Isaac Wood and Larry Sabato already have a list of vulnerable House Democrats, and our own Brian Baird is on it. Wood and Sabato think that Baird is likely to retain his seat, but only likely.
Insulting some of his voters, as he did recently, probably didn't help him in the district.
(According to one of the tables, Obama won the district last year with 52 percent of the vote. George W. Bush won the district in 2000, with 48 percent of the vote, and in 2004, with 50 percent of the vote.)
Posted by Jim Miller at September 10, 2009 02:32 PM | Email ThisThey run an ole time RINO career politician Reichert type against him and, no, Baird is pretty safe indeed.
But run a reform minded person and the district that gave us Linda Smith will rise again.
Posted by: Steve on September 10, 2009 02:46 PM
Really, you'd think the anti-Reichert people's insults would at least make sense.
Anyhow, it depends on if we have a good candidate, and the kind of bomb-thrower Steve probably wants won't cut it. It'll take someone with experience and connections.
I wonder if Linda Smith wants back in...
Posted by: Cliff on September 10, 2009 03:12 PMYou all need to return to the concepts of small government, low taxes, personal freedom, and staying the heck out of useless foreign adventures. Oh yeah, you need to renounce crony capitalism, too!
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on September 10, 2009 03:23 PMThe whole "tea party" energy won't be seen when it comes to political candidates. Already you hear the call from the leaders of the "tea party" movement that the problem comes from both parties. They will look at the bunch of losers that the Repugs are going to bring out and are going to decide to sit this one out.
Next year will be a year where there will be lots of noise but in the end the crappy candidates that the RINOS will find will be their own undoing.
But then again, I thought President McCain was going to lose last year and I also thought Senator McGavick wasn't going to win. So I haven't been a good judge of political outcomes in the past.
Posted by: Steve on September 10, 2009 03:27 PMThe only difference in the two is who they pander too. It is all about grabbing power.
When a candidate comes up that truly believes in the Constitution and protecting it I will vote for them. I have not seen one in my lifetime that had a D or R at the end of their name.
Once we handed the Senate over to the political parties the interests of the individual states was lost. We send people to D.C. to be indoctrinated into a system that only looks out for the parties.
2010 should be the year that both parties loose seats to those with a clue. For anyone who thinks that a third party is powerless really needs to look at the numbers. A handful of people would hold all the power. They would have to be on board for any controversial legislation to pass. A strong believe in the Constitution is needed.
Know anyone who will run?
Posted by: Vince on September 10, 2009 04:40 PMHis legislation is anti God, and anti American.
He voted to give perverts special protection in the hate crime bill.
He voted for the tax on energy that is the Cap and Trade Bill.
He supports card check, to allow union thugs to harass union members at union elections.
Baird needs to go, but the Republicans need a candidate. I'm not so sure any in the ring right now can do the job.
Posted by: joebandmember on September 10, 2009 04:58 PMIf I had to predict, Baird won't be resting much between now and next November.
Posted by: KDS on September 10, 2009 06:57 PMHe has proven time and time again, in Congress, that he is no friend of gun owners.
Posted by: JoeBandMember on September 10, 2009 08:41 PMBut when the moron representing me in congress calls me a Nazi and a Brown shirt because I'm smart enough to disagree with his messiah on yet another of his socialist programs... then I'm all in.
And I'm not alone, I'm thinkin'.
Posted by: Hinton on September 10, 2009 10:49 PMI agree with Hinton. I'll vote when Repubs get a clue or when a third party that represents taxpayers and believes in the Constitution emerges. No more McCains!
Posted by: Saltherring on September 11, 2009 07:51 AMHe can quit government, open an insurance company and run all of the greedy providers out of business because HE knows how to do it w/out screwing consumers.
Let's see how well he can win consumers w/out a gun in his hand.
Posted by: Andy on September 11, 2009 02:30 PMCount on the GOP leadership to fight hard to not let a Ron Paul type candidate win the primary.
Posted by: Lysander on September 11, 2009 10:18 PMI don't know about the GOP leadership, but you can count on me to do so.
Not only are they unelectable, but they are also worse then Democrats.
I've never voted for a Democrat for national office in my life. And if it came down to voting for a Ron Paul clone or a Hillary Clinton clone for national office, I'd vote for Hillary in a heartbeat. At least Hillary isn't an isolationist who thinks 9/11 was our problem. Oh, and she's also not a goldbug.
Posted by: Cliff on September 12, 2009 08:25 AMAs was already stated, there is a strong candidate to run against him, David Castillo.
Another point to drive home to voters, in 1996 Baird completed a survey stating he supported term limits of 12 years.
2010 is his 12th year.
But, do check out Castillo, http://www.castilloforcongress.com/
Posted by: Lew Waters on September 12, 2009 09:27 AMYou're an idiot.
Posted by: Ron Paul Clone on September 12, 2009 09:47 AMI'll take that as a compliment.
Posted by: Cliff on September 12, 2009 10:56 AM"You could not accept conservatism until you had “neo’d” it." The R's are nothing different from the D's because of people like you. The ship is sinking, run along to your lifeboat now.
Oh, Reagan was a "neocon" by the way. I'll take him over your lunatic any day.
Posted by: Cliff on September 12, 2009 12:25 PM2. If you want to see some data on how well the Republicans are doing currently, take a look at this graph. (I update the graph once a month, by the way.)
~Liberty and justice for all
Posted by: RPC on September 12, 2009 04:28 PMSabato is a good prognosticator, but I won't pay much attention to his polls until early next year after Obamacare has been transformed and Cap and Tax either has a stake through its heart or is still breathing.
Posted by: KDS on September 12, 2009 07:54 PMThe difference is only in Ron Paul's mind. In the real world, the difference is irrelevant.
The fact that you instantly start talking about "blowback" is hysterical. Hope you have fun hating black people with Lew Rockwell.
Posted by: Cliff on September 13, 2009 12:35 PMnoninterventionalist n. abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations or in those of its own political subdivisions.
BIG difference there. Can you muster the intellegence to see it? I didn't "instantly" bring up "blowback". there were a few sentences that I opened with before I mentioned it. Did you read the 9/11 Commission Report? It talks about "blowback" in there as a cause. In all of this, I don't get how you figure I'm a racist. That just shows how unintelligible you really are.
Posted by: RPC on September 13, 2009 03:07 PMAnd I admitted there is a semantic difference. I merely said, again, that in real world policy, the difference is meaningless. And it still is.
Of course "blowback" exists. Duh. So what? Saying we should be "non-interventionists" because we might get "blowback" is like saying you shouldn't invest money because you might lose it. DUH. That merely means you should invest wisely.
Posted by: Cliff on September 13, 2009 05:46 PMDid you really use investment banking as an analogy for war? :slaps forehead: That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard! War is not conservative. It doesn't conserve life. It doesn't conserve money. It doesn't conserve resources. It doesn't conserve liberty. It doesn't conserve safty. We barrow $10 billion from China, give it to Musharraf who is a dictator that overthrew an elected government, to help us capture Osama. I wonder how hard he is laughing at us right now. Osama is probably hanging out with Musharraf in Pakistan if he isn't already dead. Do you see the logic in any of this Cliff? In investment banking you lose money. In war, whether you claim victory or not, you lose life, money, resources, liberty and safty. What is left to gain Cliff? Who is next? Pakistan? Iran? North Korea? We can't even afford Iraq and Afghanistan! Where are you going to invest other peoples lives and other countries monies next Cliff? Do you really think we have "invested wisely" so far?
Posted by: RPC on September 14, 2009 03:37 PM