December 7, 2003
LESSON LEARNED:
An Intelligent Democrat . . .: on the Senate Intelligence Committee. (Stephen F. Hayes, 12/15/2003, Weekly Standard)
A LEADING DEMOCRAT on the Senate Intelligence Committee has reiterated his support for the war in Iraq and encouraged the Bush administration to be more aggressive in its preemptive measures to protect Americans. Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana and a leader of moderates in the Senate, responded to questions last week on the war in Iraq and a memo detailing links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden sent to the committee in late October by Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith and later excerpted in these pages."Even if there's only a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden would cooperate, the question is whether that's an acceptable level of risk," Bayh told me. "My answer to that would be an unequivocal 'no.' We need to be much more pro-active on eliminating threats before they're imminent."
Asked about the growing evidence of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, Bayh said: "The relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state can provide. Some of the intelligence is strong, and some of it is murky. But that's the nature of intelligence on a relationship like this--lots of it is going to be speculation and conjecture. Following 9/11, we await certainty at our peril."
The comments came days before several Democratic presidential candidates intensified their caustic attacks on the Bush administration's foreign and defense policies. Senator John Kerry, in a speech last week to the Council on Foreign Relations, said that "the Bush administration has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in modern history. . . . The global war on terrorism has actually been set back."
Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean went further, even giving credence to a conspiracy theory that Bush was forewarned of the September 11 attacks by the Saudis. In an interview on National Public Radio, Dean allowed that this was "nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved." Nonetheless, he called it the "most interesting theory" he has heard as to why the Bush administration isn't cooperating more fully with the commission looking into the September 11 attacks.
[B]ayh rejects the conventional wisdom that cooperation between Hussein and bin Laden was implausible because of religious and ideological differences. "They were certainly moving toward the philosophy that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Both were hostile to us, and while they historically had reasons not to like each other, that historical skepticism is overridden by the enmity and mutual hostility toward us. These are not illogical ties from their perspective."
The thing to remember about Mr. Bayh is that his Dad was one of those long-term incumbents who lost to a widely dismissed challenger (Dan Quayle) in the Reagan landslide of 1980. Given the conservative nature of the Indiana electorate and the fact he's up for re-election next year, expect Mr. Bayh to play all kinds of kissy-face with the GOP. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 7, 2003 8:22 AM
If the Democrats lose in a landslide with Dean next year, you would think that Bayh would have a shot at a presidential bid if he runs in 2008 -- Joe Lieberman without the Al Gore baggage. But I doubt the Democrat's near-psychotic anger at Bush would be quelled by even a 45- to 50-state loss, and Hillary's votes on the war are co-opting Evan on the right of the party, while all but the hardcore Democratic left still believes (probably correctly) that she's really one of them, her votes for the Iraq war nonwithstanding.
Posted by: John at December 7, 2003 12:11 PMBayh is likely to switch parties, precisely because he so much wants to run for President eventually.
Posted by: oj at December 7, 2003 12:25 PMMr. Judd;
So you're predicting a Condi vs. Bayh race in the 2008 Republican primaries?
AOG:
'08 seems likely to be Condi vs. Bill Frist vs. George Allen (or some Allen-like social conservative). I bet Bayh would take a cabinet job in the second term though.
Posted by: oj at December 7, 2003 1:19 PMWhat about Bill Owens? There's been a fair amount of talk about him recently. An Owens-Rice ticket would make sense, if Rice doesn't go VP in 2004.
Posted by: Timothy at December 7, 2003 2:23 PMCouldn't Bayh be positioning himself to run for VP, helping to push one of the marginalized dwarfs to the center? Al Gore was a huge boost to Bill Clinton. Perhaps this is Bayh's job.
Posted by: NKR at December 7, 2003 3:01 PMAll;
Timothy has a good point. I don't think a presidential bid by Rice in 2008 is realistic unless she's either Secretary of State/War or a VP in 2004-2008, since she's not going to be Governor of California.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at December 7, 2003 3:30 PMSo, Governor of Vermont is sufficient training for a white guy, but Secretary of State isn't sufficient for a black woman? Who's going to be the Profile in Courage to get up and say that and end his career?
Posted by: OJ at December 7, 2003 4:32 PMNKR:
Clinton & Gore got around 43%, how big a boost could he have been?
Posted by: OJ at December 7, 2003 4:34 PMIf Bush wins next year, expect the third Bush in 2008. Anybody who thinks Repub primary voters would vote for Condi instead of Jeb is delusional. Condi has even made noises about supporting affirmative action.
Posted by: Casey Abell at December 7, 2003 7:19 PMOrrin:
McCain sure did great after NH, didn't he? Condi would do even worse against Jeb.
Posted by: Casey Abell at December 7, 2003 8:31 PMBy the way, I don't mean to dump on Condi too much. In fact, if I had to pick the most likely GOP ticket in 2008, it would be Jeb for prez and Condi for veep. Jeb locks up the base, Condi gets plenty of indies and even a few more Dems than usual. If they win, Jeb ignores anything Condi says except on foreign policy.
The 2008 Dem ticket? Hillary for prez and Bill Richardson for veep. My guess is they lose by five-to-ten points.
Man, I'm getting cocky on political predictions, ain't I? Just because I called the four gov races this year correctly, I'm getting insufferable.
Posted by: Casey Abell at December 7, 2003 8:43 PMJeb is no W, as he showed when they both ran for governot.
Posted by: oj at December 7, 2003 9:11 PMOJ,
> So, Governor of Vermont is sufficient training for a white guy,
> but Secretary of State isn't sufficient for a black woman?
Wouldn't she actually have to beSecretary of State for it to work in her behalf?
That aside, the answer to your question is Yes. Ike's the last President who hadn't help previous elective office, and I'm not expecting that to change any time soon.
Besides, Dean is going to lose, in part because Governor of Vermont is not sufficient. I don't want Condi to lose.
But I don't think the American people will support a third Bush. Then it starts to look too much like a hereditary regime, and Americans aren't real fond of those.
Though if it means we can keep tapping this rich vein of Bush-hatred... well, I see the allure, but think it would be a mistake. Owens-Rice is my current hope. I'd like Frist too, but I prefer executive experience in the executive branch.
Posted by: Timothy at December 8, 2003 1:57 AMDon't forget about Julius Caesar Watts.
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 8, 2003 7:23 AMOrrin:
You're right, Jeb is no Dubya. Jeb won Florida by 650,000 votes in 2002. George won Florida by 500 votes in 2000.
Posted by: Casey Abell at December 8, 2003 9:07 AMIf Americans have such an allergy to family ties in the White House, what's George doing there? In fact, Jeb is the best campaigner in the family. I don't see anybody among the Repubs who could deny him the nomination in 2008.
Posted by: Casey Abell at December 8, 2003 9:11 AMYes, W's coattails were more help than Jeb's.
Posted by: oj at December 8, 2003 9:16 AMHas any direct descendant of a former President ever lost in the general election?
Posted by: oj at December 8, 2003 9:17 AMCoattails? George was running for something in 2002?
The DNC made defeating Jeb their #1 priority in 2002, partly because they realized that he might become a tough prez candidate to beat down the road. Jeb only trashed the Dems HUGE in a state they almost won in 2000.
My gues is that he gets nominated and elected in 2008 - for a certain federal office.
Posted by: Casey Abell at December 8, 2003 9:57 AMYes, W campaigned for a GOP sweep in 2002 and pretty much got it.
Posted by: oj at December 8, 2003 10:11 AMCasey-- Two's company, three's a crowd.
Posted by: Timothy at December 8, 2003 3:37 PMThis topic has generated 24 comments so far; two previous posts on the CA Senate race have yet to get to 10. Is Indiana that important? Have we grown used to Barbara Boxer?
I have yet to see someone address whether Evan Bayh is a real moderate, or a copycat triangulator?
Posted by: jim hamlen at December 8, 2003 5:42 PM