That second quote from the Huffington Post socked me in the gut. I can't blame him, but we need more like him to say what is what.

I concede that I know little of this man. He is not from my region. My impression of him was that he was a questionable guy after finding out that his wife gets money from the status quo medical crooks and murders. But that is my only "evidence" I will bet you a beer that he ends up being a lobbyist for the medical people, though.

Akopsa: He and his dad were very measured individuals. His dad had a great line about Gerry Ford in 76 when he was running for President. It was the kind of playful stuff that was ok. Ford was an All American football player. So the irony there was that this man who was likely one of the best athletes ever to be in the White House was mocked for being awkward largely because of a bad knee from playing football. Likewise, folks gave him a hard time for not having worn a helmet, to take shots at his intellect. Birch opined at one point that he had no problem with President Ford having played football without a helmet, it was that he had been a center, and he was still seeing the world upside down.

Spudman: Status quo medical crooks and murderers is likely the kind of rhetoric that turns people like Sen. Bayh off from continuing to serve.

Okay, I'll bite. Why is Bayh such a tragic loss? I am not being smart. Really, what has he done?

The issue of my rhetoric about calling the medical status quo crooks and murders comes from the perspective of one who sees their evil up close and personal. You are a supporter of the current system I assume? You must have insurance.

Well, as Robert Heinlein reportedly said, "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time, and it annoys the pig."

Good story. The casualties continue on Capitol Hill. Thanks for covering it.

"...and another one bites
and another one bites
Another one bites the dust."

(any more room in Canada?)

Touche--I assume that is the type of rhetoric that you think is unifying and clever. Okay then. I get you what you are. I won't bother you ever again.

Spudman: Do not dare to think you can come in here, talk about crooks and murderers and expect me to think I am going to have any success in getting you to consider in open minded fashion the credentials of someone you have described in such fashion. I am not going to waste my time. It is a little hypocritical of you to launch such insulting rhetoric and then take offense to a well known quotation that is a gently playful way of saying I can see discourse would not be productive. The operative antecedents to the tenor and tone here happen to be the phrases crooks and murderers re-enforced in your follow-up comment to the point where I simply decided it would be pointless. I am done. Feel free to take the last word here.

Save your tears. Evan Bayh will be back in Washington lobbying for corporate interests in a few years. One of the good guys... not.

Dorsey: This is the kind of attitude that poisons the atmosphere and has fewer and fewer people willing to step forward or stay in it. Did you read the quotes? He is looking at either running a business, working in academia, or some other non-profit.

They can read the handwriting on the wall. It is over for a lot of them from both parties. McCain most likely will lose, and does he really need to be told that? No. He should retire. My God the guy is 80.
Look out middle class...here come those "Read my lips moments" on taxes. Say what you will about both parties, one thing is for sure...all of the bums will be thrown out by 2012.

Bayh's voting record which tilted in favor of pharmaceutical, broadcast, insurance, food-distribution and finance industries will not be missed by me.

Bonnie: Not sure if I would agree on Byrd. I am not a fan of his at all.

TS: McCain is NOT 80. He is 73, turning 74 at the end of August. While it is true many of them are likely to be voted out, the polling suggests Bayh is not one in any danger. He is a well liked moderate poll who would have retained the seat, but is fed up with the tenor and tone in DC.

Dorsey: The summarization you have seems to suggest, then, that, though he is a democrat, he is not left leaning enough for you? Is this a sort of "good riddance, he's no different than a republican" or the left's equivalent of the "RINO" slur thrown at the likes of Jim Jeffords and Arlen Specter?

Blue Dogs who actually get work done, who are not fighting for corporations and who don't completely and embarrassingly bend over backwards to appease Republicans (who will never do the same in return) are OK by me.

He always seemed to talk the talk to Democrats (to get elected) but he never really worked for his base. The Senate is hard. That plus a realization that he wasn't ever going to be President probably caused him to quit. This country has no use for quitters. KTHNXBAYH

While the motivations for anyone's acts can never be fully known – even to them – I suspect the face Bayh puts on this is not quite so noble. Were I a cynic, I might wonder if his decision wasn’t at least influenced by the fact he profits handsomely from he and his wife’s connection with the health-insurance industry. But far be it from me to suggest anyone in Washington might be unduly influenced by that public-spirited industry.

What I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that having been immersed in hard-core politics his entire life – including even as a child – Bayh certainly should have been aware of the ways and wiles of Washington. Further, his decision is a sign he lacks the ability to keep these trying days in proper historical perspective.

I see a post coming, in which I put these matters in perspective -- tho I doubt it will do Bayh -- or anyone else save for me -- any good. I know I'll feel better for ranting.

Up front I'll tell you that I'm more liberal than Bayh. From my (admittedly few) observations of him, if Bayh had been in the Senate 30 - 35 years ago, he would've been a Rockefeller Republican. And likely would've been quite comfortable in the GOP. However, times and politics being what they are ....

Outside of Bayh being a member of the Dem caucus, I'm not going to miss him. His behavior during the health care reform debate being just the latest. Bayh was a steady voice for the health insurance industry. That Susan Bayh, his wife, is on the Board of Wellpoint, the health care insurance giant (and I'm not implying a quid pro quo) is ... unseemly. Legal, but unseemly. The Bayhs' bank account has swelled nicely thanks to her Wellpoint salary, bonuses and stock options.

Fine post. Rated.

It's nice to know that politicians can opt out for legitimate as well as self-serving reasons. Alas, voters don't have that luxury.

Tom: Read the HuffPo article. He was not in any danger of losing the election and was deemed a pretty safe flipping bet to get re-elected. This is NOT Dodd or Patches Kennedy seemingly reading the poll data and being faced with the reality they stand no chance. Read the quotes about dismay as to process on jobs and deficit reductions. These are displeasures expressed by a lot of seemingly block and tackle pols who are not as flashy and are simply fed up with the bickering and the back biting. And how in the hell can we sit here and blame DC when that very same kind of snotty, snarky and insulting rhetoric gets thrown around with nary a second thought by those voting for these people. Just read the comments sections around this place for crying out loud. Some guy comes in talking about crooks and murderers and then wonders why I am not going to bother to try to reason with them? Give me a break. It is depressing as shit to me to see what passes as political "conversation" these days. It flat out disgusts me as you and I have discussed publicly and privately.

Stim: Two worker couples will have those seeming conflicts. One can believe in a current system and not necessarily believe it needs wholesale overhaul without being driven solely by personal gain. My retired brother testified before the Hillary committee given he was a Senior Audit Partner with an understanding of healthcare economics. His head explodes over this topic based on the over simplified, and, dare I say, Glib? way in which the economics get tossed off by those eager to take it over. He has not vested interest in any of it. People can believe something without being a murderer or a crook.

Jeff: In some ways we get what we deserve. If the general tenor is always to be a sense of "good riddance" or to question a person's integrity, then why the hell should they continue to bother? Assume the worst and continue projecting the worst, and that is what we will wind up with. The pay is no nearly as lucrative as many want to believe to endure the hours and the ridicule.

Gordon: glad you liked it.

You'll probably get some flack from people here, but I'm with you. I'm probably more liberal than Bayh, but you can't really get a consensus (or legitimacy) on anything in Washington without moderates, and they're now classified as an endangered species. I knew about that second Huffington Post quote - Mitch McConnell was one of those clowns - but isn't that how most politicians, right or left, are?
Two things that are making it worse: 1) Congressional districts seem to be gerrymandered more and more to make them a safe Dem or Rep seat, meaning the winning candidate never has to appeal to moderates; 2) with the proliferation of political websites, everyone flocks to those that support their views, hardening everyone's positions into intransigence. I try to make it a point every day to read one or two columnists, like George Will, who I disagree with; it'll either moderate my view or convince me I'm right, but you have to have an open mind.

Cranky: I believe you are dead on with respect to the gerrymandering as a contributor. Each party at the national level deludes itself into thinking it is mainstream. Same goes for flocking to fox news or Rachel Maddow/Keith Olberman to listen to your echo chamber music. I cut my chops on presidential press advance in the 1980 race back when it was just ABC, CBS, NBC and upstart CNN. The shifts have not been for the better in many ways ...

Sorry, my friend, but I didn't suggest Bayh couldn't get re-elected -- he most likely would have won easily. What I suggested is Bayh's decision was not only based on his disappointment with DC, but on other considerations as well.

I'm willing to grant that he may well be of the same mind as Byron Dorgan of ND -- who you and I discussed previously. That is to say, their decision comes after a carefully considered risk/reward analysis that concluded it isn't worth the risk to their health or their sanity to continue laboring in the DC salt-mines, given that the befouled political climate has rendered all but impossible the reward of achieving their political aims.

But in addition, Bayh clearly had presidential ambitions, ambitions that were thwarted by a voting record that rendered him an unacceptable candidate for far too many within his own party. That record, of course, suits him well in Indiana. Democrats tend to dominate that state's major cities, but its vast agricultural rural areas are home to voters whose politics are conservative, and one is tempted to say Southern.

Bayh seems like an aware sort, and if so, his vested interest in the health insurance industry must prove an embarrassment -- or at least it ought to. He denies that interest affects his vote, and that may be true -- tho his voting record suggest otherwise. At the very least, his self-interest and his voting record leave the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Were Bayh a judge and not a legislator, he would be expected to recuse himself from such matters. Same goes for Joe Lieberman and many others. How can it be that the legal system fears judges decisions can be influenced by the self-interest, but that those who make the laws are not similarly affected? It is pure poppycock to argue otherwise.

So -- Tom said, finally able to draw in a breath -- given the frustration, the embarrassment and the fact Bayh will have his choice of lucrative opportunities in private life, his decision to get out while he's still young enough to enjoy another successful career is completely understandable.

Evenin' GWool,

I'm no fan of either party. That they act at all in a national interest can only be vaguely recognized around the margins of the concept.
However, the extreme polarization comes from the right. Partially by design, partially from an uncontrollable descent into fanaticism. The Republicans have become unfit for democracy, and reject ANY idea that doesn't result in their rule. Again, a byproduct of their advocating of fanaticism. Their base - which qualifies in both meanings - won't allow any compromise with The Evil Satanic Forces Leading Us To Socialist and Atheistic Enslavement.

Both parties serve the same interests, which in a sinister symbiosis is to say they serve their own interests. But let's not let an artificial Kumbya sentiment force us to seek a compromising lie about the party almost exclusively responsible for this toxic polarization.

And I hesitate to use "almost." That is generous.

Tom: By any chance did you catch Chuck Todd on NBC Nightly News tonight? Bayh bailing was the lead story. In it was also a look at the collection of republican and democratic senators who bailed out in 1996 citing excessive partisanship back then. It also had a clip of Voinovich (sp?) who is also retiring lamenting the same torpedoing of the deficit reduction commission that Bayh cited. There's a group in there concerned with this who cannot get the attention of enough folks to wrestle the issue to the ground. It's a bipartisan failure, frankly.

My reference to his re-election chances was in reaction to some of the rather snarky and cynical comments as to why he was getting out. This was NOT because he felt he was going to lose. He was fed up with the bullshit.

A) I wasn't calling anyone a murderer or a crook. So I agree with you that someone can believe X without being a murderer or a crook.
B) I agree with you that two worker couples can have careers in which a potential conflict of interest arises.
C) My point is that Bayh, as a sitting U.S. Senator, shouldn't have such an obvious conflict of interest. I know there are many, if not most, Senators/Congressfolks who have friends and family who work for various industries or lobbies that have business in front of Congress. There's a reason that Plato (oh yeah, I just threw in Plato) wrote that the rulers shouldn't have personal property. The rulers had to be above reproach. Absurdly idealistic? Sure. That doesn't make the concept wrong. Bayh may have voted the same way for the health insurance industry whether or not Susan was on the Board of Directors of Wellpoint. In his heart, Bayh may not have a conflict of interest. But the perception of a potential conflict can't be argued based on his voting record and her directorship. We voters have been burned countless times by politicians with less of a direct connection to the money pot.

Stim: I was in now way trying to imply you'd called him a murderer or a crook. That was thrown into this thread early, and it has really irked me, as it is emblematic of all that is WRONG with out discourse these days. I won't tolerate it and intend to ridicule it any chance I get. As for Bayh's wife on a board, what do you propose? Folks put their assets into blind trusts to avoid that appearance. But is a spouse supposed to drop out of the workforce? Will we pay more for the function if they are to forego the revenue? I mean, politicians get hammered no matter what they do, it seems. They have a right to earn livings, to have spouses who earn livings and to believe in things and act upon those beliefs. There's the political theory that says the officials should simply do the people's bidding in a sort of constant opinion poll like approach and there's another one that says they should vote their conscience based on likely having better information and insight and therefore should be trusted to use their judgement.

he could get elected, but he didn't think he could get anything done. The rancor coming at him from the left reminds of the rancor that encountered Jim Jeffords when he left. In divided government moderates in theory have some influence as they can broker agreements to get things done. That climate hasn't existed for a couple decades now, and it is not a good thing at all. That the left is saying good riddance to a guy with a good chance of losing the seat baffles me.

Gwool. I liked the post. I tried to remain quiet.
I am certain there are many unknown reasons.
Personal.
I'll wish him the best. Get in touch with family.
Nature. Ski. Fish. Be benevolent. No be bribed.
I don't know (no one knows the real reason), but-
There are questionable conflicts of interest, wife-
Etc.,
Heath lobby dealings, and easy-hand-out-money.
Cash.
Debacle.
Yes. Get honest.
On two occasions, Senior Birch Baye (retired) was a overnight Guest in my home.
He's stay to ski with his younger son. Not Evan. We'd eat breakfast and talk at length.
The conversations are memorable. We shared personal Testimony ref; war protest, and when Birch Baye first came to DC, and drove around house searching for a home to raise his children - Lyndon Johnson helped and befriended him. Birch Baye mentioned his background from rural farmlands, anti-war protesters were Guest in his DC home.
This happened two times around the Super Bowl games. I really enjoyed the Honorable Birch Baye. (No more details) He loves fluffy fluffy Blueberry pancakes. Michelle? He though She was beautiful?
He asked?
shush ups.
I be quiet.
The Farm was a Bed and Breakfast when a Ski Resort came to town. The Farm is not`
Wildfowers Bed and Breakfast any longer. My son lives there with his wife and two children. Michael (my son) left a fed job at the National Bonsai Arboretum. He was not fond of DC at all. Michael came Home.
He now farms,
and he loves it.
Politics today?
Where are Statesman? The nations capital is infested with delusional dark,
sleazy twit wastrels.
It's my strong opinion.
Wary. What's happened?
Wary
Weary
Whore
Wastrels
Birch Birch may have sat down with Evan and said`Go back and be a bib overhauled.
Be benevolent.
I could go on.
Respectfully,
I have letters.
These people are human, and like every human being can be led into devious shenanigans.
I best hush. Michele?
She is beautiful as OS.
I plead`No read OSers.
Michelle delivered Birch Baye's wallet that fell from his belongs in the driveway. She rushed to the Ski Resort on a empty tank of gas.
Giggle.
Remember?
Birch is welcome?
Visit. Eat blueberry?
Get a EP opportunity?
ah, a Eat & Pick berry.
`
What 'incited' a comment?
Ya Bio includes what is best?
The Family. I am a tech idiot.
I don't believe intelligence is ever reliable in war. What is gathered is what locals want Invaders to hear. My opinion is`There is No reliable Intelligence gathering mechanism. I base that from conversation and how South Vietnamese scouts were paid. The ARVN military (The Army the USA recruited in the Republic of South Vietnamese) despised American war generals. "Intelligence" is pure textured baloney.
USA's citizens get duped.
I wish politico's STOP saying ... "What the American people want." And also,
STOP saying YOU are protecting The American Troops. Politicians, STOP saying Troops like You POOP! Gads, could I rant ref`Protect? WHO?
STOP!
LIES!
General
do a stinky
all day POOP!
apology?
Evan can do some good.
Benevolent. Share Loot.


farms what

Reid may be on his way out as well. No great loss.

Now, if only Nancy Pelosi could find a way to retire with her dignity in tact.

Rated.

Wool, you're a lousy host. Your comments are arrogant and insulting and you don't even seem aware of it. You way the fu@K overreacted to Spudman and then got insulting. I was very disappointed in your performance in the comments.

Another example of nepotism in politics. Good riddance to bad rubbish. Let's face it, the folks who call themselves "centrists" are actually 1970s conservatives. The folks who are labeled "liberal" actually are 1970s centrists.

If this guy's last name was "Smith" he never would have gotten a start in politics. What were this guy's most important pieces of legislation over his Senate career?

Answer: N/A (nothing applicable)

I am not impressed. It is too bad he did not express his thoughts and feelings to his comrades in the Senate. He has done nothing to improve the situation, with unprecedented and ugly opposition that is based on lies, distortion, double crossing, and character assassination from Republicans and weakness from himself and his colleagues.
While he expresses the same sentiments of all of us, he was/in the position with the opportunity and the responsibility to do something about it. He chose to leave. It is too hard to participate in government during tough times. It is not an automatic easy slide in to first base of popularity with nothing more to offer than a great last name.
His "solution" is behavior no different from when he "served". It sounded wimpy and full of egocentric needs.

PaulJ: Well ... suffice to say I do not quite see it that way. :) Each side gives as good as they get. Each side needs to throttle it back. It's a very polarizing and nasty climate.

Art: Interesting stuff. Thanks.

Blackflon: It seems Reid might be in a little trouble in Nevada. I have to assume Pelosi is safe. I think incumbents on both sides are a little leery.

Jaimot: Thanks for the comments.

K2: Well, sorry you see it that way. I have some boundaries, frankly, around political discourse. It has sunk far enough, and I am not really inclined to tolerate it. Those wishing to rant about crooks, thieves, murderers, fascists, nazis, McCarythites, socialists, and on and on and on won't.

OE: Yes. The country has shifted rightward. Dole was a crazed rightie in 76 and a wishy washy moderate in 96 who stood next to Barry Goldwater mocking those in the party who called Barry a liberal, saying he would wear the mantle of "Goldwater Liberal" proudly. Again, the issue is NOT the specific politics of this or that pol but rather the way in which they conduct themselves down there. A big part of the reason nothing gets done down there is the fact there is so little respect for the opposing viewpoints. It is just too damn nasty.

Tommye: It is not clear to us whether he expressed those thoughts or not. A lot of the real work gets down outside of the limelight. Those in front of the cameras are oftentimes not well thought of by those whose staffs do the heavy lifting to try to get things framed up and codified.

Stellaa: Thanks for chiming in. I would not expect us to be in agreement here. Sure, he's a blue dog, which I gather is to dems what the so-called "RINOs" are to democrats. Each party is having these defections right now, which points to the overall climate down there that simply is NOT inclined to bend much. It's just way too polarizing. Put it this way, Stellaa, who is going to want to try to engage in thoughful healthcare debates if talked about as crooks, murderers, death squads, etc, etc? That stuff has to stop. We do not pay those people enough to keep going on demonizing them like that and expect them to stick around for more abuse. Singing lessons to pigs, no?

He did cite tenor and tone, and people who don't keep their word in political negotiations--so, what, was he born yesterday? That was lamer than lame. Now he is going to create more jobs as a CEO of a single company than he could have helped to promote as a Senator?

His Senate gambit only worked while he was in the minority. He has no taste for party loyalty as a Democrat, and in another era would have been a Rockefeller Republican. Bayh is looking out for Bayh, and someday may reemerge as a Republicrat governor.

The outcome is that without him, we certainly face a more conservative replacement, no matter who wins.

It's discouraging and understandable. The system seems so corrupt and out of balance, it would drive one insane. Excellent post Geoff.

Steve: I have to be honest and say the opening part of your comment saddens me. Yeah, I guess if you expect that you can take people at their word in formulating policy you do have to have been born yesterday. The climate is a huge part of the problem. I just watched Judd Gregg on MSNBC being interviewed. There's a health care summit being called by Obama for February 25th and He and another ranking member of the Senate budget committee are not invited. You want to talk about healthcare but not talk about the numbers? Are you kidding?

Mary: Yeah. It just kind of sucks all the way around. If civility is not dead it sure as hell feels as though it is on life support.

This is a civilized set of comments. I agree with the person who said that Bayh is really a Rockefeller Republican. That would be true of many of the Blue Dogs, and there lies one of the Senate's problems. The blues are really the valid Republicans now; those who call themselves Republicans are religious or ideological radicals who would not, in normal times, have the voice and authority that they exercise these days. Liberal Democrats can work with the blues, and with them can achieve that vaunted goal of bipartisan compromise. But not even so-called "moderate" Republicans, like the ladies from Maine, are anything like the moderates of old--they're all beyond the pale.

It may sadden you, but legislators change stances on issues every day, for a million reasons. It happens at a macro level, too. For example, many Republicans once favored mandatory health insurance?

From a Julie Rovner NPR report from yesterday:

"'Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it,' said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). 'The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty.'

But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it."

Keith: I appreciate the summarization of the comments. I take a bit of exception to the notion that all moderate republicans are beyond the pale because, well, I consider myself one. :) Consider Judd Gregg, if you will. He is as he appears, which is a very fiscally conservative old yankee who one might say throws nickels around like they are manhole covers. His concerns over funding are real and genuine. I do wince along with you at some of the more vocal elements of the right flank. Indeed, it could be argued I flinch MORE than you, as they are making that noise inside my home rather than yours. But it is a broad brush to dismiss all moderate republicans. There's not a lot left as they have been getting driven out. The same, however, seems to be taking place in the democratic party, that is just going to leave us with two armed counts shouting at each other with no group in the middle of it all trying to hammer out workable compromises.

Steve: I perhaps was not clear. Certainly people change their positions on things over time. The operative words there would be "over time." What I am talking about, and what I think Bayh was getting at with respect to the failed deficit compromise was people ostensibly saying or promising one thing in the moment and doing another. Changing positions on health care components from 1992 to 2010 is perfectly understandable. Ted Kennedy spearheaded legislation creating HMOs in 1973, for example. Folks voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1064 on states rights issues who later had to admittedly wince about it later. Pols hang around long enough they will all have votes to rue.

But ... Saying one thing in chambers and voting another way a week or two later is quite another. Does this clarify things a little?

Bye-bye Bayh, barely a Democrat.

Today's so-called political center is like the inner circle of a donut. Nada, niente, rien.

I didn't think you'd see it my way, Gwool, but I understand.
My cousin Tim went ass-over-head insane and was locked away for years. We didn't like talking about it either.
:)

Just do me a favor. Follow up on this. For all of those saying he is leaving because of trouble or dublicity. Let us know in a few months what he is doing and did he really leave because of what he says? Or for other reasons like the cynics say today?

Stellaa: Part of that Kabuki theater seems to me to be a very concerted effort to avoid a frank discussion of the costs associated with it. The undercurrent seems to be a desire to simply get it enacted and worry about cost later. That scares a lot of people. Yesterday, as I think I wrote in a comment, I saw Judd Gregg interviewed on MSNBC where it mentioned to him he had not been invited to the health care summit for 2/25. Judd is the the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. It would seem a full and frank discussion of healthcare would include some of the numbers people to figure out the cost elements, would it not? Secondly, various poll data shows the issue to not be the primary concern right now. Deficits, jobs, and national security eclipse it. Thirdly, the rallying cry of "not being partisan enough" is a recurring them on both flanks, frankly. Hard righties say it as much as hard lefties, with each believing the other side to be the more partisan.

Deborah: It will be interesting to see what he is doing. There could be room for a third party presidential candidate if this partisan nonsense continues.... Provided he or she is not some crazy aunt in the basement of H. Ross' crazy house, that is.

Paul: I'd stick my tongue out at you through emoticons, but I have been admonished for being hypocritical by denouncing incivility and then being snarky myself. :)

Supposedly. But we don't yet know the "back story."

Re: your comment about refusal to consider the costs of health care reform... The reason I cannot take Republican concern about costs seriously, is the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. To me, the Republican meme of "fiscal responsibility" has become a complete joke, and so Republican politicians who supported the previous administration have no leg to stand on when it comes to budgets. They had 8 years, 6 if I'm charitable, to do something about health care, and instead it got worse and worse. I believe the Democrats are at least considering the costs of NOT reforming health care. And they are quite high. The Evan Bayhs of the world have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in that industry.
As far as rancor from the right is concerned, I tend to view it as practically the entire problem. Because not only is there the whole pseudo-Christian gay-hatin' uterus-0wnin' element, but there is the trigger-happy, bomb-them-all element as well... costs be damned. Until Republicans can seriously start looking at the military budget, let alone the ethics of pre-emptive war and capricious "liberation," well, I just can't believe they're gonna do much good about anything else. Especially given the nation's budget history during the last 18 years. How anyone continues to buy into the "I'm socially liberal, but the Republicans are more fiscally responsible" thing is beyond me.