» Baird’s change in position helping to promote occupation

Baird’s change in position helping to promote occupation

I think the Dems are in real trouble. The above is one of several ads being paid for by Freedom Watch.

Freedom’s Watch is a new White House front group^[1] of prominent conservatives with a pro-Israel agenda^[2] masquerading as a grassroots movement (i.e. astroturf). Formed only two weeks prior,^[3] it began a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign on August 22, 2007 “to urge members of Congress who may be wavering in their support for the war in Iraq not to ‘cut and run’.”^[4]

It has been described as “a covert ‘cut-out’ organization”^[5] and an “outfit dedicated to keeping the war industry thriving.”^[6] “A sort of shadow White House communications shop has emerged to help the beleaguered president sell his unpopular war to the American people,” Jake Tapper and Avery Miller wrote August 22, 2007, at ABC News.^[7]

“The group is organized under section 501(c)4 of the tax code,^[8] meaning that it can lobby on issues but cannot expressly advocate for specific candidates. Its stated mission is ‘to ensure a strong national defense and a powerful effort to confront and defeat global terrorism’,” Mike Allen wrote August 22, 2007, in The Politico.^[9]

You can read more about Freedom Watch here.

Understand that Baird is not “approving” this ad. But Baird really needs to switch his party affiliation or read “Don’t Think of an Elephant” and rethink his position again.

Last 2 posts in Baird, Brian

Adult Supervision is Returning to Wall Street - October 31st, 2008
Baird, Stop Misleading Your Constituents - October 3rd, 2008

Sphere: Related Content

If you liked this post, feel free to subscribe to our rss feeds

4 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

(listed oldest to newest)

I just pledged support for a progrssive challenger.

http://pol.moveon.org/primary07/?id=11191-8220307-Y.8NbY&t=3

(h/t Huffpo)

[Reply]

1. By arturo on September 7th, 2007 at 1:55 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
Please note this article from Seattle Times.

And note d4v.org, Democracy for Vancouver was cited on this national weblog, Open Left.

Good job fellow bloggers, people are reading us!

Now if we could just get Brian Baird to understand what’s happening. But I think he is all caught up in the attention our corrupt, biased media is providing him..

[Reply]

2. By bushtool on September 7th, 2007 at 10:48 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
While I disagree with Baird’s stance/flipfloping on Iraq, I give him credit for trying to explain his reasons.

It is very disturbing when a bunch of rude people try to control any discussion by shouting and screaming at any speaker in such meeting.

But the fact remains that Baird was elected to his position by the people, and he is suppose to do the peoples wishes, whenever possible. He sure failed in this one instance.

After receiving the dog and pony show from the military brass, he feels he is correct. Does anyone know if he talked to any serving grunt, outside and away from the brass? He may have found out exactly what is going on if he would have.

But overall, Baird has served our area in a decent manner.

[Reply]

3. By Allen on September 8th, 2007 at 8:08 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
Allen,

I only watched the first half of the Town Hall on CVTV but I did not notice what you are saying about rude behavior. Of course without a microphone, the audio of the rude behavior would not be picked up on a video.

Nonetheless, if there were people being rude, that should not diminish the fact that many of Baird’s constituents are very disappointed in his recent Iraq stance as you have indicated. There are lots of rude people and I’ve been to previous Baird Townhalls where people were rude also.

I do believe Baird is sincere about how he views the Iraq occupation. I also think he is wrong. No matter what happens in Iraq, we will not be victors. And that is because you cannot win an occupation.

Baird, by talking about Iraq in terms of “victory” and by saying if you take the position we should withdraw ASAP (logistically) it means you are undermining the troops, he is re-framing the occupation in the terms used by the Bush crime family and many Republican members of Congress. And that is why he is now being used by a Republican lobbying organization to bolster their misleading viewpoint of the Iraq situation.

[Reply]

4. By bushtool on September 8th, 2007 at 11:01 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).