Bill Foster's victory yesterday in Hastert's red district is a reminder that a Peace Activist like Cheryl Crist could carry a purple district like WA-03 this year -- so the question is, should that happen?
My previous diaries on WA-03 introduced Cheryl Crist, who is Brian Baird's primary challenger, and explored whether a primary challenge was too risky in WA-03.
I concluded that Cheryl would be a good congressperson and that WA-03 is not about to turn red. Most of the commenters agreed.
Today we'll look at the next biggest question people raise about the race: Is Brian Baird bad enough to justify the risk and trouble of replacing him, or is he basically a good representative who made one mistake (although it was one whopping huge mistake)?
Jon DeVore says that calling Baird a "Bush Dog" is wrong, and that Baird has "been a good Congressman in a lot of ways..."
Jon is right. We can easily count the ways in which Brian Baird has been a good congressman. For example, VoteSmart tells us that Baird's ACLU rating was consistently in the 70's a few years back, and moved up to the 90's more recently. The League of Conservation Voters rates him in the 80's and 90's. Same with AFL-CIO. So Brian Baird is not your typical Bush Dog.
On the other hand, something's wrong, because Baird should be working better with his own party, not only on Iraq, but also on simpler issues. For example, Aneurin was bothered by Baird's comment that Baird had a better health plan than either of the major candidates:
...(S)tatements like this aren't helping build the Democratic brand for success in November. Statements like this need to be taken up with the campaigns themselves, not through the Columbian...With statements such as these, I'm sensing that Baird's political kung fu is weak.
When Baird decided to support the Surge last August, and continued to cling to The Myth of the Surge last month, was he just wrong on a single issue, or was it a sign of weak political kung fu? Everybody makes mistakes. But some mistakes are more important than others. And for some mistakes, if you are going to make them, that means you can't do the job. As Jon DeVore puts it:
I still think Baird went way too far last fall in enabling the administration, which set us back in terms of finding the beginning of a way out of the Iraq quagmire...Baird's Friedman Unit from last fall has now expired and he's on FU number two...(T)he Iraq thing is going to have to be resolved. I'm hoping (Baird) realizes the escalation was a fantasy concocted by wishful thinkers in the administration and that Baird modifies his stance accordingly.
"Way too far" is right, and the magnitude of this error by itself might cause us to doubt Baird's judgment in the future. But the way Baird thinks about issues can be as telling as what he finally concludes. With respect to Iraq, even if Baird does eventually realize that he was taken in by "a fantasy concocted by wishful thinkers," it nonetheless happened that Baird got played by the Bush administration, and Baird's been in Congress long enough that he should have known better. So the problem with Baird's Iraq position is not just the size of the error or his tenaciousness in defending it, but the weak thinking that allowed him to be fooled in the first place.
Here is another example of Baird's weak thinking: the recent fiscal stimulus bill. Baird was one of only ten Democrats to oppose it. What was his excuse for abandoning our Party on this one? Oregon Live quotes Baird:
"The so-called stimulus rebates will be borrowed from the Chinese, paid back with interest by our children and grandchildren, and produce no lasting goods for our communities," Baird said. "We clearly don't have $150 billion dollars growing on trees and we shouldn't throw away this opportunity to invest in our country's lagging infrastructure, renewable energy, and conservation efforts.
"...Instead of having Americans take this few hundred dollars and buy more products from abroad, let's invest in improving I-5, deepening the Columbia River channel, building water treatment facilities in our rural communities, expanding our mass transit and rail infrastructure, and upgrading our schools."
Baird also wanted the package to contain investments in renewable energy.
All worthy causes, and I support them, too. Here's what the Columbian adds:
Baird said he would have supported the stimulus package if at least part of it had been targeted toward energy-efficiency, conservation or development of renewable energy.
"Absolutely," he said. "In a heartbeat."
Here is how Baird characterizes what was actually in the stimulus bill (Oregon Live):
"Precisely because our economic situation is so important, we need real debate and real solutions, not temporary 'feel good' fixes that will leave our children in greater debt and do little or nothing to solve the true causes and underlying problems that created this situation."
And then in The Columbian:
"It’s just a fix. It’s like methamphetamine, financially."
Now we can tease Baird for the obvious contradiction in his position, that the stimulus bill was a "feel good" fix, that would leave our children in debt, that represented "methamphetamine, financially," but he would have supported the bill "in a heartbeat" if it had ALSO included his favorite project.
That's just stupid.
But there's a worse fallacy in Baird's reasoning, and students of introductory logic call it the False Dilemma. I completely agree with Baird that we'd rather see the stimulus targeted the way he says, but the bill also contained important mortgage financing relief for homeowners caught in the bubble. Given where the economy is going, a much bigger stimulus package will prove necessary. So the proper move for Baird was not to vote against the bill, but to introduce another one. That's how Democrats more savvy than Baird do it (The Hill):
House Democratic leaders started publicly floating the idea of a second economic stimulus package Wednesday, though they stopped short of committing to introducing legislation.
Voting against the economic stimulus bill does not help the economy, and is bad for struggling homeowners. Even Baird's support for alternative energy isn't impressive, if he simultaneously shows us that he doesn't really understand how that kind of thing gets funded.
Maybe that's why, as Aneurin points out, Baird's influence in Congress is mediocre. Number 212 out of 435 is by definition a mediocre score, but someone like Baird, who has been in office for ten years and is in the majority, should have done better, so Baird's performace is actually worse than mediocre.
I don't think it was an aberration that Brian Baird got confused into voting to support Bush's escalation of the war. Instead, I think that Baird's own public statements show that Baird's constituents understand issues like war and the economy more clearly than he does. I don't doubt that Brian Baird is well-intentioned. I just think that WA-03 could do a lot better.
Previous: Ready to Go After Another Blue Dog?
Previous: Is a Primary Challenge Too Risky?
This Diary: Is Baird Bad Enough to Warrant Replacing?
Follow up: Cheryl Crist is a Credible Candidate
Follow up: Fix FISA by Removing Baird
Follow up: Crist v. Baird Race Heats Up