Thank God Ev is not running for President...however, some here think he might be selected for another post.
Evan Bayh was one of the senators who voted FOR the wiretaps.
(which got 60 of the needed 60 votes- HAD HE VOTED AGAINST THIS BILL, IT WOULD HAVE FAILED!!! BUT HE VOTED WITH BUSH!!!
In the past he has voted AGAINST THE RIGHT OF PROTEST
when he tried to get a consittutional amendment to ban flag burning
Isn't it time this traitor to our constitution is voted OUT of office next time he runs?
And this should disqualify him from any cabinet position or vice presidential hope that some members here still think possible.
He and Joe Lieberman- 2 phony democrats. Oust them.
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Aug 5 2007, 12:24 PM) 
Thank God Ev is not running for President...however, some here think he might be selected for another post.
Evan Bayh was one of the senators who voted FOR the wiretaps.
(which got 60 of the needed 60 votes- HAD HE VOTED AGAINST THIS BILL, IT WOULD HAVE FAILED!!! BUT HE VOTED WITH BUSH!!!
In the past he has voted AGAINST THE RIGHT OF PROTEST
when he tried to get a consittutional amendment to ban flag burning
Isn't it time this traitor to our constitution is voted OUT of office next time he runs?
And this should disqualify him from any cabinet position or vice presidential hope that some members here still think possible.
He and Joe Lieberman- 2 phony democrats. Oust them.
Evan Bayh was one of the senators who voted FOR the wiretaps.
(which got 60 of the needed 60 votes- HAD HE VOTED AGAINST THIS BILL, IT WOULD HAVE FAILED!!! BUT HE VOTED WITH BUSH!!!
In the past he has voted AGAINST THE RIGHT OF PROTEST
when he tried to get a consittutional amendment to ban flag burning
Isn't it time this traitor to our constitution is voted OUT of office next time he runs?
And this should disqualify him from any cabinet position or vice presidential hope that some members here still think possible.
He and Joe Lieberman- 2 phony democrats. Oust them.
A traitor? I guess extremism in defense of your viewpoints is no vice, eh?
QUOTE(70sliberalism @ Aug 5 2007, 02:56 PM)
A traitor? I guess extremism in defense of your viewpoints is no vice, eh?
LOL! G4 makes up the rules of debate as he goes along....IMHO of course
Here's the list of ALL of those who voted for the bill (Including the non-votes):
Alabama
Sessions ® Yes; Shelby ® Yes.
Alaska
Murkowski ® Yes; Stevens ® Yes.
Arizona
Kyl ® Yes; McCain ® Not Voting.
Arkansas
Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.
California
Boxer (D) Not Voting; Feinstein (D) Yes.
Colorado
Allard ® Yes; Salazar (D) Yes.
Connecticut
Lieberman (I) Yes.
Delaware
Carper (D) Yes.
Florida
Martinez ® Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.
Georgia
Chambliss ® Yes; Isakson ® Yes.
Hawaii
Inouye (D) Yes.
Idaho
Craig ® Yes; Crapo ® Yes.
Indiana
Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar ® Not Voting.
Iowa
Grassley ® Yes; Harkin (D) Not Voting.
Kansas
Brownback ® Yes; Roberts ® Yes.
Kentucky
Bunning ® Not Voting; McConnell ® Yes.
Louisiana
Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter ® Yes.
Maine
Collins ® Yes; Snowe ® Yes.
Maryland
Mikulski (D) Yes.
Massachusetts
Kerry (D) Not Voting.
Minnesota
Coleman ® Yes; Klobuchar (D) Yes.
Mississippi
Cochran ® Yes; Lott ® Not Voting.
Missouri
Bond ® Yes; McCaskill (D) Yes.
Nebraska
Hagel ® Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.
Nevada
Ensign ® Yes
New Hampshire
Gregg ® Not Voting; Sununu ® Yes.
New Mexico
Domenici ® Yes.
North Carolina
Burr ® Yes; Dole ® Yes.
North Dakota
Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Not Voting.
Ohio
Voinovich ® Yes.
Oklahoma
Coburn ® Yes; Inhofe ® Yes.
Oregon
Smith ® Yes
Pennsylvania
Casey (D) Yes; Specter ® Yes.
South Carolina
DeMint ® Yes; Graham ® Yes.
South Dakota
Johnson (D) Not Voting; Thune ® Yes.
Tennessee
Alexander ® Not Voting; Corker ® Yes.
Texas
Cornyn ® Yes; Hutchison ® Yes.
Utah
Bennett ® Yes; Hatch ® Yes.
Virginia
Warner ® Yes; Webb (D) Yes.
Washington
Murray (D) Not Voting.
Wyoming
Barrasso ® Yes; Enzi ® Yes.
Alabama
Sessions ® Yes; Shelby ® Yes.
Alaska
Murkowski ® Yes; Stevens ® Yes.
Arizona
Kyl ® Yes; McCain ® Not Voting.
Arkansas
Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.
California
Boxer (D) Not Voting; Feinstein (D) Yes.
Colorado
Allard ® Yes; Salazar (D) Yes.
Connecticut
Lieberman (I) Yes.
Delaware
Carper (D) Yes.
Florida
Martinez ® Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.
Georgia
Chambliss ® Yes; Isakson ® Yes.
Hawaii
Inouye (D) Yes.
Idaho
Craig ® Yes; Crapo ® Yes.
Indiana
Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar ® Not Voting.
Iowa
Grassley ® Yes; Harkin (D) Not Voting.
Kansas
Brownback ® Yes; Roberts ® Yes.
Kentucky
Bunning ® Not Voting; McConnell ® Yes.
Louisiana
Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter ® Yes.
Maine
Collins ® Yes; Snowe ® Yes.
Maryland
Mikulski (D) Yes.
Massachusetts
Kerry (D) Not Voting.
Minnesota
Coleman ® Yes; Klobuchar (D) Yes.
Mississippi
Cochran ® Yes; Lott ® Not Voting.
Missouri
Bond ® Yes; McCaskill (D) Yes.
Nebraska
Hagel ® Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.
Nevada
Ensign ® Yes
New Hampshire
Gregg ® Not Voting; Sununu ® Yes.
New Mexico
Domenici ® Yes.
North Carolina
Burr ® Yes; Dole ® Yes.
North Dakota
Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Not Voting.
Ohio
Voinovich ® Yes.
Oklahoma
Coburn ® Yes; Inhofe ® Yes.
Oregon
Smith ® Yes
Pennsylvania
Casey (D) Yes; Specter ® Yes.
South Carolina
DeMint ® Yes; Graham ® Yes.
South Dakota
Johnson (D) Not Voting; Thune ® Yes.
Tennessee
Alexander ® Not Voting; Corker ® Yes.
Texas
Cornyn ® Yes; Hutchison ® Yes.
Utah
Bennett ® Yes; Hatch ® Yes.
Virginia
Warner ® Yes; Webb (D) Yes.
Washington
Murray (D) Not Voting.
Wyoming
Barrasso ® Yes; Enzi ® Yes.
When the senate ruled they needed 60 votes on this, and it got exactly 60 votes-EVAN BAYH COULD HAVE ALLOWED THIS HORRIBLE ANTI-CONSITTUTIONAL BILL TO FAIL, yet, like the others, he a-kissed Bush and allowed tyranny to rule
So why not explain why he voted the way he did? With the Republicans...HIS VOTE could have stopped this.
His ONE single vote was the difference.
I can give you reasons why almost all of the others on the list voted the way they did-but as people here seem to admire this one person, I ask them
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
times 10
60 votes need,60 votes attained
WHY DID EVAN BAYH VOTE TO ALLOW BUSH TO HAVE UNLIMITED WIRETAPPING
answer that instead of being personal, however, there is NO answer I guess, is there?
That one vote makes him a traitor along with all the others.
Evan Bayh had the power to stop George Bush...HE didn't. It is on his conscious that HE voted the way HE did. To end American democracy.
So why not explain why he voted the way he did? With the Republicans...HIS VOTE could have stopped this.
His ONE single vote was the difference.
I can give you reasons why almost all of the others on the list voted the way they did-but as people here seem to admire this one person, I ask them
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
times 10
60 votes need,60 votes attained
WHY DID EVAN BAYH VOTE TO ALLOW BUSH TO HAVE UNLIMITED WIRETAPPING
answer that instead of being personal, however, there is NO answer I guess, is there?
That one vote makes him a traitor along with all the others.
Evan Bayh had the power to stop George Bush...HE didn't. It is on his conscious that HE voted the way HE did. To end American democracy.
Perhaps someone should start a, "Let's make Evan Bayh immortal and permanent, absolute world emperor," thread.
Seriously, it is certainly legitimate to question why someone votes a certain way in Congress. But I think it pretty clear that there is just no legitimate reason to single out Bayh for voting they way he did. Fifty-nine Senators voted for this bill. Several other Democrats voted the same way, most those representing Red States, as Bayh does. People may not see that as a good excuse, but the point is that is simply clearly wrong to single Bayh out. He dropped out of the Presidential race months ago. As far as his vote being so noteworthy because he might be considered for VP or the Cabinet, that could apply to several other Democrats as well.
Seriously, it is certainly legitimate to question why someone votes a certain way in Congress. But I think it pretty clear that there is just no legitimate reason to single out Bayh for voting they way he did. Fifty-nine Senators voted for this bill. Several other Democrats voted the same way, most those representing Red States, as Bayh does. People may not see that as a good excuse, but the point is that is simply clearly wrong to single Bayh out. He dropped out of the Presidential race months ago. As far as his vote being so noteworthy because he might be considered for VP or the Cabinet, that could apply to several other Democrats as well.
And I notice not one person could explain the traitorous vote (this person is a democrat-HIS ONE VOTE WOULD HAVE MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE!!!
WE COULD HAVE STOPPED BUSH'S PLAN, BUT HIS ONE VOTE WAS THE DECIDER.
EVAN BAYH ENABALIZED GEORGE W. BUSH TO HAVE HIS SECRET WIRETAPPS ON ANY OR ALL AMERICANS IN AMERICA OUT OF AMERICA, EVERYWHERE WORLD WIDE
EVAN BAYH COULD HAVE STOPPED IT.
BUT HE DIDN'T.
That everyone else is also guilty is irrelevant.
ONE VOTE COUNTS...AND HE IS GUILTY OF VOTING AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA, as the SCOTUS SAID BUSH'S WIRETAPS WERE ILLEGAL...Thanks evie baby.
WE COULD HAVE STOPPED BUSH'S PLAN, BUT HIS ONE VOTE WAS THE DECIDER.
EVAN BAYH ENABALIZED GEORGE W. BUSH TO HAVE HIS SECRET WIRETAPPS ON ANY OR ALL AMERICANS IN AMERICA OUT OF AMERICA, EVERYWHERE WORLD WIDE
EVAN BAYH COULD HAVE STOPPED IT.
BUT HE DIDN'T.
That everyone else is also guilty is irrelevant.
ONE VOTE COUNTS...AND HE IS GUILTY OF VOTING AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA, as the SCOTUS SAID BUSH'S WIRETAPS WERE ILLEGAL...Thanks evie baby.
I have moved this topic to a more appropriate forum. I have done some further editing, of the topic title and some posts. Please follow forum rules when posting. If unfamiliar with the rules, please read them before making a post. Thank you.
amy
amy
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Aug 6 2007, 04:24 AM)
When the senate ruled they needed 60 votes on this, and it got exactly 60 votes-EVAN BAYH COULD HAVE ALLOWED THIS HORRIBLE ANTI-CONSITTUTIONAL BILL TO FAIL, yet, like the others, he a-kissed Bush and allowed tyranny to rule
So why not explain why he voted the way he did? With the Republicans...HIS VOTE could have stopped this.
His ONE single vote was the difference.
I can give you reasons why almost all of the others on the list voted the way they did-but as people here seem to admire this one person, I ask them
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
times 10
60 votes need,60 votes attained
WHY DID EVAN BAYH VOTE TO ALLOW BUSH TO HAVE UNLIMITED WIRETAPPING
answer that instead of being personal, however, there is NO answer I guess, is there?
That one vote makes him a traitor along with all the others.
Evan Bayh had the power to stop George Bush...HE didn't. It is on his conscious that HE voted the way HE did. To end American democracy.
So why not explain why he voted the way he did? With the Republicans...HIS VOTE could have stopped this.
His ONE single vote was the difference.
I can give you reasons why almost all of the others on the list voted the way they did-but as people here seem to admire this one person, I ask them
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
WHY
times 10
60 votes need,60 votes attained
WHY DID EVAN BAYH VOTE TO ALLOW BUSH TO HAVE UNLIMITED WIRETAPPING
answer that instead of being personal, however, there is NO answer I guess, is there?
That one vote makes him a traitor along with all the others.
Evan Bayh had the power to stop George Bush...HE didn't. It is on his conscious that HE voted the way HE did. To end American democracy.
First of all, i want to know why my original post was deleted.
Second, i want to know why g4a is targeting Evan Bayh with this. Couldn't he have mentioned the other 16 DEMOCRATS, in addition to all of the others, who voted for this bill? Couldn't he have included them in the title of this thread? Why isn't he going to town on them, too? Because he's intentionally trying to slam Evan Bayh, only. Makes no sense, whatsoever.
QUOTE(graham4anything @ Aug 6 2007, 10:05 AM)
And I notice not one person could explain the traitorous vote (this person is a democrat-HIS ONE VOTE WOULD HAVE MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE!!!
WE COULD HAVE STOPPED BUSH'S PLAN, BUT HIS ONE VOTE WAS THE DECIDER.
EVAN BAYH ENABALIZED GEORGE W. BUSH TO HAVE HIS SECRET WIRETAPPS ON ANY OR ALL AMERICANS IN AMERICA OUT OF AMERICA, EVERYWHERE WORLD WIDE
EVAN BAYH COULD HAVE STOPPED IT.
BUT HE DIDN'T.
That everyone else is also guilty is irrelevant.
ONE VOTE COUNTS...AND HE IS GUILTY OF VOTING AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA, as the SCOTUS SAID BUSH'S WIRETAPS WERE ILLEGAL...Thanks evie baby.
WE COULD HAVE STOPPED BUSH'S PLAN, BUT HIS ONE VOTE WAS THE DECIDER.
EVAN BAYH ENABALIZED GEORGE W. BUSH TO HAVE HIS SECRET WIRETAPPS ON ANY OR ALL AMERICANS IN AMERICA OUT OF AMERICA, EVERYWHERE WORLD WIDE
EVAN BAYH COULD HAVE STOPPED IT.
BUT HE DIDN'T.
That everyone else is also guilty is irrelevant.
ONE VOTE COUNTS...AND HE IS GUILTY OF VOTING AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA, as the SCOTUS SAID BUSH'S WIRETAPS WERE ILLEGAL...Thanks evie baby.
As one can apply the "He casted the deciding vote" logic on Evan Bayh, they can also apply it to any of the other 15 Democrats who voted for the bill, no? Yes, Evan Bayh could have stopped the bill... just as THE OTHER 15 DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE, TOO. Not to mention all of the others. What's fair is fair, right?
QUOTE(Arneoker @ Aug 6 2007, 08:28 AM)
Perhaps someone should start a, "Let's make Evan Bayh immortal and permanent, absolute world emperor," thread.
Seriously, it is certainly legitimate to question why someone votes a certain way in Congress. But I think it pretty clear that there is just no legitimate reason to single out Bayh for voting they way he did. Fifty-nine Senators voted for this bill. Several other Democrats voted the same way, most those representing Red States, as Bayh does. People may not see that as a good excuse, but the point is that is simply clearly wrong to single Bayh out. He dropped out of the Presidential race months ago. As far as his vote being so noteworthy because he might be considered for VP or the Cabinet, that could apply to several other Democrats as well.
Seriously, it is certainly legitimate to question why someone votes a certain way in Congress. But I think it pretty clear that there is just no legitimate reason to single out Bayh for voting they way he did. Fifty-nine Senators voted for this bill. Several other Democrats voted the same way, most those representing Red States, as Bayh does. People may not see that as a good excuse, but the point is that is simply clearly wrong to single Bayh out. He dropped out of the Presidential race months ago. As far as his vote being so noteworthy because he might be considered for VP or the Cabinet, that could apply to several other Democrats as well.
As pretty much always, Arne is demonstrating how an intelligent human looks at the world through reality glasses.
Yup, they are all guilty.
100percent need to be tossed out who voted for this
And true democrats won't forget this when all these people are up for re-election,they will find all of them shall have a major challenger and they will be defeated
One day in power the next day they can join the unemployment line
We won't forget.
Just 3 years and counting...1218 days til the election of 2010, and out they go
100percent need to be tossed out who voted for this
And true democrats won't forget this when all these people are up for re-election,they will find all of them shall have a major challenger and they will be defeated
One day in power the next day they can join the unemployment line
We won't forget.
Just 3 years and counting...1218 days til the election of 2010, and out they go
QUOTE(FellowDemocrat @ Aug 6 2007, 06:47 PM)
As one can apply the "He casted the deciding vote" logic on Evan Bayh, they can also apply it to any of the other 15 Democrats who voted for the bill, no? Yes, Evan Bayh could have stopped the bill... just as THE OTHER 15 DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE, TOO. Not to mention all of the others. What's fair is fair, right?
Yes. My senators from PA, one a Dem (Casey) and one a Rep (Specter), both voted for the bill.
One thing about Bayh he's a member of the DLC and the first person i've heard that criticized Bayh was Rachel Maddow, i've never liked the guy and i'm glad he's not running for pres he should be primaried.
QUOTE(ap215 @ Aug 6 2007, 07:30 PM)
One thing about Bayh he's a member of the DLC and the first person i've heard that criticized Bayh was Rachel Maddow, i've never liked the guy and i'm glad he's not running for pres he should be primaried.
Sorry to hear that Rachel criticized him, and that you dislike him, because he's one of my favorite politicians. Of course, if i were a politician, i'd be a member of either the Blue Dog or DLC organizations.
QUOTE(FellowDemocrat @ Aug 6 2007, 05:47 PM)
As one can apply the "He casted the deciding vote" logic on Evan Bayh, they can also apply it to any of the other 15 Democrats who voted for the bill, no? Yes, Evan Bayh could have stopped the bill... just as THE OTHER 15 DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE, TOO. Not to mention all of the others. What's fair is fair, right?
Before anything else, I have to admit I'm surprised this thread was allowed to stay after seeing it locked earlier today. The reasons I feel that way were expressed by Amy in her message locking the thread.
My $.02 about this issue are expressed in the other threads which (correctly) focus on all the Dems that have a history of voting with the Republicans, not just one single Senator. The Nelsons would be much more appropriate target if one wants to single out one or two Senators responsible for the continuing control Bush has over the Congress. Look at all the votes for the Supreme Court, War & funding bills, and the list goes on. The one person mentioned in this thread doesn't have a record nearly as bad as others that voted for FISA.
Having said all that, and while agreeing with what FD says in what I quoted, I still think the esteemed Senator from Indiana cast a vote against the American people and Constitution - along with the other 15 Dem Senators and 41 Dem Representatives that caved to Bush's demands.
QUOTE(Noonan @ Aug 6 2007, 11:42 PM)
Before anything else, I have to admit I'm surprised this thread was allowed to stay after seeing it locked earlier today. The reasons I feel that way were expressed by Amy in her message locking the thread.
After a discussion with the moderating team, I felt that making some changes (editing and deleting ) and moving the topic to this forum would be the best action to take at this time. Generally, the moderating team prefers to keep the deletion of an entire topic as the option of last resort. If problems continue within a thread, then removal of the topic is often the only way to confront the problem to maintain an acceptable level of civility for CGCS.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.