Politics Plus

Bayh’s decision not to run was a real shocker.  He did not even inform the Nevada Leg Hound, Harry Reid, until well after the story had broken.

Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana said Monday that he was fed up with Congress and wouldn’t seek re-election this year, the latest in a series of retirements spurred by frustration with dysfunction in Congress.

"To put it in words I think most people can understand, I love working for the people of Indiana. I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives, but I do not love Congress," he said in Indianapolis.

The two-term Democratic senator, 54, offered reasons that are increasingly commonplace among those familiar with the nation’s legislature: "There is much too much partisanship and not enough progress; too much narrow ideology and not enough practical problem-solving," he said. "Even at a time of enormous national challenge, the people’s business is not getting done."

Bayh was comfortably ahead in recent polls; his Republican challengers, former Sen. Dan Coats and former Rep. John Hostettler, trailed by double digits. He won his previous Senate races handily: with 62 percent in 2004 and 64 percent in 1998.

His decision is a fresh blow to his party, which since the start of the year has been shaken by the surprise retirement announcements of veteran Sens. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, the decision of Vice President Joe Biden’s son Beau not to seek the Delaware seat his father held for 36 years and Republican Scott Brown’s win of the Massachusetts seat that the late Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy had held for 47 years. Democrats now control 59 of the 100 Senate seats.

Bayh’s decision is a surprise, in part because he’s been in politics his entire life. He was 6 years old when his father, Birch Bayh, won the first of his three Senate terms from Indiana.

Evan Bayh has been an elected official since he became Indiana’s secretary of state in 1986, at age 30. Twice elected governor of Indiana before he went to the U.S. Senate, he was on the short list of possible vice-presidential nominees in 2004 and 2008, and was viewed as a potential White House contender.

Bayh is one of a shrinking group of eight to 10 Democratic centrists who’ve traditionally worked closely with like-minded Republicans, usually on spending and tax matters… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <McClatchy DC>

When I first heard this, I heard a GOP pundit say Bayh is quitting, because Obama’s partisanship failed to unite the country.  That, of course, was a lie.  The specific example I heard Bay give in his speech later was of eight Senators who had cosponsored a bill creating a bipartisan commission on reducing the deficit, but later voted to kill it with a filibuster.  Bayh did not say so, but it’s public record that all eight are Republicans.  Another favorite line of pundits from both sides is that he was afraid of defeat.  There is no evidence to support this.  He is being accused of screwing his own party by the last minute announcement.  That does not hold water either.

On a conference call with county Democratic Party chairs this afternoon, Sen. Evan Bayh and Indiana Democratic Party Chair Dan Parker declared that not having a Democratic primary to find a replacement for the retiring Bayh would have its upsides, according to a source who was on the call.

Bayh opened the call by repeating the reasons for not seeking reelection he mentioned in his press conference today, the source said. But in a message tailored for his audience of local party officials, Bayh said the timing of his announcement could be a positive for Democrats. The source said that Bayh told the call that the lack of a primary would mean that the Republican party candidates would attack each other on their own, with no Democrats to get in the way. On the Democratic side of the process, according to the source, Bayh said officials would choose a strong nominee from their "deep bench."

"He said, ‘if this goes to the state committee then we’ll have selected a candidate without a divisive primary,’" the source told me this evening.

With less than a week until the deadline for potential candidates to gather the necessary signatures to get listed on the primary ballot, it’s unlikely that there could be a Democratic primary to replace Bayh even if Democrats wanted one. But, according to the source, Bayh and Parker suggested on the call that not having a public vote on who Indiana’s next Democratic nominee for Senate will be could be a positive come November… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <TPM>

The late timing also effectively locks Mike Pence out of the race, as he has no time to gather the needed signatures.  Pence would have been a much stronger candidate, but he was afraid to run against Bayh.  I have plenty of problems with Bayh.  He’s a DINO, whose cozying up to Republicans has aided them in their obstructionist tactics.  But I don’t think it right to accuse him falsely.

In my opinion, Bayh quit because of his own political ambition.  I had heard that he was disappointed not to get the Vice presidential nod.  I think he looked at the polls, saw how unpopular Congress is, and rather that be included as a recipient of public anger, decided to play it to his own advantage.  I expect him to run for Governor in Indians, followed by a presidential bid as early as 2016.

In any event, Indiana is not lost, and just maybe we’ll get a Democrat with sufficient integrity not to join GOP filibusters.

With my background in public opinion polling, I knew that a poll could be influenced by how questions are worded and ordered, but the extent of this difference surprised me.

A fascinating new CBS/New York Times poll reveals that attitudes about gays and lesbians serving in the military turn on how the question is asked. It turns out that 42% of Americans oppose allowing "homosexuals" to serve openly in the military, but only 28% oppose allowing "gay men and lesbians" to serve openly. Conversely, 58% of Americans favor allowing "gay men and lesbians" to serve openly in the military, but only 42% favor allowing "homosexuals" to serve openly. Apparently, some 15% of Americans don’t know that "gay men and lesbians" are "homosexuals."

It’s possible, of course, that those 15% are drawing a sharp distinction between sexual orientation and sexual conduct. On this view, "gay men and lesbians" are only inclined toward homosexual conduct, whereas "homosexuals" actually "do it." But this gives the befuddled 15% more credit than they’re due. The subtlety of this distinction is not captured in any common definitions of the terms, both of which are generally held to embrace both same-sex attraction and same-sex conduct.

A more logical explanation has to do with the emotional connotations of the respective terms. "Homosexual" conjures up dark visions of filthy bodily acts that arouse deeply-rooted feelings of disgust and ancient fears of Sodom and Gomorrah and hell and damnation. "Gay men and lesbians," on the other hand, increasingly reminds us of people we know — sons and daughters, cousins and classmates, nieces and nephews, coworkers and neighbors. It would appear that 15% of Americans cannot stomach the thought of homosexuals, but can tolerate and even try to understand gays and lesbians…

…So, what’s in a name? Does a rose by any other name smell as sweet? Is "colored" the same as African-American? Is "spic" the same as Hispanic, "dago" the same as Italian-American, "hymie" the same as Jew, "redskin" the same as Native-American, "mick" the same as Irish-American? Do words affect beliefs and politics?

What this poll leads me to think is that the word "homosexual," though once thought to be a neutral term like "colored" or "crippled" or "retarded," should now slip out of our responsible public discourse. For 15% of Americans — or some forty million of us — the very use of this word apparently triggers deeply emotional and hostile responses, responses that apparently can be softened or even avoided entirely simply by substituting the less fearsome phrase "gay men or lesbians."

When we hear religious leaders or politicians referring to "homosexuals in the military," "homosexual marriage," or "special rights for homosexuals," we must recognize what they are doing. Especially for the 15% of Americans who react so viscerally to the term "homosexual," they are trying to chew their way into the worst parts of our psyches in order to manipulate our beliefs and values and make us worse people than we really are… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Huffington Post>

I have seen LGBT folks become quite upset at the use of the term ‘homosexual’.   I admit, I lack their degree of sensitivity to the issue, as does anyone who cannot wear another’s skin.  But I had no idea that this word could cause a 15% swing public opinion.  I tried an experiment on my own.  When I googled ‘homosexual’ more of the images returned were negative, such as my bottom graphic above.  When I googled ‘gay and lesbian’ , more of the images were positive, such as my top graphic above.  I chose that graphic because it represents my own position and policy for this blog.

What really upsets me the most is that the GOP has been able to use this difference to influence Americans.  You can be sure that the difference did not come from the teabaggers.  They would oppose LGBT service regardless of terminology.  I’m equally certain that progressives would support LGBT service regardless of terminology.  Therefore the Americans the GOP are manipulating are in the middle.  These are the folks we need to educate and win over.