pledges help to Democratic candidates - DES MOINES, Iowa - Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh met privately Monday with Democratic lawmakers, pledging his support throughout the fall campaign to help them regain control of the state Legislature.

Senator Evan Bayh doing intra-state work - Indiana senator and possible democratic presidential candidate, Evan Bayh wrapped up a three-day trip to Iowa Monday.
He pledged his support to help democratic lawmakers there regain control of the state legislature.

Bayh gives Iowa lawmakers lesson in bipartisanship - U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat who is considering a run for president in 2008, gave Iowa lawmakers a lesson in bipartisanship Monday at the Statehouse.The former Indiana governor talked with Democrats in the Iowa Senate in a closed-door meeting about the challenges of working in an evenly divided legislature

Presidential hopeful Bayh urges Iowa Democrats to focus on terrorism - CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (AP) -- Sen. Evan Bayh said Saturday Democrats shouldn't shy away from confronting President Bush on terrorism and national security because Republicans may be surprisingly vulnerable those issues."I believe for both substantive and political reasons we ought to take them on on that issue," Bayh said. "I believe they are vulnerable."

Bayh says Democrats must be able to prove they can keep U.S. safe - Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, who plans to visit Iowa today, on Friday discouraged fellow Democrats from making the Bush administration's use of wiretapping a campaign issue."This should not be a political fight," Bayh, who is weighing a campaign for president in 2008, said in a telephone interview.

Responses to Sen Bayh's Iran stance

Mr Smiley from Indianapolis took exception to Sen Bayh's column...

In Sen. Evan Bayh's Feb. 12 My View, "Time to take a hard line on Iran's regime," he says that Iran is actively seeking to obtain nuclear weapons and proposes isolating Iran economically, politically and culturally. But this policy of U.S. bullying through economic sanctions has caused the rest of the world to hate America. I agree with Bayh that the current reactionary regime in Iran is playing a foolish political game, but Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. The U.S. and our European allies are using the situation to advance colonial policies in the Middle East.

Instead of encouraging confrontation, Bayh should demand the Bush administration and the Iranian regime return to the negotiating table with the object of conflict resolution instead of empty rhetoric. Indeed, the Democratic Party must not allow the Bush administration to dictate the terms of negotiations with Iran.

Well... that's all well and good and in a world where the sky is blue and all eyeglasses are rose-colored that may work. But we've been "demanding" they talk for a long time... and they say that they want to use it for "peaceful purposes" while at the same time saying that one of their neighbors should we wiped off the face of the Earth. Do YOU trust Iran? I sure as hell don't.
-----
Mr. Byers of Carmel wrote in:

Bayh couldn't lead Dems to be tough on terror

I'm not buying Evan Bayh's presidential posturing. In his My View on Feb. 12 he tried to convince voters he could be tough with Iran today by reaching back more than 40 years to the Cuban missile crisis for an example of Democratic toughness in standing up to bullies. Is that the best he can do? Unfortunately for Democrats, I think it is.

Bayh is a great guy, but if he were to be a tough president in the war on terror, he would be out of step with the rest of his party. He has to convince us what he would do now to stop Iran, not just criticize the Bush administration for waiting too long to use diplomacy.

Is Bayh capable of leading his party to support a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities when, in all likelihood, the United Nations and other diplomatic posturing fails? I might be able to convince myself that a President Bayh would have what it takes to make these decisions. I have no faith he can convince enough Democrats to follow him. That's why in his run for the White House, I'm not Bayhing.

Did Mr. Byers read the article? Sen Bayh listed 3-4 things he would do... And he's trying the lead the Democrats out of the pit of "soft of security"... He seems to think Sen Bayh is right, but no one will follow him. Well I'm standing behind him and I know a lot of other people are too. Here's a hint. Someone can't be a good leader if you aren't willing to follow. If you like what he's staying, stand up and get behind him and be an example.

Evan Bayh on Iran

February 12, 2006

My View: Evan Bayh

Time to take hard line on Iran's regime

For 13 days in October of 1962, America was confronted with a hostile and aggressive nation attempting to place nuclear weapons a mere 90 miles from our shore. During that time, the so-called doomsday clock -- the world's indicator for impending nuclear war -- was the nearest it has ever been to midnight. The world now finds itself nearing a similar situation with the radical mullahs of Iran seeking to obtain nuclear weapons.

Fortunately for the United States and the world, the Kennedy administration reacted promptly and forcefully, using every means possible short of military force, while keeping the use of such force on the table, to resolve the situation peacefully. We need that same foresight, resolve and decisiveness today to avoid the unacceptable choice of using military force or accepting a nuclear Iran.

Unfortunately, those exact characteristics have been conspicuously absent from the Bush administration's Iran policy. Their approach has certainly been damaging to our national security. It is good that Iran's case is being sent to the United Nations Security Council, but there is no guarantee the council will do any more than it did when North Korea's case was sent to the world body three years ago. That is, nothing.

Iran has called for the destruction of Israel; its president has asked the Iranian people to envision a world without the United States and Israel; the regime fosters terrorism across the world and is actively supporting groups hostile to the United States. It is working on technology capable of delivering missiles long distances. And now it has resumed pernicious nuclear activities that present the gravest threat to the United States in decades.

If we had marshaled world opinion in 2002, we would not be here today. We have wasted valuable time, diverted resources, and ignored this problem at our peril. No one wants to forestall the need to use military force more than I do. But if we are to do so, we must act now. Time is of the essence.

First, the administration should focus on convincing the U.N. Security Council to actually take up Iran's case and to put in place strong, multi-national economic, political and diplomatic sanctions against Iran when it meets in March. If politics thwart U.N. action, it may be appropriate to look at other forums, such as NATO, to take hard steps against the clerics in Iran. We cannot afford to wait. The Iranian government must understand that if its nuclear activity continues, it will be treated as a pariah state. We must lead this charge.

Second, supplies of refined gasoline to Iran should be cut off. Iran may be one of the world's largest exporters of oil, but it does not have the refining capacity to make the gasoline necessary to make its economy run. Iran currently imports 40 percent of its refined gasoline from abroad.

Finally, Iran must be isolated diplomatically, financially and culturally. Their delegations should no longer be welcomed in countries around the world. Iranian assets should be frozen and financial and banking ties severed. Travel to and from Iran should be cut off and international flights should not be allowed to land or originate from Iran. Iran should also be banned from world events like soccer's World Cup and the Olympics.

We should be clear; our adversaries are not the Iranian people. We must make common cause with the Iranian people against a regime that threatens the world's and their people's best interests. Most Iranians are as disillusioned with their government as the rest of the world.

We should expect repercussions and retaliation from Iran, which will be exacerbated because of the administration's delay, but the downside of doing nothing will be far worse. Iran has threatened to suspend its oil exports. It may well. But it would be doing grave damage to its own economy. Oil exports keep the Iranian economy afloat. How long could the regime sustain itself without oil revenues? Not long.

No doubt Tehran would use its terrorism surrogates. They may strike our embassies and step up activities across the globe, but we cannot be bullied into allowing such a regime to have nuclear weapons. Just imagine what kind of blackmail Iran could exert on the world then.

The opportunity we have to avoid the choice between military action and a nuclear-capable Iran may be fast approaching. It's up to all of us -- Democrats and Republicans -- to make sure we don't learn what could have happened with different leadership in October of 1962.

No bias here... of course not...

The IndyStar is at it again... Sen Bayh recently spoke before the UAW National Convention and everyone says he did a smashing job... But that was before they had a chance to do their "analysis"...

Once they had time to consider it more they realized that maybe it wasn't THAT good of a speech, after all, Hillary got more attention. Well DUH... of course she got more attention, she's by far the more well known of the two. Look deeper! Look at the content of what was said, not just how many times someone said "We love you Hillary!"

Why Bayh?

Well this is my first Blog... I decided to join the online Blogging for Bayh movement... First up is something I wrote a while ago about why I'm backing Bayh in 2008...
-----------

Why I’m backing Bayh in 2008

“The Democratic Party has an important decision to make. Do we want to vent or do we want to govern?” Senator Evan Bayh spoke those words in 2003 as the primary season for the 2004 Presidential election was just getting started. They are still true today. In a couple of years we are going to be faced with a question of who are we going to support in the campaigns for President. My choice is Senator Evan Bayh.

We can no longer look to the past and continue to complain about the events of the past few years. It may feel good to get the anger off our chest, but it will serve no purpose other than looking like we are sore losers. We had a chance to hold President Bush accountable for his job performance as President and we lost. It’s time to put the past behind us and look to the future.

That is why I am backing Senator Evan Bayh. Senator Bayh understands that when someone is elected President, he is elected President of the United States, not President of the Democrats or Republicans, or President of liberals or conservatives. You must be able to work with your opponents, not alienate them. You must be willing to listen to your opponents, not ignore them.

Senator Bayh has a long track record of working with both sides in forging bipartisan partnerships. His record as Governor and Senator presents a solid record of governing from the center. Governing from the center is crucial if we want to bind the rift that has split this country apart into Red and Blue. As Americans, we have many challenges to face in the coming years and ruling from either the right or left of the political spectrum will only serve to alienate the citizens on the opposite side thus hurting the country we all love as a whole.

The most important thing to remember is that what is best for political ideology isn’t always what’s best for the country. It’s time to stop thinking about our party and think about our country. It’s time to stop thinking about how we’ve been wronged and think about how we can make it right. It’s time to stop thinking about left vs. right or red vs. blue and start thinking about bringing the country together again. It’s time to back Senator Evan Bayh.