Dan Quayle: Bayh Out, Reganism In

Quayle: Bayh Out, Reaganism In [Robert Costa]

Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) will not seek re-election this year, leaving former GOP Sen. Dan Coats, for now, the race’s frontrunner. Coats represented northeastern Indiana in the House during the Reagan years and moved to the Senate in 1989 when Dan Quayle became vice president. Quayle tells National Review Online that he is not surprised by Bayh’s decision and that it is “good news for Dan Coats.”

“Senator Bayh has been in there for quite awhile,” Quayle says. “Four years as secretary of state in Indiana, eight years as governor, and twelve years as a senator. The timing of it took me by surprise, but not his reasons. He’s had a long, good run from his perspective and wants to move on. He tried to run for president, was passed over by Obama as a vice-presidential candidate, and he’s not in the Democratic Senate leadership — he’s leaving on his own terms.”

Quayle beat Bayh’s father, former Sen. Birch Bayh (D., Ind.), as part of the Reagan sweep in 1980. Could this year be just as successful for the GOP? “Possibly,” Quayle says. “There are some similarities. The grassroots are very anxious. There is a lot of talk about Reagan values and the Reagan view of the world: smaller government, less regulation, less taxes, and a strong national defense. That’s the direction this country is heading. Now, Republicans won the Senate in 1980, but we did not get the House, so though things look good now, we’re still a long way from November. This will be a very good year for the GOP, it’s just not clear how good.”

Quayle says Coats, who has spent the past decade in private life, “is a quality person who has great values.” Quayle adds that he also brings a fresh perspective, even after many years of service. “A lot of us on the outside were very disappointed with how Republicans acted when they were in power, in terms of how they spent money and were aggressive on earmarks. The party has to accept responsibility for that, and Dan Coats is clearly of the ilk of understanding what went wrong and where the party needs to go.”