Bayh throws Democrats into a tizzy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Year In Review

The political world trembled on Feb. 15, when Indiana’s Democratic U.S. senator, Evan Bayh, announced he would not seek a third term.

The statement dealt a blow to Indiana Democrats by strengthening the chances that a Republican would take over the seat that Bayh, a popular former Indiana governor, was expected to easily retain in November. That expectation was fulfilled when Republican Dan Coats, a former U.S. senator turned lobbyist, defeated Democratic U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth in November. That put both of the state’s Senate seats in GOP hands.

It also served as a telling signal of the intensity of the gridlock and partisan politics in Washington. During his announcement, Bayh cited the atmosphere in Congress—and his belief that he could make a bigger impact on public policy by serving in another role—as reasons for not running again.

At the time of his decision, Bayh, a respected lawmaker who had been a strong contender to be President Obama’s running mate, had $13 million in campaign cash.

He made his announcement a day before the primary filing deadline—leaving potential candidates without time to cobble together the signatures needed to get on the ballot. The decision was left to the Democratic Party’s central committee, which picked Ellsworth as the nominee.

Ellsworth’s loss in November mirrored the defeat of Democrats in national races across the United States, driven by voter discontent over issues such as the economy and health care. Coats won about 55 percent of the vote in Indiana, as Republicans across the country took control of the U.S. House and chipped away at Democrats’ control of the Senate.

Democrats had hoped Bayh would pursue a run for governor in 2012, but he said earlier this month that he would not pursue the office again.•


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.