See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On August 28th, 2007 at 1:28 pm, almeehan said:

   Sad to say these are the people that will have more blood on their hands by their irresponsible leftist lurchings.

2. #2
   On August 28th, 2007 at 1:39 pm, bdfaith said:

   If JFK were around to write another book this guy’s story would belong in the first chapter.

3. #3
   On August 28th, 2007 at 1:40 pm, geminicontender said:

   It’s Oregon. What would you expect? They’re loons.

4. #4
   On August 28th, 2007 at 1:47 pm, Kendrick said:

   Its ridiculous. They tell him what he sees for himself thousands of miles away is wrong and incorrect. Their logic is that he should do as they say and be their puppet locked in an echo chamber.

5. #5
   On August 28th, 2007 at 2:03 pm, Laree said:

   He was elected, not bought, the left doesn’t know the difference ??? “We don’t care about your convictions” Next time elect someone who has displayed an ablity to have his Will corrupted and will be easily lead by the mob. Baird, is this the last man standing in Oregon?

6. #6
   On August 28th, 2007 at 2:04 pm, Regulus said:

   It’s Oregon. What would you expect? They’re loons.

   Easy there with the roller-brush treatment, friend; you end up tarring some people who neither appreciate nor deserve it.

   Besides, it’s Washington that Baird hails from.

7. #7
   On August 28th, 2007 at 2:05 pm, gregorystephens said:

   The far-left loons attack anyone that breaks rank and actually opens their eyes and thinks for themselves. They don’t like it when one of their own pulls his head out of the sand and grows a backbone.

8. #8
   On August 28th, 2007 at 2:06 pm, Perk said:

   Mario Loyala at Weekly Standard has a great article about progress in Iraq:

9. #9
   On August 28th, 2007 at 2:08 pm, Perk said:

   Sorry, link did not make it.
   http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/025vxetc.asp

10. #10
    On August 28th, 2007 at 2:12 pm, 3Steps said:

    So…

    people are irritated over in the Crapweasel forum because some of us are calling for a Senator who commited illegal acts to step down.

    But the Democrats.. they want their Congressman to step down just because they disagree with him on an issue.

    hmm… according to those rules… Washington should be pretty much empty after the Shamnesty debacle.

11. #11
    On August 28th, 2007 at 2:20 pm, pgtips said:

    “We don’t care what your convictions are,” said Jan Lustig of Vancouver. “You are here to represent us.”

    That says it all. The people in that meeting don’t want somebody with principles or convictions. They want a girly man, a leaf in the breeze who will change and go whichever way they please.

    These people do not understand why we have elections once ever 4 years and not one everytime we disagree with our elected representative. One is a democracy, the other is mob rule.

12. #12
    On August 28th, 2007 at 2:29 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

    When a person on the right moves left, they are said to have “grown” in the job. I still remember Walter Mondale Praising President Bush Senior for raising taxes.

    Simply put, to a liberal, being “principled” means “shut up and agree with me.”

    It is borderline cannibalism on the left at this point.

    Respectfully,

    eric http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com

13. #13
    On August 28th, 2007 at 2:33 pm, blues said:

    Kendrick-great point about Libs wanting there elected officials to be puppets.I believe this is a basic difference between Libs. and Cons.,Libs think we elect people to do as we say,Cons. elect people based on leadership qualities.One cannot lead if he is following.Leadership often means having the courage to make unpopular decisions;Liberals cannot understand this concept.

14. #14
    On August 28th, 2007 at 2:36 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    “We don’t care what your convictions are,” said Jan Lustig of Vancouver. “You are here to represent us.”

    That’s the money quote. A more accurate comment would be “We don’t care about convictions.”

15. #15
    On August 28th, 2007 at 2:50 pm, Insomniac said:

    These people do not understand why we have elections once ever 4 years and not one everytime we disagree with our elected representative. One is a democracy republic, the other is mob rule.

    Fixed that for ya.

16. #16
    On August 28th, 2007 at 3:02 pm, ThackerAgency said:

    You have to respect a guy who stands on his convictions. He voted against the war (I have no problem with someone who took that position). He voted against the surge (that would seem to me to be Congress micromanaging the war – but he didn’t want to fight in the first place so he gets the benefit of the doubt).

    But now that he has been there and seen progress he is convicted that we are doing good and we need to stay until we finish the job we started.

    This is a good man. They elected him to represent them, and that’s exactly what he is doing. He thoughtfully considers each vote whether or not anyone agrees with him – it’s HIS vote.

17. #17
    On August 28th, 2007 at 3:16 pm, Yashmak said:

    The folks in that townhall meeting weren’t interested in a discussion of what’s right. Judging from the comments they made, they weren’t interested in a candidate whose integrity demands he stands for what’s right (in his opinion). They want a candidate who stands for whatever way the wind blows right now. If it blows the other way later, they want the same candidate to do the same thing.

    They forgot that you don’t elect a platform. . .you elect a person.

18. #18
    On August 28th, 2007 at 3:33 pm, BluegrassHindu said:

    It’s Oregon. What would you expect? They’re loons.

    Talk about assumptions LOL. I live in Oregon and just because all the liberal stuff is the only things reported it in no way represents the state as a whole. I have seen a ton of pro – Bush and troop bumperstickers and all the folks I run into are into God , family , and hard work.
    So please don`t paint us with that broad brush

19. #19
    On August 28th, 2007 at 3:33 pm, limmo said:

    The US population in total simply doesn’t have the will for this kind of engagement. Given that fact, there’s really no point in staying. That will mean that Iraq will implode. There will be a bloodbath and we’ll be blamed for that for perpetuity. Terrorists who want to throw down with us, instead of going to Iraq as they are now, will devise clever ways to engage us all over the world, and here. Training camps will more easily flourish to crank them out. As always, we’ll be blamed for everything, and it will once again be proven that it’s not a particularly good idea to ally with us, ‘cuz we ain’t for the long haul. To be our friend now is to be hunted down and killed later. We will end up fighting eventually, one way or the other. Perhaps we will have come to our senses by then and be able to pull together. But politically, we just won’t fight this war now. We should have gone in, gotten Saddaam and gotten out. That’s really all we were truly up for. Un-unified, disarrayed, at each others throats, we don’t have a prayer of maintaining a sustained military effort to bring peace and democracy to anyone.

20. #20
    On August 28th, 2007 at 3:54 pm, terrig said:

    “We don’t care what your convictions are,” said Jan Lustig of Vancouver. “You are here to represent us.”

    I’m sure most of you at some point in your high school career saw the movie “1776″. At one point a delegate, Lyman Hall from Liberty County, GA (now home to the Third ID but I digress) said something to the affect that as a representative does he go with what his constituients want or what he felt. Then Adams asks him where he stands on the question and he said he was for independence but they weren’t. In the end he votes for it-I guess if you’re a liberal in Oregon that doesn’t count for much. Even if I disagree with a politician, I can respect the fact that they vote their convictions especially after they have gone and seen for themselves.

21. #21
    On August 28th, 2007 at 4:02 pm, Uplander said:

    Congressman Brian Baird (D-3 Vancouver, Washington) hosted a town hall tonight at Fort Vancouver High School. It was Baird’s first appearance in front of his constituents since reversing his position on the war. Although Baird’s been an adamant critic of the war—he voted against the war and the surge—he announced last week that he thinks the surge is working and he wants to give it time.

    He spoke in a high school auditorium that was packed with at least 500 people who were overwhelmingly vocal in their opposition to Baird’s new stance. There were also protesters outside calling for Baird to resign.

    These folks are wrong, no doubt. I have to face the fact though, that I’ve screamed at our ‘RINOs’ on my display before that – I don’t care how you ‘FEEL’, we sent you there as a Conservative Republican and that’s how we want you to vote. I hope this doesn’t sound like sympathy for the losers on the left.

22. #22
    On August 28th, 2007 at 4:12 pm, swj719AWG said:

    They do, however, have a point. A congressman, when told by the majority of his constituents how they feel on an issue, should vote in a way that conforms to those wishes regardless of personal beliefs.

    But still, way to go Baird for standing up to the surrender-monkies…

23. #23
    On August 28th, 2007 at 4:14 pm, billhedrick said:

    where is Vancouver WASHINGTON?
    Isn’t Vancouver in British Columbia?

24. #24
    On August 28th, 2007 at 4:16 pm, billhedrick said:

    never mind, checked out google maps, it’s just north of Portland Oregon

25. #25
    On August 28th, 2007 at 4:43 pm, theloneranger said:

    I see Baird as a political flip-flopper. After years of anti-war rhetoric, he and a number of other Democrats have noticed the Surge is working and figured they better start covering their rear-ends. It’s as simple as that. I doubt any “principles” were involved in the matter.

26. #26
    On August 28th, 2007 at 4:50 pm, Boomer said:

    The site of the city of Vancouver, WA was originally named Fort Vancouver established by the Hudson’s Bay Company around 1812. It made a hefty profit for the company during the fur trading days.

    Most folks living on the West side of the Cascades suffer from drinking too much of the Liberal kool-aid. Once you get past Bend, OR just about every town on the east side of the Cascades still believes in this country and has a strong set of values. I feel so sorry for them being ruled by the idiots in the Puget Sound/Willamette Valley area.

    They are so upset about the Military’s current success in Iraq it is driving them crazy. What I am really impressed with is an individual who was solidly against the war goes to the combat zone and comes back with a clue that we are showing real progress in winning this thing and believes giving them the time they ask for is a good thing. The Liberals throw him under the bus because they consider him a trader to their cause of being America hater’s hell bent on selling out our troops.

27. #27
    On August 28th, 2007 at 4:56 pm, Foz said:

    Useful idiots to our enemies… treat em accordingly.

28. #28
    On August 28th, 2007 at 5:12 pm, Regulus said:

    What’s also interesting about Baird’s particular Profile In Courage is how it contrasts with the Clinton-style of leadership. One of the reasons for Bill’s good approval percentages throughout his two terms was that he never did anything without first checking how it’d affect his poll ratings.

    But that’s not leadership. That’s pandering.

    Yes, Baird is a “representative” of his constituents. But sometimes being in a position of responsibility means doing what you know is the right thing to do, even though it’s going to be wildly unpopular with your constituency. Just ask any parent.

    Sometimes I think that I can never tip my hat to a Democrat. Just goes to show the wisdom of the saying, “Never say never.”

29. #29
    On August 28th, 2007 at 5:21 pm, twoninerkilo said:

    I’m with Uplander; when I help send a conservative to Congress I don’t want him voting for amnesty for illegal aliens, if he does he’s gonna hear from me. Even though I couldn’t gut being in the same room with a lib, they have a point.

30. #30
    On August 28th, 2007 at 5:25 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Maybe he will jump ship like Lieberman and the dimocraps will be in serioous trouble numbers wise!

31. #31
    On August 28th, 2007 at 5:37 pm, jferg49 said:

    wellllll….this is nice…a politician that actually makes up his mind after looking at the facts…I agree a little with some of the worms…he was voted in as a liberal…and should stand by the ones that brought him to the dance…BUT, this issue is bigger then wanted gays to be married, or thinking the state should pay for health care..this is the security of the U.S. so I applaud him and wish him well…but he’s still a liberal, he’s just one who is doing the right thing in with this issue…

32. #32
    On August 28th, 2007 at 5:52 pm, georgej said:

    It is time to tell it like it is. America’s left (liberal Democrats, ANSWER, etc.) are traitors. When you cheer on the enemy; when you sabotage your own side, you are committing treason.

    It is unfortunate that treason’s Party is also the party of FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman, and JFK, who, regardless of domestic political differences with Republicans, acted uniformily to protect America’s interests and fight America’s enemies. If these men were alive today, they would not recognize what the Democratic Party has become.

    And so that everybody understands what treason is, here is how treason is defined in the Constitution:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

    The behavior of the left in America over the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is a force multiplier for bin Laden. The attempts of the Democratic Party leadership to cut and run in Iraq is doing bin Laden’s work for him, in America. I’m glad that Baird is honest enough (for whatever reason) to acknowledge that this earlier position was wrong.

    As for the left and Congressional/Senatorial Democrats, I agree with Abraham Lincoln:

    Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.
    — President Abraham Lincoln

33. #33
    On August 28th, 2007 at 5:59 pm, 24Klady said:

    twoninerkilo #29, you took the words right out of my head. A matter of weeks ago we were all calling, sending faxes, e-mails, and snail mail to our elected critters on the issue of immigration and amnesty. It’s possible the people of Vancouver will find another candidate to support after Baird’s jumping ship on them. I hope some will see there is merit in what he’s saying, but wouldn’t bet more than a $3 bill on it.

34. #34
    On August 28th, 2007 at 6:12 pm, Bob68 said:

    I guess that all 500 of these people represent
    

    all

    of the district?????

35. #35
    On August 28th, 2007 at 6:14 pm, georgej said:

    To those who say that Baird should remain “true” to the constituency that elected him, I disagree.

    Article VI, section 3 of the Constitution states:

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;…

    That oath to uphold and defend the Constitution SUPERCEDES everything, even the wishes of the people who elected him. In those cases where an official of the United States and of the several States is faced with a conundrum as to whether to do what his constituents wants or to uphold the Constitution, said official is REQUIRED to do the later.

36. #36
    On August 28th, 2007 at 7:17 pm, Rick Moran said:

    ““We don’t care what your convictions are,” said Jan Lustig of Vancouver. “You are here to represent us.”

    Is he? Is that really a COngressman’s job? To simply do whatever his constituents want?

    This argument is as old as the republic – as old as republican government actually. Most good legislators will say that they owe their constituents their best judgment on how to vote on an issue or what position to take.

    The wonderful thing about democracy is that the people get to decide next year whether Baird will be punished for taking an unpopular stance on the war. It may depend on how the war goes, although with that unhinged crowd they could really care less.

    But the bulk of voters are a lot more fair minded than the people who showed up at that town meeting. I have a feeling Baird will be okay.

37. #37
    On August 28th, 2007 at 7:57 pm, doppelganglander said:

    Baird went and looked at the facts for himself and was man enough to change his mind. More than voting his convictions, I admire his ability to admit that he’d changed his opinion based on learning new facts. The 500+ screaming lefties at his town hall meeting are utterly uninterested in the facts. Therefore, while normally a representative should be expected to represent his constituents, in this case I think he’s doing the right thing.

38. #38
    On August 28th, 2007 at 8:09 pm, rightisright said:

    The term “democracy” sure gets thrown around a lot anymore…that word is no where in the U.S. Constitution, it also cannot be found in any state constitution. Don’t mean to be nit picky here, i realize after 40 plus yrs of hearing that word it becomes easy to use it in describing our form of government. Problem is we live in a Constitutional Republic. So far and we best be cautious of creeping threats to our Republic.

39. #39
    On August 28th, 2007 at 9:56 pm, opgenorth said:

    Actually, a representatives job is to represent the the best interests of his constituents. What they ask him to do about a particular issue, as in this case, may not be in their best interest. As a leader, part of his job to argue his case and persuade his constituents that he is in fact acting in their best interest. A tall order when confronted with a hostile crowd that’s made up it’s mind and isn’t about to let facts get in the way. That’s what makes leadership a tough business.

    I think time will prove Representative Baird right on this issue. Whether his constituents will forgive him for being right is another question entirely.

40. #40
    On August 28th, 2007 at 11:30 pm, ArmywifeArmymom said:

    Good job Sen. Baird! Keep up the good fight, and continue to defend those who are defending you! Even with a small gaggle of whining babies throwing fits at your feet, you will still come out of this a better man and leader if you stick to your guns! Hang tough!

41. #41
    On August 29th, 2007 at 12:20 am, Alphonse said:

    The surge is a wee battle in a lost cause, but it encourages me that we will prevail if we stick it out another 75 years.

42. #42
    On August 29th, 2007 at 12:24 am, ArmywifeArmymom said:

    August 29th, 2007 at 12:20 am, Alphonse said:

    The surge is a wee battle in a lost cause, but it encourages me that we will prevail if we stick it out another 75 years.

    And considering that you obviously are the one whose butt is on the front line of that “wee battle” I guess you speak with real wisdom and authority, huh? Say what you want… I will listen to the guys with boots on the ground, and Baird obviously is too.

43. #43
    On August 29th, 2007 at 6:31 am, pgtips said:

    The surge is a wee battle in a lost cause, but it encourages me that we will prevail if we stick it out another 75 years.

    75 years? Hardly. 10 years? Maybe. 5 years? Most likely.

    There is progress on the ground. If the surge had happened 5 years ago, Iraq would be a very different place now. It is still not too late to change that, and people like Congressman Baird are coming round to that fact.

    What we really need is more politicians in the UK who will go to Iraq, speak to the troops (maybe not the British troops too busy hiding in their palace at Basra…) to see the surge in action. Then maybe they’ll come home and talk some sense instead of whining about how the surge is most likely to fail without ever presenting any facts/figures to support their claim. It saddens me to see the Great Britain that stood up to tyrants like Napoleon and Hitler being turned into a land of whining sissies.

    Nevertheless, it is encouraging to see that even the trolls admit that the surge is working. They just try their best to downplay its significance

44. #44
    On August 29th, 2007 at 8:51 am, Fineous Reese said:

    “We don’t care what your convictions are,” said Jan Lustig of Vancouver. “You are here to represent us.”

    It’s been said the founders were more concerned about a democracy than a monarchy. Comments like Jan Lustig’s show why.

45. #45
    On August 29th, 2007 at 9:46 am, Just A Grunt said:

    I too am guilty of saying you are there to represent us. I think where the distinction comes is when an elected official truly stand on principle like Baird is doing. During the shamnesty proceedings it was apparent nobody was standing on principle but rather their vote was for sale for political gains. I contacted both of my senators, Isakson and Chambliss, during the course of that debate. Both men had set on the committee that drafted the bill that came to the floor for a vote. They both wound up voting against it.
    So were they principled in committee and then responding to their constituents once it came for a vote?
    I am torn on the matter of principles versus representating the folks back home. I do however think the time to reveal your principals is when you are running for office not after you are elected. Kind of like Paris Hilton and Michael Vick finding religion.
    Regarding Mr Bairds position on the war now, I think he either needs to try and convince the contituents that his first hand view of the situation should offer his opinion more weight then what they may be hearing in newspapers, on tv or the radio. For his constituents to turn a deaf ear to his opinion only points to their ignorance and not his lack of principles.

46. #46
    On August 29th, 2007 at 1:57 pm, Flashman said:

    Here we have a perfect example of the duplicity of the left. If Baird’s position had been the polar opposite the left would be lauding him as a man of principle whose position had evolved after he’d actually seen the conditions on the ground.

47. #47
    On August 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pm, blues said:

    Regulus #28-BINGO!