Talk:Evan Bayh

small confusion issue I don't have the means to correct:

" In the 2004 election he received more votes in Indiana than President Bush, a feat unheard of by a Democrat in a state as staunchly Republican as Indiana."

This can't possibly be right. What is this statement actually trying to say? Is it just an error, or what?

The statement is referring to Indiana's vote for the senate race VS Indiana's vote for president. In the 2004 election, President Bush received 1,479,438 votes for President in the popular vote from Indiana voters while Evan Bayh received 1,496,976 votes in his senate bid against Marvin Scott.

The statement is trying to show that *typically* when a Presidential candidate wins the popular vote of a state by a large margin that the opposing party candidates at the state level generally lose or receive wins by much smaller margins.

This was not the case in Indiana in the 2004 Senate race. Evan Bayh, a Democrat, won by a very large margin. I see the confusion. Perhaps it should read, "He receieved more votes in Indiana for his senate election than George Bush receieved for President". Something along those lines.Harmon1630

Changes

Made some minor grammatical changes. Intro paragraph included: "...member of the Democratic Party, and recently has become widely considered a potential Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential election." Changed confusing sentence to: "...member of the Democratic Party, and has recently become considered a potential Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential election."--Djramey 14:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation

What is the exact pronounciation of his name? Bey or Baay?--Sina 09:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Bye." Ground 11:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is it "Bye" or "BYE-ah"? Many news reporters have pronounced the name as "BYE-ah". --Lst27 (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm almost completely positive that his name's pronounced as "Bye," just as Ground said. I go to college in Indiana, and that's how everyone pronounces his name on campus. - RPH

OK. Thanks. --Lst27 (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I presume that the first syllable of his first name is pronounced as a short 'e', but, if not, it would be interesting to give the correct standard pronunciation. Thomasmeeks 01:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Law school

Evan Bayh's official congressional biography [1] lists his J.D. from Hoosier College. However the article indicates that he received a law degree from the University of Virginia in 1981. I will leave the text of the article as is for the moment, but intend to research this further. Potatoe 22:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I just finished extensive research on Evan Bayh, and he absolutely received his law degree from Virginia (He even delivered an address there recently). To add upon that, there is no such place as Hoosier College. I won't revert your edit though, as we'd all be better off if you continue your more thorough research to double check me. Craig R. Nielsen 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

From Bayh's website [2]: "Bayh was born in Shirkieville, Indiana. He graduated with honors in business economics from Indiana University in 1978, and received his law degree from the University of Virginia in 1981." I'll go ahead and switch it, though I'm still very curious about the Hoosier College ref. Potatoe 03:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Hoosier College reference may have been due to some confusion with the fact that the Indiana University athletic teams are known as Indiana Hoosiers and that Indiana is the Hoosier State. --Fenra 01:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Source

In "Candidacy for National Office," is there a source for the last sentence? "Some viewed Bayh's shift as being an attempt to woo liberal Democrats who make up a large part of the presidential primary electorate." While this is inevitably true, I could just as easily write, "Some viewed Bayh's shift as an inevitable consequence of watching a failed administration grapple with a failed war." Point being, I think a source is needed.

Neutral Point of View violations

Many recent edits to this article are now affecting its objectivity. In particular, information that might be construed as negative has been repeatedly removed.

Example:

Bayh has voted against confirming United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. He has also become increasingly critical of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, for which he voted.

Since recent news appears to indicate that Senator Bayh is actively contemplating a run for the Presidency, the removal of these relevant passages calls into question whether the article contains a Neutral Point of View. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jpetersen46321 (talk • contribs) 21:16, June 25, 2006 (UTC)

I agree that information is worthy of being included, I was simply reverting because the mass reversion had written over some worthwhile edits that had happened in the middle (including pointing to the correct picture, etc.). Craig R. Nielsen 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing biased about it. His voting record is what it is. And as somebody looking for information on his policy stances, I think it is very much relevant to this article. --Anarchy45 16:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

--One is not arguing that Senator Evan Bayh's voting record is irrelavant. However, it is extremely brief, and for the sake of this article, it should include the REASONS that he voted in the way that he did. Simply to conspicuously and capriciously list the individuals that he has voted against confirming and to say that he's critical of a war in Iraq "for which he voted" is subliminally PARTIAL. If one wants to find information about Evan Bayh on Wikipedia, then I think it is incumbent upon those writing (these particular passages) to be more OBJECTIVE AND DETAILED.

--To the above editor, I invite you to provide this information if it can be done with a Neutral Point of View. Since these particular votes involve recent issues involving significant public discourse and controvery, their inclusion provides the reader with factual information of interest. Further, I suggest that to explain "WHY?" Senator Bayh votes as he does may go beyond the scope of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View objectives into the realm of partisanship. Once again, factual information regarding the Senator's voting record is valid and should be included whether you (the reader) happen to approve or disapprove of the results. Finally, please include caption and user information with further posts.Jpetersen46321

--In essence, you are doing noone a service by including the above... it explains Bayh's voting record, while failing to explain his reasons for voting in the manner that he did, which IS extremely important because it allows us to understand the CANDIDATE. This has nothing to do with "bias partisanship." Simply explaining why he voted in the way that he did allows the readers to understand how the candidate thinks and what he believes. Point being, I will no longer delete this excerpt (even though I have not been the only one to do so), but it's still written unprofessionally, and VAGUELY, (that is of course until it's fixed..)..Maverick20

--Please provide any gramatical and linguistic corrections that improve clarity. Further, since I do not know why Bayh voted as he did, if you can provide that information consonant with Wikipedia NPOV requirements, please do. Jpetersen46321

I would have to agree that the voting record is not biased just because it doesn't have the reasons behind each vote. However, it is potentially biased by which confirmation votes you select to include. If it does not include all confirmation votes, then they should be selected by relevancy (e.g. select the votes about people that are more prominent, or about people whose confirmation was more debated). Optimally we'd show all confirmation votes, and perhaps highlight the ones that outside sources deem relevant. I don't think it is inherently biased to include his said reasons for voting against these confirmations, however, this page is sorely lacking criticism of Bayh. It is likely that some people don't like him, and we should balance the page by including known criticism of his viewpoints and political career. Cesoid 03:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio section removed.

I removed the "energy" section from focus issues - it was copied from this page. It does appear to be a "focus issue" for him though, so if someone with more knowledge of the subject could rewrite it in their own words, that would be excellent. -Elmer Clark 22:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Obvious that Bayh has been editing this

ok, i think it's pretty clear that evan bayh has been editing this, it might as well be a progadanda page for his presidential run

That seems like a questionable shot. Show examples please.Djramey 12:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the Senator himself would or has the time to edit his Wiki page.

-I have edited some of the material, which is clearly not neutral (see the history). And no, he's most likely not doing it himself, but he surely has (ahem) *helpers* who would be concerned about his bio on Wikipedia. As an example, let's see how long the abortion material stays as the first topic of the issues. 1diot 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, so far, it's still there. Hurrah for democracy! But there is still some editing needed, to get rid of the rosy picture of Bayh the magnificent. 1diot 20:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering AB comes before AG why wouldn't the abortion section come first? Durghhh.

Yes, it would come first, but it might be deleted by someone who does not want it there. Aarrgh.1diot 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

needs work

This article needs to be formatted correctly and cite its sources using the <ref> tags, and such. If there is a position, cite it. If there is a quote, cite it. If there is a reference, have some text to provide context, or remove it to the external links section. I'll try and help, but more experienced editors should help. Thanks. --198.185.18.207 20:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

congressional hearings via C-span

I have been watching C-span for quit a some time, espically the hearings and I am very angry and frustrated as to why the people who are under the gun to answer the questions that are asked of them by our elected officals (house and senate)are not held accountable to answer the question, instead, they do a lot of spin without out giving an answer or say they will get back to you on that.

When asked what is the consequnece of Iraq not meeting the benchmarks, the answer is always, we will evaulate and initiate a new plan. My question is "when do the new plans (which there have been many new plans in the last five years) cease and we can get our troops out of there. Iraq in nothing more than a money pit which corporate America is getting richer and we the (John Q public) public are getting poorer and poorer, because, the services which we (John Q public) have paid into are being are being cut of funds. In my opinion this government is being very successiful on the path of seeing that The United State of America is on the fast path of becoming a third world world country.

In watching C-span and the Sunday morning news shows, it is obvious to me that our elected officials do not care what their constituents thing only what they think, which tells me they (the elected officals) ate only self interested. I have yet to hear one of them say what their constituents want. Is that because they are un-aware or just don't give one iota? I think it is the latter.

I saw when wating the hearings that you asked pertantent questions, however, you allowed the person being asked the question to not answer the question at all, the only thing they said was something that was totaly unrelated to the question asked. I ask you what good does it do in the person (who is suppose to know the answer) not be accountabe to answer the question asked.

I can no longer say our political system works. In my view we are in a plutrocicy (a facist state) I can no longer say I am proud to be a United State citizen. I have lost just about all of my rights thank to the Patroit Act. I have NO represtation in my government (City, Township, County, State or Federal) all that is wanted from me is TAXES and more TAXES with NOTHING in return. Everything was once afforded to John Q (Social Security & Medicare) is having premium increased while deductable is being increased annually.

I am retired and do depend on Social Security (of which I have paid into for 55 years) Half of my monthly check goes for rent and utilities. My Medigap has gone up 11% annually as had the Part D. which has also gone up 10% while the deductible has gone up 12%. My car insurance has gone up 13%. As you can see where I am coming from.

If the elected officals are really interested in John Q public then why (since you have to be affluent event to run for office) don't you use your own money to pay for what ever average citizen pays. (I don't have someone to drive me from my home to office, free airfare, housing allowence, food allowence, free family trips, get $1000.00 a person to hear what I have to say, free parking space, office supplies, health care, pension plan {for ever} not to mention you staff and office space. These are all taxpays dollars being used. Why don't elected officals have to foot some of these costs.

Have you ever tried to raise two children by yourself on $17,000 annual income? Of course, most politions have no clue what it is like. Instead elected officals work with billions, millions, and trilions of dollars I don't think they have any clue what it is to work a budget consisting of $20, $50 and if you really lucky $100 bills monthly.

Well I guess I have vented enough for this time.

Have a good day.

–Jean Thornton —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.115.31.114 (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

NPOV: Focus Issues

This section reads like a piece of campaign literature. Here's some examples of the wording:

As a member of the Small Business Committee, Senator Bayh has made more resources and tools available to Indiana's small businesses.

During his time in the Senate, Bayh has led efforts to combat the illegal trade practices of foreign countries, including China. Bayh’s bipartisan Stopping Overseas Subsidies (SOS) Act allows the United States to fully enforce its antisubsidy laws and increase the ability of U.S. companies to fight unfair trade.

The whole section reads like that and has links to positive articles. I think that serious NPOV work needs to be done there, as well as potentially removing the notable speeches section. Alethiareg (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)