By the time Birch Evans (Evan) Bayh III announced yesterday afternoon that he would not seek a third term in the U.S. Senate, he had fallen far from his position as one of the Democrats’ safest reelection bets. Although he declared that his decision was motivated by his desire to escape the “strident partisanship” of the present-day Senate and his interest in finding “better ways to serve my fellow citizens,” he faced the prospect of losing the seat in the same fashion his legendary father did 30 years ago. According to internal party polls just three months ago, he was polling at 63 percent; by late January, the junior senator from Indiana had the support of a mere 45 percent of likely voters surveyed by Rasmussen Reports.  
 

Even a $12 million war chest could no longer shield Bayh from an array of formidable Republican challengers, including former congressman John Hostettler — whose famed eccentricities seemingly do not interfere with his ability to rally grassroots supporters — and state senator Marlin Stutzman, whose passionate following among the tea-party crowd may overcome his otherwise low name recognition. Even Bayh’s predecessor, Dan Coats, is tossing his hat into the ring, despite his having spent more time over the last decade lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry than paying attention to Hoosier politics. 
 
Certainly there is speculation that Bayh may seek the Democratic presidential nomination — or even attempt an independent presidential campaign — in 2012 or 2016. This assumes that Bayh can repeat his past success in presenting himself as one of the Democratic party’s more centrist players. But it was precisely this well-practiced fence-straddling between conservatism and liberalism that led to Bayh’s downfall. The anger and fatigue among Hoosier voters over the current recession — combined with President Obama’s unpopularity — are hurting all Democrats, but Bayh was hurt even worse by the perception among both conservatives and liberals that he stood for his own political ambitions (and occasionally, his wife’s business interests) than for any consistent ideology. 
 
The danger of demonstrating such an absence of strong, thoughtful political positions should be kept in mind by Republicans and Democrats alike. It is often better to be principled (and even a tad ideological) to a fault than to be milquetoast by a mile.