Ways that don't require him to face the voters of the 3rd district.
Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) announced his retirement early this evening.
"The time has now come to pursue other options, other ways of serving. Hence, I am announcing today that I do not intend to seek reelection to Congress in 2010," the six-term congressman said in a statement. "This is not an easy decision to be sure, but I believe it is the right decision at the right time."
Baird is the best of the Democrats in the Washington House delegation, but he is also a sure vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. That alone is reason to be happy that we can replace him.
As of now, I would give Republicans a small edge in next year's 3rd district race, though much will depend on the candidates.
(PS to my own congressman, Jay Inslee: Have you thought about spending more time with your family? I'll bet that would make them happier.)
Posted by Jim Miller at December 09, 2009 04:03 PM | Email ThisThis will especially be true if John Koster runs in WA-2.
Posted by: Cliff on December 9, 2009 04:32 PMJim, are you predicting that Norm Dicks will lose? If so, do you know something the rest of us don't? If not . . .
What is it with blogs and their inability to know which districts are which? Read Publicola earlier today crash and burn trying to figure out which state legislators lived in the 3rd CD.
(Fixed . Thanks for catching my mistake.
Oddly enough, I spotted it immediately and fixed it in one place, and forgot that I had written 6th twice. More evidence, not that I needed it, that I should be careful about doing posts late in the afternoon. - Jim M.)
Posted by: Slippery Pete on December 9, 2009 04:38 PMQuick google search... and it looks like she already is. :)
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/187791.asp
umm, can we say "GOP pickup"?
Posted by: AD on December 9, 2009 05:10 PMHere's a little more on the district for those who wonder why I think it's good opportunity for a Republican pick up: Bush carried the district, by 2 points, in both 2000 and 2004.
According to the 2008 Almanac of American Politics, Cook rates the district +0 Democratic, which I take to mean a tiny edge for the Democrats. (By way of comparison, Cook rates the 1st district +7D and the 2nd district +3D.)
Posted by: Jim MIller on December 9, 2009 06:33 PMActually, it's always here "necessary" to smear opponents by any means available. In this case, it's a remarkably feeble innuendo, implying cowardice where none exists. As Rep. Baird received over 64% of the vote last year, Miller would not have bothered with the smear unless he truly thought it was required. (As Miller may or may not know, Mr. Baird became Rep. Baird on the second try. In 1996, he almost beat Rep. Linda Smith, when she was touted as a possible next Governor of our state. His demolition of her mythical status almost ended her political career right then and there; she wisely chose to avoid a re-match in 1998, when he won handily. Baird's persistence, in the face of a truly nasty opponent, is the exact opposite of cowardice.)
Is Baird's district Jolene Unsold's [sic] old district?
Yes. Rep. Smith was the only non-Democrat to hold the seat in the past thirty years. In 1994, she won a seat in the Republican victory year; with huge name recognition, and the advantage of incumbency, she almost lost to a then-newcomer in 1996. This is the seat Mr. Miller regards as a possible pickup for Republicans.
Posted by: tensor on December 9, 2009 08:04 PMAnd on her way out Dunn recruited and turned the 8th Congressional District over to another Democrat. Can you pronounce Dede Scozzafava?
Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 9, 2009 08:13 PMThe true "nasty opponent" here was the coward Brian Baird. His cowardly comparison of tea party protesters, simply looking to have a better future for their children while the incompetent administration he identifies with politcally spends us into unrecoverable oblivion.
"What we're seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics," Baird, D-Vancouver, said in a phone interview. "I mean that very seriously."
...and you, Brian Baird, prove yourself to be a fool and and an imbecile with that comment. To compare American citizens legitimately protesting an ever increasing government intrusion into their lives to the Nazi's is ignorant beyond reproach. Baird needs to sit in time out with tensor until their collective temper tantrums subside. Perhaps then, they'll have the necessary time to read the U.S. Constition they're so afraid of.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 9, 2009 09:01 PMGreat for him! Screaming and yelling filthy insults at fellow citizens, carrying guns to our peaceful town hall meetings, and defacing images of President Obama to look like Adolf Hitler are indeed all contrary to American values, and I'm glad Rep. Baird said so. Admittedly, it takes little courage to confront teabaggers, esp. when the politician routinely takes 60+% of the vote, but cowardice is hardly the right word.
To compare American citizens legitimately protesting an ever increasing government intrusion into their lives...
Give me one example of a future teabagger protesting then-President Bush's illegal wiretapping of our private communications. Then show how the proto-teabagger did it by comparing Bush to a totalitarian monster.
Baird needs to sit in time out with tensor until their collective temper tantrums subside.
Our untoward introduction of facts into political discourse frightens the average teabagger, yes, but we're not the ones throwing "tantrums". Do you even know what words mean?
Perhaps then, they'll have the necessary time to read the U.S. Constition they're so afraid of.
Do you mean the part about gun ownership being a function of state government, or the definition of a militia as subordinate to the President? Do please elaborate.
Posted by: tensor on December 9, 2009 09:18 PMBaird is a coward.
He was such a coward that he made up bogus death threats as an excuse for failing to face us. And in so doing the son of a bitch called me and millions of others "nazis."
I'm actually kind of disappointed he lacked the guts to face us at the polls where his repudiation would have been both overwhelming and complete.
He's a hypocrite over the so-called 72 hour rules, having voted for both the porkulus and cap and swindle without reading the bills... engaging in out and out pay for play... and, of course, being a member of the moronic party of the empty-suited, anti-American racist bigot in the White House doomed any chance he had at re-election.
There. Let me know if I can help you with any further clarification as to why we are much better off without this clown then we were with him.
You think it is good for Baird to scream and tell filthy insults at his fellow citizens?! And besides, Thomas Paine -- a good American he, no? -- was king of the filthy insult directed toward his fellow citizens.
carrying guns to our peaceful town hall meetings
Um. What? What's wrong with that? I know lots of people who carry guns ... well, everywhere. Nothing remotely wrong with that. I've seen guns at peaceful town hall meetings, carried by very peaceful people. Some of them cops, on or off duty, some of them merely responsible citizens. You show yourself to be extremely out of touch with America to think this is against American values.
defacing images of President Obama to look like Adolf Hitler
... has happened far less frequently than the act of defacing images of President Bush to look like Adolf Hitler. And MOST Of the time images of Obama are made to look like Hitler, it is BY DEMOCRATS (LaRouchers), and not the Tea Party activists.
And besides, this is no more offensive than portraying a Patriot of the American Revolution as a (hermaphroditic) Loyalist to the Crown of England ... which is what Thomas Jefferson paid a journalist to do to John Adams. So while I detest likening people to Hitler, America has a long history of such things, such that it is difficult to say it's contrary to American values.
are indeed all contrary to American values
On the first, Baird himself was guilty of the filthy insults. On the second, you're just wrong: nothing wrong with carrying a gun anywhere. On the latter, it's Democrats -- whether anti-Bush or anti-Obama -- doing the overwhelming majority of Hitler images.
And given the long history of all those things in this country, none of them is reasonably said to be contrary to American values.
Give me one example of a future teabagger protesting then-President Bush's illegal wiretapping of our private communications.
I spoke out often in criticism of Bush's warrantless wiretapping from the very beginning, and I have been a supporter of the Tea Parties, and a performer at three of them. So ... there you go.
I didn't protest against it, but if there had been a non-leftwing protest against it, I might have attended. Probably not, though, because I have a different perspective about such issues as the wiretapping: I think those things normally get worked out over time through the courts, and protests are kinda useless. But when we're talking bailouts and tax increases and federal health care and so on, courts rarely stop those, and protests often have an impact. So focusing on actual protests is obviously beside the point.
Then show how the proto-teabagger did it by comparing Bush to a totalitarian monster.
Again, it's mostly the Democrats, not the Tea Party activists, who are doing that. But I never compared Obama to Hitler, or anything similar. I did write a song called George Bush is Hitler, though.
Do you mean the part [in the Constitution] about gun ownership being a function of state government
No part of the Constitution says that, in fact. Indeed, it explicitly says the right is to the individual. The history AND the text proves your misinterpretation false. Hell, even Obama disagrees with you (not that I look to him for proper constitutional interpretation), as does an overwhelming majority of Americans, as does a majority of the Supreme Court, as do a majority of historians and legal experts, as does every Founding Father who spoke or wrote about it, as does every legislator who spoke or wrote about it within more than 100 years of its ratification.
And this is plain because the text is clear: the right to keep and bear arms is, according to the Second Amendment, a right OF THE PEOPLE. If that is a collective right reserved to the states as you claim, then so too is the Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure.
The ONLY people who believe the Second Amendment offers a collective right are either a. reading into it what they want it to say, or b. ignorant of what it says, and are only listening to people who read into it what they want it to say. Because if you actually read what it says, there's no serious question. And even if you do have a question, the history of it leaves no room for doubt.
Sorry about the untoward introduction of facts.
Also, you jab Linda Smith for nearly losing in 1996 as an incumbent . . . but fail to mention that Unsoeld DID lose as an incumbent. TO A WRITE IN!
Posted by: Slippery Pete on December 10, 2009 04:04 AMAs I see it, what he's really saying is "Now I can vote for any stupid bill that Nancy and Harry put in front of me without even having to pretend I care what any of you peon voters think."
Scary
Posted by: johnny on December 10, 2009 04:21 AMLet's get this one.
First, the action of carrying that weapon to an outside, public venue was perfectly legal by all standards of state, local and federal law, so your argument is an emotional one. Second, you had no problems with the left comparing Bush to hitler for 8 years, or burning him in effigy. But if 1 or 2 persons in a crowd of 1000's does it, you project the signs of a very few onto the entire tea party attendees.
Give me one example of a future teabagger protesting then-President Bush's illegal wiretapping of our private communications. Then show how the proto-teabagger did it by comparing Bush to a totalitarian monster.
Sorry, my time machine is broken. But if you're whining about the government stealing your families secret cookie recipes, rather than obtaining data from terrorists, then maybe you should see the Obama administrations stance on the issue. He appears, after having actual facts relayed to him, to agree that this action was important to national security. Enough so to defend its legality.
Our untoward introduction of facts into political discourse frightens the average teabagger, yes, but we're not the ones throwing "tantrums". Do you even know what words mean?
Are you kidding? The left knows nothing but throwing tantrums (Harry Reid is a recent example and he's the Senate House majority leader). Setting a fine example for his Democrat party, that Harry. As for facts, the facts are Obama has done exactly the opposite in his short time in the white house that he campaigned on as candidate Obama. He's trying to balance not angering his mouth-breathing base, but also not angering the average citizen that showed up at the tea party rallies this summer to protest his massive, irresponsibile spending. He recognizes that he is losing this battle and if he continues on his present course, will be a one term president.
I,for one, welcome that days arrival.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 10, 2009 05:37 AMBaird, like many reds, pretends to be a "blue dog" in order to get elected in conservative districts. Unsold was supposedly pro-gun because she received NRA support but was a liberal member of her caucas on most issues. I suspect she needed to *appear* pro-gun in order to be attractive in the 3rd district.
Baird will likely vote with the obamatons for socialized healthcare, further exploding the deficit, and to pursue killing the private sector economy (all goals for the Dems).
Baird does not have to face the voters so he no longer needs to hide his leftism behind any fig leaf granted him by the sea hag pelosi.
-
I'm glad he wiretapped you because I want to know if you're talking with terrorists overseas. Did they call you in for questioning?
Why would I protest that? I don't protest Obama doing it either.
JIMBO
Posted by: JIMBO on December 10, 2009 06:42 AMJIMBO
Posted by: JIMBO on December 10, 2009 06:42 AMJIMBO
Posted by: JIMBO on December 10, 2009 06:42 AMJIMBO
Posted by: JIMBO on December 10, 2009 06:43 AMJIMBO
Posted by: JIMBO on December 10, 2009 06:44 AMAlso, it's bad policy. Principally, you deprive the legislature of institutional knowledge. The good that "entrenched" legislators do for their district often outweighs the detriment to their district (of having a representative who is no longer ideologically aligned with them). And surprising at is, politicians are largely a self-regulating bunch. For every Senator/Congressman for life (think Byrd, McDermott, et al.), there are 20 who either retire when they're still electable (like Baird just did) or are beaten despite having the powers of incumbency. 116 members of the U.S. House (that's 27%) first arrived in the past 3 years. 120 members have been around longer than 15 years. Only 62 started their first term before 1990. And believe it or not, the Senate has almost identical numbers. 24 Senators have been there less than 3 years, and 34 have been there longer than 15 years. When you also consider that Senators only face election 1/3 as often as House members, it's pretty incredible the turnover is roughly equal.
So no, I don't think term limits should be a GOP plank. Our planks shouldn't be (1) unconstitutional, (2) bad policy, or (3) unnecessary interventions of government, much less all three at the same time.
Posted by: Slippery Pete on December 10, 2009 09:18 AMYour pejorative use four times referring to a deviant practice is telling, either that you cannot win an argument civilly, or that it's just something you really enjoy.
Thanks to Pete @22 for informing you that Linda Smith beat Unsoeld in the '94 revolution as a write-in, a feat rarely seen!
Funny how the trolls don't get the first statement - that those in power need not interact and converse with the proletariat.
Bye-bye Baird, you elitist leftist snob.
Posted by: yaddacubed on December 10, 2009 09:18 AMThat's actually inaccurate. Smith won the PRIMARY as a write in, not the general.
I'm sympathetic to your overall point, however.
Posted by: Cliff on December 10, 2009 10:22 AMGood God why? Larsen, I can understand, his district is winnible, but McDermott will certainly be replaced by another D, and Inslee is very likely to be replaced by another D.
I want seats. I don't care nearly as much where they come from right now.
Posted by: Cliff on December 10, 2009 10:25 AMWas there a more recent Presidential election that was decided by a wider margin we can look at? You have 2000 and 2004. Wasn't there some other one somewhere? 2005? No... 2006 or 2007? No, definitely not.
Hmm, I guess there isn't any other data we can look at. This must definitely be a GOP pickup.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 10, 2009 10:39 AM2009. Was there an election in 2009 we can look at?
No?! Damn!
Posted by: John Jensen on December 10, 2009 10:53 AMVirginia: Bush +10, Bush +8, Obama +6, McDonnell (R) +17
New Jersey: Gore +16, Kerry +7, Obama +15, Christie (R) +4
In 2009, the closest single predictor in Virginia was the 2000 presidential, in New Jersey it was the 2004 presidential. Between '09 and '08, the top Democrat on the ballot in those two states suffered a 23 and 19 point fall, respectively.
I'm not saying 2010 is a "dead lock" for Republicans in the 3rd, but I am shredding to pieces your implication that the 2008 election has better predictive value than the 2000 or 2004 elections.
Posted by: Slippery Pete on December 10, 2009 11:15 AMBaird won 64% of the vote in 2008. A democrat has represented the 3rd district since 1998. From 1960-1994, other democrats held office. Obama won the district by a wider margin than Bush's victory. I don't think this predicts a Democratic victory in what's looking to be a tough year, but I think Mr. Miller deserved to be called out on his selective reading of history.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 10, 2009 01:05 PMThat shows character. The kind of character we should all want in our representatives- particularly when it comes to an issue as serious as war.
I don't agree with most of Rep. Baird's political positions. In most ways I'm glad he's retiring because I think we really need to take the House back in 2010 before Obama and the Democrats bankrupt us while also taxing us into oblivion.
That said, as much as I disagree with him, I feel the need to be respectful, as he has shown himself to be a man of principle and patriotism. Although I think his principles are going to harm our country instead of help, and he has occasionally said some really stupid things. (Like the brown shirt comment).
Posted by: Cicero on December 11, 2009 08:24 AMRight you are, and for more reasons than just the excellent one you gave. Term limits are also an unconstitutional imposition of power by one set of voters upon another. If the voters in District A want to re-elect the same person twenty years in a row, they have that power, even if the voters in Districts B through Z vote to deprive Representative A of office, via statewide term limits. Voters in other districts don't get to vote for or against Representative A, period. The voters of any district can always limit the terms of their own elected officials by voting those officials out of office, pure and simple.
(I think it's great we're seeing invocation of term limits in the very state where the great advocate of them, then-Rep. Nethercutt, absolutely refused to abide by his own term-limiting promise. Perhaps the Free Silver movement will make a comeback next?)
Posted by: tensor on December 11, 2009 05:25 PM"Dear, could you bring my gun to the dentist's office? I don't want to go under anesthesia without it."
I've seen guns at peaceful town hall meetings, carried by very peaceful people. Some of them cops, on or off duty, some of them merely responsible citizens. You show yourself to be extremely out of touch with America to think this is against American values.
Like my father before me, I received my first firearms training from uniformed members of the U.S. Armed Forces. They taught us many rules of gun safety, one of which was never to carry a gun unless one had a compelling reason to do so. Why are "lots of people" carrying guns "everywhere"? Are they really that insecure, that scared of daily life in our great country? If so, I'm glad not to share their values.
Also, I wasn't referring to "responsible citizens", especially those who carry guns as part of their job descriptions. I was referring to teabaggers, carrying guns to well-policed town-hall meetings. There is no need to carry a gun in such a place, and so it is a total failure of judgement to do so. When a loud and abusive person, unable to spell English words, and proudly carrying a hand-made sign to demonstrate this, stumbles into a peaceful gathering with a weapon strapped to his huge waist, I don't have any confidence in his ability to carry that weapon in a safe manner.
I'm actually kind of disappointed he lacked the guts to face us at the polls where his repudiation would have been both overwhelming and complete.
Yeah, a guy who got over 60% of the vote in his last three re-elections would have lost because he prudently refused to engage persons who mistake this for intelligent discourse:
...moronic party of the empty-suited, anti-American racist bigot in the White House...
I've got a really sweet real-estate opportunity in my native Brooklyn, involving an internationally-recognized landmark. And it'll only cost you 110% of your life's savings! Hurry now, before my generosity ends!
Posted by: tensor on December 11, 2009 07:01 PMYes, Baird did get 60% plus against weak opposition. That, however, was before a few things happened.
First and foremost, it was before the election of the empty suited, anti-American racist bigot that you so admire.
Second, frequently overlooked, is that something on the order of 1/2 the voting population of the 3rd, mainly, Clark County, voted for Obama... and then voted in and gave control of the county commission to the Republicans for the first time in 30 years... a Republican outspent by around 3 or 4 to one.
Add that to what a miserable coward and hypocrite Baird became; his fake death threats as an excuse not to face us; his labeling of those smart enough to disagree with that moron's socialized medicine program as nazis and brown shirts; his rank hypocrisy in ignoring his own 72 hour rule... and you have the obvious outcome that he wanted to avoid... and the GOP has a campaign that writes itself.
The fact is this: If Baird thought for one second he'd win... he'd have stayed in. But obviously, YOU know more then HE does, and YOU have a better feel, understanding and knowledge of this district then HE does so I simply can't imagine why he doesn't say to himself:
"Well, gee wiz... I got it all wrong, and ten cents got it all right so, what the hell, what *I KNOW* HAS to be wrong because Dime Bag SAID so..." and then immediately jump back into the race.
Keep on keeping on, Dimes. Your imitation of a political ostrich (and an ignorant one at that) does you great credit.
Posted by: Hinton on December 11, 2009 09:26 PMAs already noted, Linda Smith won the Republican primary election via write-in. (If I recall correctly, the first Republican challenger to Rep. Unsoeld had to quit, for weaseling out of paying his taxes.) My point was that Linda Smith's election was under extraordinarily unusual circumstances, and her write-in primary victory supports that point. Thank you for reminding us of how bizarre her election really was.
Yes, Baird did get 60% plus against weak opposition. That, however, was before a few things happened.
First and foremost, it was before the election of the empty suited, anti-American racist bigot that you so admire.
Actually, Rep. Baird got 64% of the vote at the exact same time we elected the biracial Barack Hussein Obama to our Presidency. Not before, not after.
...something on the order of 1/2 the voting population of the 3rd, mainly, Clark County, voted for Obama... and then voted in and gave control of the county commission to the Republicans for the first time in 30 years...
Please call Linda Smith, and ask her about how easy it is to replicate a once-in-thirty-year fluke in the 3rd District. (What's she doing these days, anyhoo?)
The fact is this: If Baird thought for one second he'd win... he'd have stayed in. But obviously, YOU know more then HE does,
Um, in that first sentence, you claim to know better than all of us. When you're done with that mind-reading trick, could you please normal-read this thread, and identify for us where, exactly, I claimed to know anything about Rep. Baird's motivation? Where I claimed to make any prediction about the 2010 election results in the 3rd District? I merely noted how Mr. Miller's prediction seemed to have no factual basis.
And, Hinton: naming rights to the so-called Brooklyn Bridge can be yours, for a mere 125% of your life's savings. Call now, before the price rises again!!
Posted by: tensor on December 11, 2009 11:14 PMSo off-duty cops, many of whom carry a gun everywhere, are violating one of the many rules of gun safety?
I was referring to teabaggers, carrying guns to well-policed town-hall meetings. There is no need to carry a gun in such a place, and so it is a total failure of judgement to do so.
Wrong, of course.
You are under this delusion that cops will protect us if we need protecting. Was this delusion passed on from those same uniformed members of the U.S. Armed Forces? Indeed, it's the assumption that a "well-policed" meeting means no one else needs to be concerned about security is "a total failure of judgment."
When a loud and abusive person, unable to spell English words, and proudly carrying a hand-made sign to demonstrate this, stumbles into a peaceful gathering with a weapon strapped to his huge waist, I don't have any confidence in his ability to carry that weapon in a safe manner.
I couldn't care less about your level of confidence, as I have no confidence in your judgment.
I am not defending how everyone carries a gun; however, not every tea party attendee who carried a gun to those meetings did so irresponsibly, despite your characterization. Indeed, far more people carried guns than you saw; of this, I am certain. Most of them were concealed, as normal. (Newsflash: when you are out in public in a large public gathering, you are surrounded by guns in this state, no matter where you are, unless guns are prohibited (and sometimes even then). They're everywhere, and they aren't a problem. YOU are the one who is insecure, scared of all those big bad tea party attendees.)
And of course, it's not concealment that makes responsibility, either: the black man who brought a rifle to a protest -- that MSNBC lied about, saying it was a white guy, while showing only his guns and his clothes -- was carrying a gun in a very responsible manner. He wasn't loud, he wasn't screaming, he wasn't waving it around.
Yeah, a guy who got over 60% of the vote in his last three re-elections would have lost because he prudently refused to engage persons who mistake this for intelligent discourse: "...moronic party of the empty-suited, anti-American racist bigot in the White House..."
Shrug. What Baird said was far worse than that. The quote you have there is the sort of hyperbolic comment people have made of the President since there's been a President. It's not even close to as bad as what Jefferson paid Callender to write about Adams. But what Baird said is really beyond the pale: not only did he defame constituents who merely expressed opinions differently from his, but he did so in a way to try to shut them up, by comparing them to the most despised people in our culture. He was expressly making the point that if you disagree with him, then you are a Nazi and should be treated as such.
Actually, Rep. Baird got 64% of the vote at the exact same time we elected the biracial Barack Hussein Obama to our Presidency. Not before, not after.
False. It was after. Think about it.
Same here, pudge. Thus ends our conversation.
Posted by: tensor on December 13, 2009 08:36 PMThe difference is that I actually make points I can -- and do -- back up with reason and fact. You just kinda spout out whatever comes across your ill-informed mind, and when someone stands up to you or says something you can't argue against (which is most of the time), you just spout epithets.
Like "liar"?
It's not even close to as bad as what Jefferson paid Callender to write about Adams.
What a shock: the standards of our modern right wing come straight from the time of sexism and slavery. Color me surprised -- that they admitted it so easily.
No. Because I actually back up what I say. You JUST spout epithets.
What a shock: the standards of our modern right wing come straight from the time of sexism and slavery. Color me surprised -- that they admitted it so easily.
Color me surprised that you so easily admit you don't care about the Constitution. After all, that came "straight from the time of sexism and slavery."
And I didn't say Jefferson was my standard. He's YOURS: just like most Democrats throughout history, he supported slavery, played dirty politics, sacrificed foreign policy he believed would make the country secure for the sake of winning elections, and so on. I was merely saying that what Hinton said wasn't even as bad as what Jefferson did.
