Comments on: The Left bashes Brian Baird

By: Michelle Malkin » MoveOn.org and Company’s attacks on Rep. Brian Baird intensify

Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:15:16 +0000

[...] in Iraq but now opposes precipitous withdrawal after visiting the troops there in the summer. See here and here. See also this anti-Baird video attack ad from MoveOn.org that aired last [...]

By: Here’s What Happens… at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source.

Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:45:47 +0000

[...] This is the kind of reception Baird got from his “loyal” constituents. Now he can see first-hand what idiots his allies on the Left are. They are not interested in hearing the truth. They are only interested in hearing that America is losing and we should cut and run…thereby satisfying their psychotic hatred of President Bush and their country. This has happened over and over and over…are there ANY sane Democrats left in the country? And if so, why are they still Democrats? [...]

By: blues

blues — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:09:22 +0000

Regulus #28-BINGO!

By: Flashman

Flashman — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:57:27 +0000

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.

By: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: MoveOn targets Iraq apostate Brian Baird

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:33:19 +0000

[...] could have gone three ways. Attack Baird for going against the majority of Americans who want a pullout, attack him for being too sanguine about the deadlock in the Iraqi government, or attack him with [...]

By: Just A Grunt

Just A Grunt — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:46:39 +0000

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.

By: Fineous Reese

Fineous Reese — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:51:59 +0000

“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.

By: pgtips

pgtips — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 10:31:23 +0000

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

By: ArmywifeArmymom

ArmywifeArmymom — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:24:22 +0000

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.

By: Alphonse

Alphonse — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:20:09 +0000

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.

By: ArmywifeArmymom

ArmywifeArmymom — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 03:30:18 +0000

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!

By: opgenorth

opgenorth — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 01:56:10 +0000

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.

By: rightisright

rightisright — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:09:52 +0000

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.

By: doppelganglander

doppelganglander — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:57:04 +0000

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.

By: Rick Moran

Rick Moran — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:17:05 +0000

““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.