More

Russell Shaw

Russell Shaw

Posted: August 30, 2007 08:32 AM

Quit Pickin' On Brian Baird


Monday night, Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) told a meeting of constituents in Vancouver, Wash. that although he voted against authorization for the war in Iraq and he still wishes we never went in, we ought to give the surge a chance to work.

Not only that, but Rep. Baird cited multiple trips to Iraq and conversations with commanders and soldiers to justify his view that if we pull out now, the shit will really hit the fan.

Speaking of, that's what happened as soon as Rep. Baird started articulating his views to the crowd. Shout-downs hurled forth. And now just today, MoveOn.org announces a $20,000 ad campaign to state their case and perhaps even see if the climate was right for someone to run against Rep. Baird in the next cycle.

I came down against the invasion, and came down against the surge. But to me, this whole episode strikes me as a prime example of the ham-handedness and lack of realpolitik the NetRoots is often guilty of.

Rep. Baird represents the Congressional District next to mine. I've been following him closely, ever since he defeated right-wing theocrat Rep. Linda Smith back in November, 1998.. In fact, I can peer into his District from the back deck of my Portland hillside condo.

There are three truths about Rep. Baird the NetRoots tend to forget.

First, he is on your side on most of the issues: an environmentalist with a thoughtful conscience, pro-choice, pro-labor, pro-public education and more.

Second, you may think he was "brainwashed," but I'd argue that brainwashing is rarely successful with someone of his particular professional qualifications and persuasion. That'd be Brian Baird, Ph.D. in psychology.

Third, although the Washington Third District leans slightly Democratic and Baird got 60 percent of the vote last time, this is still a swing district. Beyond the hip areas of downtown Vancouver, Wash., and the quite liberal enclaves of Olympia (where Rep. Baird is from), the district is full of small towns full of gun-loving, pious Republicans who listen to Rush, Sean Hannity and Lars Larson. These are people who only love spotted owls for dinner, have doubts about evolution but no doubts that Saddam was in on 9/11.

Two best-practices advice to the Netroots;

If you cleave Rep. Baird's natural consistency by running someone to his left, you just might hand the Third to a conservative.

Second, back off this guy. You can criticize his positions, but not the man. He's right more than wrong. Not on this issue, true, but is calling them as he sees them. He's been to Iraq five times, and his latest position is formed by the takeaways from these visits.

Why can't you respect the honest diligence of his research efforts- and agree that on balance, having Brian Baird as your Congressperson is a good thing?

 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
06:42 PM on 08/31/2007
What a strange apology for Rep Baird. He claims there is progress in Iraq. Forgive us if we mistake him for one of the propagandizing BushCorp lackys because he sounds just like them. I say: Prove It. Show us proof. You owe it to us. We have heard that same bs a hundred times and so far it has always been a lie. And by the way, I don't care if there is progress. Bring the troops home. Read my lips. BRING THE TROOPS HOME.
11:30 AM on 08/30/2007
Mr. Shaw --

Your defense of Rep. Baird has some contradictions. You imply that his doctorate in psychology inoculated him against being bamboozled by the slick, dog-and-pony Power Point presentation showed to him by his military handlers in Baghdad. But then you point to the "gun-loving, pious Republicans" in his district that he needs to placate in order to be re-elected.

So, exactly where are we to surmise that Rep. Baird's psychological expertise comes into play? Was it in his assessment that our generals were giving him the unvarnished truth? This, in spite of there being massive amounts of evidence to the contrary? Or is Rep. Baird's psychological background being shown in his sucking up to his Republican constituents?

And besides, the war is not comparable to abortion, labor, education or any other topic. It is, by far, the single-most important issue today, dwarfing all others. Our soldiers and innocent Iraqis are dying every day for a lie, and we have no capacity to shape the final outcome. Any elected official who does not act to end our involvement there as soon as possible deserves to be criticized.
11:08 AM on 08/30/2007
Apparently the surge is working at the specific location where U.S. forces are massed. But as soon as they vacate the area, the opposition simply moves back in. The surge results are sporadic and temporary and in the light of reality, the U.S. with its finite funding and available troops cannot expect to outlast the opposition.
11:05 AM on 08/30/2007
According to military on scene, the surge is "working" at the location where the U.S. forces are concentrated but as soon as they vacate the area, the opposition surges back in. Take your fist out of a bucket of water and see how big a hole you leave.
10:47 AM on 08/30/2007
I disagree with you. The silent majority is finally starting to push back. It needs to continue. The elected officials need to get a taste of the anger and desperation that is percolating (and has been) in our daily lives.

If they finally realize that they are in danger of losing their seats because they are not representing the people, they may have an awakening.
10:28 AM on 08/30/2007
The Bush Administration has attacked virtually everything that progressives stand for and it is good that Baird consistently fights with progressives on all of the fronts that you cite. However, Bush's penchant for militarism has dealt a staggering blow to the U.S.'s fiscal and moral viability on the world stage. I think it fair to say that the long term prospects of the U.S. government's fiscal viability would give Grover Norquist a woody he just might die from in his own bathtub.

The spotted owl eating, Fox watching, gun toting 28%'ers within his constituency need to know that they only have the luxury of sitting in their La-Z-Boy's sucking down brewskies whilst listening to Rush spout garbage as long as this country is a viable economic unit. That they might miss the days when their country was run by competent people when their only recourse is to furtively dodge Democratically protected spotted owls in the Democratically protected woods now privatized to China (in repayment of a debt they helped to create but refused to help defray) looking for mushrooms to eat because their leader sacked and pillaged the country they so despised.

Baird does no one any favors by discounting the debacle that Bush's militarism has created and attempting to exacerbate because it is, quite possibly, the single most important message allotted to him to illustrate of his time.
photo
castlerider
"A man's home is his castle"
09:33 AM on 08/30/2007
No one is bringing into the debate the fact that America needs to state unequivocally we do not want Iraq's oil.
This is the whole nexus of our occupation. The whole nugget of truth inside the carefully packaged deception.
Baird's way is flawed because it has no exit strategy predominating, so he actually is screwing his constituency. The surge plays to staying with no end in sight. We must see the end, and now. This is what his constituency demands.
The resistance fights us not just for being there, but mainly for the reason WHY we are there. OIL. Take that away, the reason to fight and destroy against us must dissipate. They will fight amongst themselves, but this is NOT OUR FIGHT. Other nations will step in and help with the peacekeeping operations involving our pullout.
We need to worry about our own country, not running an empire.
09:52 AM on 08/30/2007
I would agree. It is amazing how no one in the mainstream media or the "presidential" candidates(except Edwards and Kucinich) mention this. no question the oil and defense contractor money are the reasons we are there. even this blog ignores it. Give the "surge" a chance. ????? How about give "peace" a chance.
photo
StevieRae
2012 Choice-Oligarchy or a Republic
07:48 AM on 09/03/2007
This is the big elephant in the room and no politician wants to admit to the "O" subject as being the basis for our "strategic" interests in the region. I've resolved after beating my head trying to argue your POV, that pols like Baird have realized that we need to stay there to maintain our "access" to the oil. Why? Consider the societal and economic consequences to our country when people realize they can't drive their SUV's because we gave up a critical access to oil in the middle east region.

Do you think public opinion would shift if they realized this is all about maintaining the American way of life?
09:21 AM on 08/30/2007
If Baird is so talented, he ought to stay in Iraq and be part of the solution. His degree in psychology makes him a natural to participate in interrogations, now that the APA has endorsed the practice.

Meanwhile, the question is whether partisan Democrats-- as opposed to Independents who've been suckered into voting for Dem candidates-- will continue to perpetuate these superficially moderate, tolerant, and "sensible" approaches, e.g. not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Or in this case, "staying the course" on the premise that more and more egregious wrongs will eventually make a right.
09:06 AM on 08/30/2007
Keeping a guy that has a basic flaw because the next guy might be worse is hardly a ringing endorsement. I agree with you, but damn! We are the invaders, our presence is the problem, why doesn't the good congressman get that? Asking for a chance to let the surge work is like asking Poland to give the blitzkrieg a chance,
08:56 AM on 08/30/2007
So Baird is basically a good guy except that he wants to continue getting American soldiers killed for no purpose and waste about $10 billion a month? Uh, sorry, no sale on that one. We should hammer on this guy as hard as we can.