Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat interviews Democratic Congressman Brian Baird, who committed an unpardonable sin. He was right about the surge.
Brian Baird was lonely enough back when all his Democratic friends thought he was wrong.
But now that it appears he was right — that the Iraq war was going better, as he claimed, and President Bush's troop surge was working — the Southwest Washington congressman is even more of an outcast.
Read the whole thing, even though Westneat does not understand why many in the Democratic party opposed the surge — not because they expected it to fail, but because they feared that it might succeed.
It is odd that Westneat does not know this because every Friday he meets with three members of the Defeat Now! caucus, three journalists who fear that the United States (and President Bush) might win a victory in Iraq.
Still, credit where credit is due, to Congressman Baird for taking this stand, and to Westneat for admitting that Baird and Bush were right. Westneat does not go all the way and note which presidential candidate was right about the surge, and which was wrong, but one can't have everything. (Here's a hint for those still in the dark on that question: Oddly enough it was the candidate with military experience who was right about the surge, and the candidate who knows almost nothing about the military who was wrong.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(And a debit, where a debit is due: David Postman discusses the column at length, but is interested only in the political effects of what Baird said, how what he said will affect the Democratic party. Postman never confronts the main point, that Baird was right. As were Senator McCain and President Bush.
When Baird first took this stand, I commended his courage.)
Posted by Jim Miller at August 27, 2008 02:37 PM | Email ThisI understand that some of this is just keeping discipline in the ranks of the party, but a few of the things that have gone down lately are really downright frightening.
Reading about Obama's trying to use a threatened legal action to prevent the Bill Ayers ad from appearing on tv smacks of repression of free speech.
The recent "scrub" of of the wikipedia site so that any mention of Bidens positive comments about McCain... well, there's something a bit Orwellian about that.
When I was watching the video of the Fox reporter getting attacked at the convention, it really did seem like an act of a fascist mob.
The dem's like to yell about how the GOP "crushes" those it agrees with, but there's something going on here that looks very much like an earlier socialist takeover - the rise of the nazi party in Germany.
Posted by: johnny on August 27, 2008 03:41 PMTruth is not as important as radical leftist dogma, to Obama and his democrat fans.
Posted by: Michele on August 27, 2008 04:26 PMDelavar defeated Christine Webb, who holds Baird's position on the war, by nearly 5000 votes in the congressional district. Given the amount of votes that Delavar received, more than just Ron Paul supporters voted for the guy in CD#3, which should cause the WSRP to think about supporting the guy.
Will the WSRP abandon Conservative Republicans like Delavar in the general election as they have done in the past? (because they "can't win" and want to "divert support" elsewhere?)
Will the Mainstreams support/endorse Democrats against Conservative Republicans as they have in the past? We will just have to wait and see!
We will see if Esser tells us to "Vote Republican on November's ticket" while at the same time not supporting R candidates in his own party!
Posted by: Constitutionalist on August 27, 2008 04:45 PMThis from July 24, 2008
"What I said at the time, even at the time of the debate in the surge was that when you put 30,000 American troops in of course its going to have an impact, there's no doubt about that."
See? Just a little more time and he will have reversed himself from this quote to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Jan. 10, 2007:
"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse. I think it takes pressure off the Iraqis to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that every observer believes is the ultimate solution to the problems we face there. So I am going to actively oppose the president's proposal."Posted by: MJC on August 27, 2008 05:43 PM
Iraq will be the same if the dem's take over.
They a have a track record of losing!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on August 27, 2008 05:52 PMNo Paulistinian should be elected to any office for any reason, but particularly a moron that wants to waste $4 billion on an entirely unneeded and unwanted bridge replacement that will strap commuters with an ADDITIONAL $100 or more PER month for the dubious privilege of working in Portland... and that's even before we get to his idiotic views on foreign policy.
"Vote for him?" The disappointment we in the 3rd had over the anemic list of choices besides Baird was and remains palpable. Paul and his winged monkeys frightened most normal people, which is why he did such an abysmal job in the primaries... even in the face of the vapid Ronulans posting here who kept assuring us that his campaign, with all of the money wasted by donors, would take off any second.
That said, Baird will CRUSH Delavar... and I, for one, support that outcome.
"Vote for him?" Hell, I'm tempted to volunteer for Baird and/or send him money... not that he needs it. But I would not vote for Delavar if he was running for dog catcher.
Posted by: Hinton on August 27, 2008 06:16 PMNow you never hear either of them registering a peep, even about the war in general!
Can't we impeach Pelosi-Reid-Cantwell-Murry for being a bunch of hypocritical liars!?!
Posted by: John Bailo on August 27, 2008 07:03 PMWhen we get a good candidate that can compete I'll jump on board, until then Baird really is doing a good job for his constituency and he should be proud of that.
Posted by: Doug on August 27, 2008 07:48 PM2007: 20,000 troops won't help
2008: I've always said that 30,000 troops would make a difference.
Now he can claim that President Bush, who apparently was only going to send 20,000 troops, which would have increased sectarian violence, sent 30,000 troops on Obama's advice, which was the turning point.
So Barack Obama has just shown himself to have the knowledge and leadership to win wars. Just wait. They will spin this soon.
Posted by: Calvin A on August 27, 2008 08:10 PMThese kind of posts simply prove what some Republicans have said for some time, that the state party and other moderate-to-left hacks have great interest in the grass roots supporting the "big tent", which includes people that support infanticide like Sam Reed, Rob McKenna, and various others, but in no way will they support people like Delavar who want to cut taxes, believe in limited government, and are fiscally conservative. Once many grass roots Conservatives find out that people like these guys support policies that have killed nearly 40 million people in the past 30 years, they really start to wake up. Then again there are the fundraisers set up by the gay republicans to support Sam Reed. . .
In various places around this state the views of Ron Paul Republicans defeated "mainstream" Republican views. Where is the big tent you guys always talk about?
Unlike Hinton's mischaracterization of Paul's popularity in the state, the politics of local candidates and local work is a far different story and operates in an entirely different way. This is why several RP Republicans won their primaries.
I have no plan of responding to Hinton's character assassinations. I'd expect that kind of behavior over at HA. Needless to say, the amount of votes that Delavar received in the primary CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED MERELY TO RP REPUBLICANS. If these views are as Hinton described, then one would have expected Webb to steamroll Delavar. . .
Posted by: Constitutionalist on August 28, 2008 09:44 AMBrian Baird on Economy Issues
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Brian_Baird_Budget_+_Economy.htm
The guy has the government regulating housing. What else will these guys take over next???
The guy's not pro-business, getting a 33% rating by the US Chamber of Commerce. The National Taxpayers Union gives him a 29% rating, indicating he is a big spender when it comes to taxes.
No on drilling, no on new refineries, no on ANWR.
Is this the kind of candidate we should expect Republicans to support in the 3rd District over M. Delavar?