I am supporting Cheryl Crist myself.

The other day when I saw the House of Reps finally vote against the supplemental funding for Iraq I noticed he cast his vote for the other side.

Brian voted AGAINST the Iraq war resolution.

Cheryl is a nice and quite sincere person and all, but the beautiful thing about being a candidate is you can say and damned thing you want, or need to to get votes. Even if elected, Cheryl is not going to be any more effective at getting out the troops than Brian. Without Brian's seniority Cheryl is demonstrably LESS effective when it comes to getting out.

A vote for Cheryl may assuage your liberal guilt but the truth is this nation shattered a nation and a society and we have an obligation to try and fix it. Not through the imperial neo-con Year Zero wet dream, but the reality based solutions an Obama administration will promote. This nation unthinkingly invaded Iraq. An unthinking withdrawal is just as morally problematic.

So far, I haven't heard anyone advocate for an "unthinking" withdrawal. But Brian Baird has opposed any kind of timeline, thinking or otherwise.

The following is an excerpt from an article about Baird by Phan Nguyen which ran in Works In Progress, Oct 2007:

It has been taken for granted that Baird was a consistent opponent of the war and that his conversion [in support of the "surge" and against a timeline for withdrawal] occurred only after his August trip to Iraq, what the Daily Astorian called a “Baghdad epiphany.” This assumption is partly Baird’s fault, as he constantly reminds people that he had “voted against the war from the outset.” In interviews and meetings, Baird has neither confirmed nor denied that his viewpoint significantly changed after his last trip to Iraq, leaving questions of that nature unadressed.

Yet the record shows a more gradual and subtle position that has never been a strong antiwar stance. A few days after the start of the war, Baird voted for H.Con.Res. 104, “Expressing the Support and Appreciation of the Nation for the President and the Members of the Armed Forces Who are Participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom.” In its “whereas” clauses, the resolution justified regime change, implied that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and provided support for the war. Further it resolved to express:

“unequivocal support and appreciation…to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the on-going Global War on Terrorism.”

Following criticism from his constituents for voting for the resolution, Baird issued a public statement that the resolution was necessary to “support the troops.” Although the resolution did express support for “members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are carrying out their missions with excellence, patriotism, and bravery,” along with support for their families, Baird made no attempts to justify the other 80% of the resolution which repeated pro-war lies, distortion, and rhetoric, and that congratulated Bush for executing the war.

This resolution was the first clear indication that Baird’s stance was never simply anti-war. More accurately, Baird took the position that he would oppose the war before it began, but once it began, he would offer his support. That is, his opposition to the war has always been opposition to the war having ever started, and never a blanket opposition to the continuing war and occupation.

This stance was reiterated this August on NPR: “ I still believe the invasion itself was a horrific mistake, but once we’re there, we have to do what we can to try to make the best of this.”

To Tucker Carlson: “I believe, frankly, that the invasion of Iraq was one of the greatest foreign policy mistakes in the country, and I still believe that. However, once we had made that commitment and were on the ground, I pretty steadfastly opposed a timeline for withdrawal.”

If by the term “antiwar” we refer to someone who was opposed to starting a war and occupation in Iraq, then Baird could possibly qualify. But if we now mean that antiwar refers to someone who wants the war and occupation to end, Baird would not qualify.

### 

You can read the entire article at: http://www.olywip.org/site/page/article/2007/10/02.html

I live in the 6th Congressional District, and unbeatable incumbent Norm Dicks is facing a primary challenge as well from Paul Richmond, who appears to be coming from the Left of Norm. No Republican has announced yet as far as I know.

So what's the deal with these Davids stepping out into the field to meet Goliaths of their own political party?

This is a healthy thing. Long timers need to be shaken up a bit in their boxes and reminded that elections are not coronations.

in every election that he has been in because between BB and Don Bonker we had Linda Smith if my memory serves.  I go out to the parades for him when his campaign contacts and asks and I will continue to do that.

The political and policy distance between Bonker/Baird and Linda Smith is much greater than the distance between Bonker/Baird and Cheryl Crist. The differences between Crist and Baird are significant and I would definitely choose Cheryl Crist over Baird.  I hope Cheryl's day has arrived.   

I have seen enough of Linda Smith and her type to last me a lifetime or two.