Just to pick a nit or two... (0.00 / 0)

I have no brief for Baird or any other pol.

But - I wonder how you get to

This is a Bush Dog through and through.

when, according to the definition laid down, he doesn't qualify as a Bush Dog at all?!

Baird voted for RC 425, but (with the righteous) against RC 836, which started the whole Bush Dog thing off.

Of course, 86 Dems voted for RC 425 - including Hoyer - and, since you mention it, 47 Dems voted for the Schiavo bill (S 686 of beloved memory). There is plenty of infamy to go round.

Just curious as to whether the criterion for membership of the Bush Dog Club has been revised since Chris's piece, and, if so, what the new rule might be?

---

by: skeptic06 @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 15:52:14 PM UTC

He's Not A "Bush Dog" By The Original Definition (0.00 / 0)

And this should definitelyhave been made clear.

But the clip above makes it abundantly clear that he fulfills the spirit of Bush Dogism with a vengance.  Ari Fleisher couldn't have written a better script for him.  And this sort of shit just simply has to stop.

I just checked out his record on Progressive Punch, and it looks pretty good overall, though his record on "war and peace" is  75%, significantly below his overall  84.02%, and lower than any other category except "Justice for All: Civil and Criminal" at 70.24%.  He looks to me like a very specific GOP target to get on board for them, and he ought to be opposed for a fundamental lack of political judgement, rather than for his position on issues.

After all, I have repeatedly made the point about Lieberman--as have many others--that it's not the voting record that's our main concern, it's the high-visibility damage to the party.  Coupled, of course, with sock-puppetry and lies.

See, also, coverage at Firedoglake.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 20:27:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tricky (0.00 / 0)

We started off with an objective definition: those who voted yea in two RCVs.

Now, you could query precise target of the definition, and whether those were the right votes to hit the target. But at least, having decided on the definition, the wanted list wrote itself.

Then (my recollection) there was some argument about how far off the reservation the Bush Dogs (as defined) were on other questions.

And the answer (still my recollection) was that they were further from the party average than a bunch of other reps in redder districts.

Then Baird weighs in on Iraq, and draws a torrent of ire from the sphere, such that it's irresistible to add his name to the list, even though he doesn't qualify under the objective definition.

Now, you're telling me, it's not what he voted, it's what he said that makes him a target?

A somewhat slippery business, this.

---

by: skeptic06 @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 21:35:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're Right (0.00 / 0)

It's better we shouldn't think things over, question, reconsider, re-examine, and explore. Better we shouldn't pay attention to what folks are doing in town meetings with their representatives.

We should just pick a position and stick with it, because, because, well, because!

That way we can't be accused of... whatever it is you're accusing us of.

Instead, we can be accused of thinking mechanistically.  Of being "knee-jerk liberals," right?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 22:28:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is part... (0.00 / 0)

...of the reconsidering and re-examining!

Dealing (in one way or another) with the DINOs (and others on the right of the party in Congress) has rather been a theme of the lefty sphere in the few years it's been around. (Lieberman being the prime example, natch.)

Clearly, the Bush Dogs exercise is in the same field, and, like you say, it's evolving.

An objective criterion has the defects of its merits. If, in practice, you're not going to be held to the criterion - Baird is hardly likely to protest that he doesn't fall within its precise terms, so folks should lay off! - don't sweat it.

It does, though, raise the question (amongst others), Who will be next?

---

by: skeptic06 @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 23:36:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And That's A Good Thing, No? (0.00 / 0)

It does, though, raise the question (amongst others), Who will be next?

Much more efficient than running primaries against everyone is just keeping them on their toes.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Aug 29, 2007 at 00:10:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jon Soltz has it right - (0.00 / 0)

Matt -

First let me say that I live in Brian's district and am active in my county's Democratic Party chapter.  Secondly, let me say that I have commented previously on this matter to the effect that we will have a primary opponent for Mr. Baird next August.

After that, though, I agree with Jon Soltz that the main purpose in such a candidacy will be to change Brian's position.  Most of his policies are acceptable to or applauded by progressives.  (He has a few detractors for support of sustainable logging in federal forests and for a proposal to kill a few sea lions at the Bonneville Dam, but I agree with him on both matters.)  He is - or seems to be - a "good guy" both personally and with respect to most issues.

For what it's worth, I agree with the previous comment, too, that he does not fit the Bush Dog definition.  By and large he doesn't fit the Blue Dog motif, either.  It's mainly this one issue; but, as I have said here and elsewhere, the Iraq occupation is too important to let him slide.

By the way - did I mention that I'm running for president?

---

by: paul spencer @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 16:23:57 PM UTC

Drawing a bright line (0.00 / 0)

For me the continued counterproductive US occupation of Iraq and sustained assault on civil liberties (waged by this administration over the last four years) are third rails.

I'll cut conservative Dems plenty of slack on other issues, but not here.

Agreed: the point of pushing back against Bush Dogs should be to change hearts and minds.

Failing that, however, turncoats should be primaried.

---

by: ibhenderson @ Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 19:43:35 PM UTC