By DEBBIE HARBESON

I’m not sure why Sen. Evan Bayh’s announcement that he will not run again is big news. It’s just another example of a politician doing what’s best for the politician.

He’s used government for years to develop his image and doesn’t want to risk losing it if the political climate moves against decades-long incumbents. Sure, he can say he’s confident he would be re-elected, but by getting out now, he doesn’t have to be accountable.

I was interested when he said he’s an “executive at heart” and values his “independence.” Isn’t this how we all feel? We all claim independence and are “executives at heart” because we naturally want control over our own lives.

The difference is that most of us concentrate on pursuing these desires on an individual level, allowing others to do the same. We don’t feel the need to develop a career controlling other people.

There are even rumblings that Bayh’s desire for control even played a part in who will take his place as the Democratic candidate since his announcement fell so close to the filing deadline.

Bayh seems most upset over what he considers to be too much partisanship in Congress. He’s pretending that something different is happening right now, but it’s nothing new. It’s just that he’s not getting what he wants so it’s a nice excuse.

He also laments the unwillingness to compromise. I’ve never understood why compromise is considered a value to worship under the umbrella of government force. Taking pride in compromise and assuming it’s the preferred action implies that it’s wrong to take a stand and hold that stand; that it’s somehow wrong to have clearly defined principles — not that I think anyone in government has clearly defined principles.

In reality, the kinds of compromises politicians like Bayh make are compromises that by their very nature force those who disagree to comply. The two parties pat themselves on the back for their grand ability to compromise, completely ignoring how their actions affect people who didn’t want to be a part of their deal.

Compromise is always assumed to be a good thing and no one ever talks about how political compromises always favor the growth and perpetuation of the system, the very system Bayh now denounces.

Think of it like this: There’s a car for sale at a local lot. One salesman wants to sell it for $20,000 and the other wants to sell it for $24,000 so they compromise with each other and price it at $22,000.

Then, they grab you off the street and happily inform you that through their amazing ability to work together and compromise, they’ve decided you’re going to buy this car for $22,000. They totally ignore the fact that you don’t want to buy a car. You’re supposed to be happy they were able to reach a compromise with each other, but buying the car is non-negotiable.

But enough about Bayh’s past life. I’m glad he’s moving on. In fact, I want to congratulate him for finally figuring out that government really doesn’t work so well. I’m glad he’s finally joining those of us who also do not love Congress.

I would like to welcome him to the private sector. At least it sounds like that’s where he plans to go, so I’m excited to see what Bayh will do next. Where will his “executive nature” and independence lead him? Will he ignore government and work to develop solutions through cooperation and persuasion, in a voluntary manner and not through force backed up by threats of violence?

I can’t wait to find out.

HOWEY: Bayh didn’t trust Democrat voters to choose his successor

By BRIAN HOWEY

FRANKLIN — In the early days of my career as a columnist, I watched a young Indiana secretary of state named Evan Bayh enter office only to find a mess. As the state’s chief elections officer, he had to preside over a congressional and two legislative recounts in Northern Indiana.

In the 3rd District, Democrat Tom Ward had come within a handful of votes of upsetting U.S. Rep. John Hiler in 1986. Several months later, Bayh ruled that Hiler had won after an arduous recount process, angering some Democrats who had pressured him to rule for the party and not for the process.

When Bayh abruptly announced last Monday that he would not stand for reelection in a decision that stunned just about everyone, he mentioned that 1986 race.

“I cast the deciding vote in the closest congressional race in the nation for a member of the other political party because I believed he had legitimately won the election,” Bayh said.

He would go on to level a searing indictment of American politics today.

“After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so by serving in Congress has waned,” Bayh said. “To put it in words most Hoosiers 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. I have always tried to remember that my job is to work for Hoosiers, not the other way around, and I am constantly reminded that if Washington, D.C., could be more like Indiana, Washington would be a better place.”

His assessment of Congress is on target. I have never been more disgusted with the partisanship and lack of progress and issues such as health care, the deficits and reforming the financial system than I am today.

While Bayh rightly targets this polarization on Capitol Hill, he literally did so by disenfranchising every Democratic Party voter in Indiana.

He waited until the day before the filing deadline to announce his decision. His former chief of staff, William Moreau Jr., told me, “This has been going on for quite some time. Certainly, it would be accurate to characterize it as months.”

There were reports out of Washington that Bayh had considered retirement, but nobody thought he would do it just hours before the filing deadline.

The irony is that he did it on Presidents Day, when his own presidential ambitions have been dashed after using the various stepping-stones — secretary of state, governor, U.S. Senator — to get there, only to be eclipsed by Barack Obama.

Why would he do that?

It’s about control. Bayh wants to decide who his successor will be. He just didn’t believe that Democrats could work the process, declare candidacies, build campaigns, raise money, come up with new ideas and bring them successfully before the voters.

All of the natural heirs were completely caught off guard. U.S. Rep, Baron Hill was on a military tour in Afghanistan. U.S. Reps. Joe Donnelly and Brad Ellsworth were already deep into their reelection bids.

Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott was interested in running, but didn’t know if it would be an “open and fair process” and wondered if Democrats had been disenfranchised.

“If it’s truly an open seat, let us know. Or let us know if it’s a done deal,” said McDermott.

While decrying the decay of the political process in Washington, Bayh chose to bow out with cynical, controlling paternalism; that Democrats in his home state aren’t mature enough or wise enough to decide who would step up.

The roots of this may stem from 2008, when a barely veiled attempt by his team that controls the party backed Indianapolis architect Jim Schellinger for governor. Schellinger ran a terrible campaign and was defeated by former congresswoman Jill Long Thompson.

Both candidates were broke at the end of the primary and Gov. Mitch Daniels went on to win by 18 percent. In the eyes of Bayh and the party elders, the primary was messy, expensive and out of their control.

Literally, as I am writing this column, the Indiana Democratic Central Committee is engaged in a conference call to determine who gets the nomination, instead of the hundreds of thousands of Hoosier Democratic voters who could have decided in a “legitimate election.”

Meanwhile, the five Republicans — Dan Coats, State Sen. Marlin Stutzman, John Hostettler, Richard Behney and Don Bates Jr. — are following the law and lining up the 4,500 signatures needed to qualify for the ballot as a prelude to exercising an essential task in democracy.

Bayh began his elective career as a beacon for not only Democrats, but also hundreds of thousands of Republicans and independents that voted for him.

He stood tall in the 1986 election and as governor and senator did many good things. Last Friday night, I had dinner with a Franklin College student who benefited from his 21st Century Scholars program that pays for her tuition.

But Bayh ended it by playing party boss, making a decision for his “children” in the Democratic Party, who hadn’t earned his trust after so many years of doing his bidding.

Reports: Sen. Bayh not seeking re-election

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

INDIANAPOLIS Media reports say that Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana has decided to not seek re-election.

The Indianapolis Star reports that Bayh is attributing his decision to excessive partisanship that makes progress on public policy difficult to achieve as the motivation for his decision.

Bayh scheduled a Monday afternoon news conference in Indianapolis.

The Associated Press left messages seeking comment at his Senate office and for state Democratic chairman Dan Parker, who is Bayhs campaign manager.

Sen. Evan Bayh has on numerous occasions responded to me that he is committed to representing the interests of his Southern Indiana constituents. He also repeatedly claims to be in support of fiscal responsibility and open communications with his electorate.

As we can see from the present closed-door negotiations, the voices in the Democratic Party that claim to be in support of all I mentioned above, are nowhere to be heard, including Bayh. This presents a striking quandary. If they are committed to all they claim to be, why do we not hear from them demanding that the leadership and the president open up these meetings and put forth exactly what is being discussed?

The reason is because they are all in this together. In for a penny, in for a pound.

The reality is that your Democratic Party representatives and senators are all working together to pass what the American people have rejected.

Just as the immigration fiasco that President Bush tried to force onto us was defeated, this same fate should be visited on health care reform.

Unfortunately, it appears that the only way to defeat this will be to vote straight ticket, Republican, in the upcoming elections. The Democrats are bound and determined to pass this, no matter what. Even in the face of being defeated at election time.

You can send a message in November of this year. Vote out the Democratic Party. They are not representing you. They have broken their promises of transparency. They have broken their promises of an open government process. They deserve to be removed from power.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Democratic Party is in absolute control now. And their corruption is showing badly.

William Hawkins, Bethlehem