Obama Pumpkin

So says our Representative Brian Baird and I quote him from a link to a story in my earlier article:

Baird said the legislation also will prevent executives who presided over the financial crisis from reaping huge salaries and bonuses.

“Any company that chooses to participate in the program will not be able to offer their departing executives exorbitant severance packages,” he said. “In companies where the government is making a direct purchase, it will also place strict limits on executive salaries and will end the tax deduction for executive salaries over $500,000. For the first time in a long while, adult supervision is returning to Wall Street.”

And as any 6th grader could have anticipated back then, Seeking Alpha has an article entitled, For Shame: $50 Billion of Bailout Funds Already Designated for Year-End Bonuses, which states:

As if the economic bailout by U.S. taxpayers isn’t enough to make you sick to your stomach, new information has come to light that several banks are planning to pay billions of dollars in year-end bonuses from the bailout funds they received.  Investigations are beginning into the nine banks that took in the first $125 billion – the same $125 billion that was supposed to be used to unclog the credit system which was preventing banks from providing much needed funds for individuals and businesses.

There are many feathers in a ruffle over this and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and several congressmen are furious that over $20 billion has already been earmarked as bonus funds for management and employees. Unbelievably, that is just the estimates from Goldman Sachs (GS), Morgan Stanley (MS) and Merrill Lynch (MER). There are six more banks that are also working on similar heists.

Here is their rationale for using that money: It is reported that the financial industry pays base salaries in the range of $80,000 to $600,000 and apparently that is simply not enough to keep some of the best and brightest working to keep their companies profitable. It seems that if they were paid only this meager amount, the company would risk mass defections. That would be a real problem…or would it?

Representative Baird, did you REALLY think that lowering the deductibility of executive compensation to $500,000 or $5 for that matter would REALLY stop the robber barons from stealing our (the taxpayer’s) money?  If so, given what is now occurring, do you think you continue to be qualified to represent us (the taxpayers) in Congress?

When is adult supervision going to return to Washington’s 3rd Congressional District?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Wall Street: Yes, there will be bonuses this year
• Kucinich on Bonuses: ‘This Is a Disgrace’

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Brian Baird chimes in on his misguided, doing nothing for “the people”, vote for the bailout:

“In companies where the government is making a direct purchase, it will also place strict limits on executive salaries and will end the tax deduction for executive salaries over $500,000. For the first time in a long while, adult supervision is returning to Wall Street.”

Baird also praised the provision that provides a sales tax deduction for taxpayers in Washington and other states that have a sales tax but no state income tax. Baird first championed that cause during his first successful congressional campaign in 1998.

No, Rep. Baird, you are just plain wrong.  This laughable executive salaries provision won’t rein in anyone’s pay as per this article, Bailout package unlikely to significantly curb executive pay and your sales tax deduction for the upper income crowd is not going to feed anyone on the bread line.

PS: Choosing not to do the wrong thing and not to mislead people was an “option”.

Viewpoint: Economist Dean Baker on the Bailout Panic (click to show/hide)

Update: For some curious reason the Columbian article, Baird: ‘Doing nothing was not an option.’ is no longer showing up on The Columbian site.  You can still read Baird’s propaganda here.

Photo courtesy of Open Left and Matt Stoller

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

3 Comments

• At October 5, 2008, John wrote:

  Here is a Washington Post article again completely refuting Baird's bullshit that the bailout bill will "place strict limits on executive salaries". Bunk

• At October 7, 2008, Karl wrote:

  I was so impressed by DeFazio on his No Bail Out plan, I faxed copies to Baird, Murray & Cantwell. As well as his 12 reason not to vote for the bailout, and the specific 5 reasons the executive comp limits were BS. DeFazio still has the papers on his site, great stuff. I also sent B, M & C a link and a transcript of the Private Treasury Teleconference where Paulson was explaining to the Bankers how none of the controls congress was trying to add woould have any teeth. it is on youtube, they sure don't sound too concerned about anything except how to take advantage of the plan....

• At October 8, 2008, John wrote:

  An executive compensation deductibility limit of $1 million has been in effect since the early 1990s.

  How has that worked to curtail CEO compensation?

  And lowering the limit to $500,000 (as the bailout bill did) or $5 will have no effect whatsoever on compensation payments just as the original IRS provision had no effect.

  It is all a big scam on the taxpayers of the USA. And the people in Congress know it.

  Something had to be done but what they did was not that something.

I just heard my favorite congressperson, Peter DeFazio of Oregon, on with Randi Rhodes say that:

(1) credit unions are doing just fine (they’re owned by their members, and are an atypical corporate creature); and

(2) businesses are turning to credit unions after being denied credit by their commercial banks; and

(3) those commercial banks are refusing their customers - even those with good credit - because of pressure from the FDIC. And this pressure is not due to bank solvency.

This means, once again, that BushCo is manipulating the system for political gain and propagandizing the populace with their DOOM! DOOM! DOOM! rhetoric.

BushCo wants a credit crunch in order to get Congress to go along with its fat cat handout.

There is no crisis except in top-2% land, where profits are threatened and the elite oligarchs are so used to the short-term, high-return payout that they idea of buy-and-hold seems like a life sentence.

And they’re willing to throw the stock market down the toilet and risk runs on banks - like WaMu last week - to truly destabilize the banking system with real bank failures.

Bush, Cheney, Paulson and their cohorts across the financial services sector are murderous vultures, trying to pick the country clean before Bush rides into the sunset and a Democratic president can come in and try to restore some honor and decency and fundamental fairness to the U.S. government.

Don’t give in.

Not. One. Inch.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

United States House of Representatives

Below is a fundraising appeal from Representative Baird:

Dear John,

The Primary election of last month brought good news and new challenges.

The good news is that with your help we prevailed in the primary in the 3rd Congressional District with a majority vote in a field of four candidates. I am grateful for that result and for your support in making it possible.

Our new challenges are two-fold. First, while the primary victory reflected a majority of votes cast, that majority just exceeded fifty percent, suggesting we have more work to do to get our positive, common sense message to voters throughout the district.

The other challenge we face is the proven fundraising ability and core group of supporters backing our opponent. A self described “Ron Paul” Republican, he is at the fringes of his own party in some respects, but he will also have an energized base of supporters and the potential to raise large amounts of funds in a short period.

Until now, I have focused virtually all of my time and energy on policy matters of importance to our district and nation. In fact, today I led the successful effort in the House of Representatives to extend for two years the sales tax deductability for Washington residents. As a result, our fundraising efforts have not been at full throttle. That has to change now and I will need your help.

Our projections suggest we need to spend at least two hundred thousand dollars in media for the general election. Beyond that, however, we need to be prepared to invest substantially more if the national supporters of our opponent choose to make this one of their specific targets.  In fact, it is possible that our overall race could approach the million dollar mark.

That is why I am writing to ask for your urgent and generous help.

We plan to make major purchases of television, radio, newspapers and mail pieces within the next few weeks. Your support today will make that possible.

If you have already contributed prior to the primary, let me thank you again for your support and ask you to lend a hand once again now that we are on to the general election.  If you have yet to send a contribution this year, let me ask you to do so today and let me ask that you be as generous in your support as the current economic times will allow.

Thanks for your support.

Sincerely,

Brian Baird

With the most recent FEC reporting showing Brian Baird’s campaign fund balance of $969,203, it is rather difficult to take Representative Baird’s appeal for money seriously.

Representative Baird, I don’t care one wit about the sales tax deduction referred to in your letter.  If you think that is worth mentioning over the important issues confronting us, it is beyond comprehension why anyone would vote for you.  But then you and I both know that the majority of Americans are sleepwalking through life and just pull the lever for the “D” or the “R” regardless of whether either one of them deserves their vote.

How about instead of a sales tax deduction, giving me the money back from my bank stocks that just went in the toilet?  The Federal government, of which you are an employee elected to help operate, just failed miserably to properly regulate one of the hands that is unfortunately feeding you.  I will skip all the other reasons not to support or vote for you.  They are now as worn out as the reference to your sales tax deduction.

PS:  I know you are in good company with regard to the misdirection of our country and our government and therefore only deserve a tiny portion of the blame.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

3 Comments

• At September 30, 2008, Pat wrote:

  John it bothers me that Brian Baird was in league with financial services is making it harder on the average citizen to deal with credit issues. His take was that we should live within our means and be responsible to make good our debts not matter how difficult rather than find relief in bankruptcy. I agree with that as far as it is possible, but many folks get themselves into financial boxes due to job losses and medical problems that are unforeseen. Our current financial problems were not unforeseen by the financial services industry; just ignored. Now that the disaster of their greed in upon us, Brian is now taking a different, less intense tone with them than he did with us. If he had even sponsored legislation to educate citizens in financial matters it would have helped, but I don't recall him doing that.

• At September 30, 2008, John wrote:

  Very good point Pat!

  Representative Baird would say that the bankruptcy legislation was necessary because people were abusing the law and thereby the creditors (banks et al) were getting screwed.

  In the case of the current financial crisis, Baird says:

  Without decisive action, most experts believe credit markets will freeze. The result will be that families won’t be able to take out basic home and car loans, small businesses won’t be able to make their payrolls, parents will struggle to send their children to college, and credit card interest rates will soar.

  First I'd like to know who "most experts" are and whether they have a biased self-interest in bailing out these financial institutions.

  Secondly few are recommending that our government do nothing and risk a massive crisis. The objection is how it is being done. Just like creditors that take over management of a business when it goes bankrupt, the government should takeover these institutions and oversee their operation until the crisis is over. If taxpayer funds are needed, that decision should be made on a case by case basis.

  Thirdly this debacle is just one of many many instances of corruption and failure on the part of our government to carry out its responsibilities. Our elected officials (most of them) need to pay a price for this gross mismanagement of their responsibilities by losing their jobs.

• At September 30, 2008, John wrote:

  Here are a couple experts that see this quite differently than "most experts".

  Below is Hartmann's Air America show on the crisis:

  [audio:http://www.democracyforvancouver.org/wp-content/uploads/HartmannShow-(29-9-2008)b.mp3]

when we argued about inequities among we four siblings, “Few things in life are fair.”

But we, as individual citizens, are taking on the debt of at least four major institutions (Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and A.I.G.), because we are told these companies are too big to allow to fail.

Well, we, as individuals, have more than $790 billion in credit card debt while also struggling with re-set mortgages and home equity lines of credit, but we are being allowed to fail: to drown in debt, lose our homes, go into bankruptcy.

But ours is a largely consumer-based economy, and without consumers, the economy withers. We as a group are too large to allow to fail, too.

So while we’re bailing out financial behemoths for their fiscal stupidity (and allowing their CEOs to float lightly to the ground on golden parachutes), why not bail out the U.S. consumer, too?

The Great Depression lasted for 10 years - from 1929 through WWII. In order to cut that time in half, we should immediately cap all credit card rates in the U.S. at 10%.

In addition, credit card interest should be deductible from personal federal income taxes for five years.

This, in addition to smart energy policy that spurs investment in green technologies and high-mileage vehicles, would insure that the U.S. consumer is not crushed by the collapse of the housing bubble and usurious credit card rates, while avoiding the complete collapse of the consumer economy.

This won’t help me at all: we are lucky enough to be indebted only to our car, our home and our student loans.

But if the U.S. economy - and thus the world’s - is to be kept out of a major recession that borders on another Great Depression, U.S. consumers must be at the center of any plan. And yes, I do believe the top 2% - who will ride out the recession just fine, thank you very much - should be the ones to pay for it. After all, it is our consumption that has allowed them to amass such wealth in the first place.

A one-time tax credit or stimulus check won’t work this time.

I’ll be sending a more concise version of this to Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell and Brian Baird. Please email your representatives and tell them your ideas for keeping us all above water.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

2 Comments

• At September 21, 2008, me wrote:

  Stop the bailout!

  We can't let this happen before our eyes.

  "...authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

  Why are we considering giving almost a trillion blank check to Paulson, a Bush apointee and former ceo of Goldman Sachs, the only bank not tanking now because of insider info.

  "Privatize profit, socialize loss"? Sinclair Lewis' prediction might be coming true: "Facism will come to American wrapped in the flag and carrying a bible".

  The reason they have to "act quickly" is so they can pull the wool over our eyes quickly before we can do anything about it.

  Not to mention:

  "The size of the proposed buyout is staggering and would likely hamper the ability of the next president to pursue new domestic programs without major tax increases."

  if this thing goes through, no oversight and bye bye health care. Its basically Bush's way of controlling the economy beyond his time. Permanently. Thank heavens Obama has already come out against it.

  For the non-local:

  Senators:

  http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

  Representatives:

  https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml

  ref:

  http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/52835.html

• At September 28, 2008, Tom Sharples wrote:

  Thought this latest press release from the Delavar campaign might be of interest:

  Republican Candidate Delavar Urges Baird to Vote No on Bailout

  (Washougal, WA) – Republican congressional candidate Michael Delavar calls for Brian Baird (D—WA) to vote against the proposed bailout. "We should let normal and ultimately healthy market readjustments happen without putting the taxpayer on the hook for the ill-advised policies and failed practices of Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the lending institutions themselves." said Delavar.

  "Instead of focusing the national discussion on the rights of the US government to impose restrictions on banks that use the proposed bailout funds, we should instead be focusing on the more pressing question: Do we really want to add nearly ten percent more to the national debt in one week?"

  "Moreover, the great majority of the underlying mortgages are serviceable and will continue to function for the next private institution that owns the mortgage. The main issue is whether the US government has either the authority or the wisdom to go into the mortgage business. From my reading of the rulebook of Congress (the Constitution), they most certainly do not have the authority."

  "Before Congress decides to indebt Americans to the tune of over $2000 per person, perhaps they should wait to see if Americans—who are typically very generous—would be willing to voluntarily write $2000 checks to these institutions. If the people do not wish to further burden themselves voluntarily with this debt, there is no reason that Congress should do it for them."

  Michael Delavar is the Republican candidate for Congress in Washington State's Third Congressional District. His website is www.delavarforcongress.com.

Image via Wikipedia

Doing a news blackout for the next week or so until the convention is over. My mp3 player with 7000 songs on it is going to get a workout. Still recovering from the endless pablum I consumed by attending the 2004 affair and cannot withstand anymore drivel without seeing some results.

And here is something to cry about:

Lincoln, King, Kennedy and Kennedy are surely turning over in their graves over the state of the nation these days. Obama, are you listening?

This is dedicated to all those tireless souls that tried to make a difference despite insurmountable odds by helping Cheryl Crist.

Cheryl was about 3 percentage points behind Webb & about 6 behind Delavar She was closer to second place than might first appear. baird’s entrenchment is formidable, & kept that way by biased media, lazy electorate, advantageous incumbancy, big money, & machine politics. We did well, considering. Thanks to all the crew, & especially to Cheryl.

Den Mark

Slim, wishing you to get well soon.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

2 Comments

• At August 25, 2008, paul spencer wrote:

  Amen. Thanks to Cheryl for trying and for delivering the message. Keep your yard signs, though, for 2010. Bumper stickers, too. The bullet card might be outdated by then, though.

  Related matter for the interim - do we support Delavar or not? It would be a Strange Bedfellow to be sure; but he is all-the-way with us on ending the Iraq occupation, understands the corporate 'influence' on Congress, and four-square for support of the Constitution.

  Of course, he's also anti-federal-government (maybe not a totally bad thing), anti-choice, and jingoistic with regard to 'illegal immigrants'. What do y'all think?

• At August 25, 2008, bushtool wrote:

  Hey Paul,

  Don't know enough about Delavar to make a decision (although I have heard some negative rumblings). I may leave my boxes empty (undervote) that race in November.

  There is a new website and forum, http://www.wethevoters.org/we-the-voters-forum/ that is intended for just such discussion as this. We are starting up a non-partisan effort to build a coalition of voters that will make a difference going forward.

  If you want any forum groups or topics more specifically for your area in the gorge, please let me know here or over there.

  You can post to topics as a guest and if you register you can start your own topics.

  Or people can chime in here about the Baird - Delavar race also of course.

August 8, 2008—this is the date for our Strangebedfellows MONEYBOMB on behalf of constitutional rights and civil liberties in America. Let’s remove from power the key enablers of the tyrannical and lawless FISA ‘compromise;’ we can end the Patriot Act—and so much more.
…
Strangebedfellows is a unique and diverse left–right coalition which has come together to put a stop to the eradication of civil liberties in America. Modeled on a similar group in Britain, the initial Strangebedfellows group … share the view that warrantless surveillance, telecom immunity and other such outrages of the lawless surveillance state MUST END—AND END NOW.
…
The force and power of a moneybomb is simple and straightforward. We all donate on the SAME DAY, and working together we send our political leaders (Democrat and Republican) a freedom message they will never forget. So help us make it work. Pledge today; then come back and donate on the 8th. Let’s show our leaders once and for all that there is a POWERFUL movement here that will settle for nothing less than constitutional governance in America.

Why August 8th?

That is the day in 1974 when Richard Nixon was forced to resign from office for his lawbreaking and surveillance abuses. That day illustrates how far we have fallen in this country in less than 35 years, as we now not only permit rampant presidential lawbreaking and a limitless surveillance state, but have a bipartisan political class that endorses it and even retroactively protects the lawbreakers.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

This weekend I’ll be putting up signs like this all over Vancouver, in the hope of influencing folks as before they fill out their ballots.

Each one is just two pieces of 11×17 paper with two lines of text on each, taped to a piece of cardboard. Then it’s just a matter of running around town with a staple gun, some zip ties, a few bungee cords, and a roll of duct tape. (I learned from the Master.)

If you’ve got some free time this weekend and don’t mind spending $5 at Kinkos printing out these signs and hanging a few yourself, please email me at nofishnonuts@hotmail.com and I’ll send you the document files.

Or better yet, make your own!

Viva La Revolución!

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

2 Comments

• At August 5, 2008, me wrote:

  I want to vote for Crist but I am afraid it might produce the Ralph Nader effect and help get Delavar or Webb elected. Any opinions?

• At August 6, 2008, bushtool wrote:

  With the top two primary, it is a crapshoot no matter how you analyze it.

  If you assume that the voters will vote more for Ds than Rs, say 55%, 45% in the primary and each candidate gets 50% of that, then both Crist and Baird go to the general.

  The vote for Crist will only impact Baird’s chances of progressing to the general election if he gets so low a percentage that two of the other candidates beat him. If both Republicans beat him, he doesn’t deserve to go to the general and if a Republican and Cheryl beat him, we get one of the results we want.

  Haven’t thought too much about this so if I am missing a likely scenario, please correct me. But the only risk I see is that both Rs each exceed the number of votes of both the Ds. In that case it is my opinion under democratic principles, the D candidates do not deserve to be elected anyway.

The name of the political game is money, money, money.   What it buys is access and legislation that does not necessarily benefit the people of the district the politician reportedly represents.

Here are two cases in point:

1.     Don Benton, a Republican incumbent in the 17^th Legislative District, has now amassed in excess of $180,000 in his bid for re-election.   Before the general election in November, it will surely be in excess of $300,000.   The salary of a State Senator is $42,106 per year.   Most of the money comes from corporations (tobacco companies, Wal-Mart, insurance companies, major banks, etc), PACs, and well-to-do individuals.  But, there are also plenty of smaller contributors who obviously believe in contributing to the Republican party.  It is these people to which I can feel a real affinity.  Don Benton does not need their money and will not necessarily vote in their best interest.  Assuming that a person living on a limited fixed income is comfortable making a $25 donation, it would take 64 such persons contributing to make up for one well-to-do person, PAC or corporation giving $1,600 (the limit).   Only a fool would be willing to knowingly contribute to this charade.

2.     Brian Baird, a Democratic incumbent in the 3^rd Congressional District, has now amassed $1,083,000 in his bid for re-election.   The salary of a member of Congress is $169,300.    He is facing three opponents in the primary but is not campaigning at the present time.   Apparently he is saving campaign funds for the general election.   The largest amount of money that any of his primary opponents has raised is $24,275.    Corporate and PAC contributions to his campaign are not much different than contributions received by Benton.   Indeed, he gives a lot of it away.  http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_com/H6WA03135. Recipients have been the Democratic Congressional Campaign ($42,860 in 2007), the Washington State Democratic Party ($5,160 in 2007) and members of the Democratic party running for election.   Only a fool would knowingly contribute to his campaign since it is clear he does not need funding.

People wishing to help elect true representation in Congress can contribute to Cheryl Crist who is not taking corporate or PAC money and is running against Brian Baird.     Citizens in the 17^th District can contribute to David Carrier (Benton’s opponent).   Carrier is not accepting corporate money or PAC contributions.   Neither of these candidates currently has adequate funding to counter-act the advantages that big money can buy.   Carrier states that he needs $30,000 to mount a campaign - as of 7/28/08 he has received $8,693.  Crist has raised $19,195.

The time is long overdue for public financing to be implemented throughout the U.S. and for the influence of corporations to be outlawed.    How can citizens possibly be represented in the halls of government by those auctioning themselves off to the highest bidder?     It is time for the charade to be over and for citizens to stand up to the puppeteers and start cutting the strings.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

2 Comments

• At July 30, 2008, Tom Sharples wrote:

  The candidate running against Brian Baird who raised $24K is Michael Delavar, the anti-war Republican.

  That $24K was raised entirely via private, grass-roots donations (no PAC or other special interest money) is about 3x the amount raised by Cheryl Crist.

• At August 1, 2008, Rosy wrote:

  It is gratifying to know that Michael Delvar is not taking

  any PAC money or special interest money. Thank you for your post.

  Delavar has raised $24,275 and Crist has raised $19,195 -- not

  sure how you computed that Delavar had raised 3x as much.

I heard my first ever Brian Baird campaign commercial this morning.

I think the new primary system has Brian a bit worried - and rightfully so.

Go get him, Cheryl.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

2 Comments

• At July 28, 2008, bushtool wrote:

  I heard Baird's ad on KPOJ - Hartmann this morning. Interesting that he is spending some of his $1 million war chest selling himself to the angry extremists. His weekly appearances on the station aren't enough exposure for us ranting libruls?

• At July 29, 2008, Allen wrote:

  Sunday afternoon I received a phone call from some lady with a strange accent, wanting to know if I was going to vote for Baird. Problem was, she could not pronounce his last name correctly.

  I guess he is also outsourcing his campaign help? Any one else receive a phone call like this?

Letter to the editor today in the Columbian about their misguided dual endorsement of Webb and Baird:

Congress needs change

Regarding The Columbian’s July 22 endorsement of Democrat Brian Baird and Republican Christine Webb for the 3rd Congressional District’s U.S. representative, this paper believes these two are the best hope for their parties because they spurn extremists. As one of the ranting liberals referred to, I would like to point out both the Republicans and Democrats have one of the lowest approval ratings in our nation’s history.

Could it be that the wars were unnecessary? We now see $3 billion a week of our tax dollars being spent to occupy and rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan and at the same time being told to pay more taxes for our own infrastructure. These two candidates will be the same ones who will be supporting cuts in Social Security and Medicaid for our seniors because they will say we need to pay for our war debts. I want change.

As this letter alludes to regarding the reference to the ranting liberals, just who exactly are the “angry extremists” referred to in the original Columbian endorsement?  Are they most of the people of the United States since only 9% of us approve of our Congressional representatives?  The editors of the Columbian should be ashamed that they have so little regard for the views of most of us and resort to such petty, divisive labeling in order to justify their misguided endorsement.

Our congressional district does have a choice for positive change on the ballot.  Vote for Cheryl Crist.

Cheryl Crist

She is someone who cares about the 91% of us who are “angry extremists” in the opinion of The Columbian editors.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

2 Comments

• At July 30, 2008, Tom Sharples wrote:

  I agree that the last thing we need is more business-as-usual. I'm a supporter of Michael Delavar, the anti-war, anti-corporate-subsidies republican running against Brian, who was also labelled an "extremist" by the Columbian, not because they actually bothered to examine any of his public positions, but just because he was a supporter of Ron Paul. And since then, the Columbian has refused to publish any pro-Delavar letters or press releases. Boy do we need another newspaper around here!

• At July 30, 2008, bushtool wrote:

  Thanks for your comment.

  I submitted a Brian Baird/Cheryl Crist lte that is not going to be published either it appears. The Columbian probably has some policy regarding when it is close to an election to censor all lte's about candidates.

  Re The Columbian my experience has been quite good with their reporters but the editorials are extremely ill-considered imo.

  But it is a newspaper and an editorial means they can do and endorse whatever and whoever the you-know-what they please. And we can choose to ignore them and admonish them for their short-sightedness and bias.

The Representative from Washington’s Congressional District # 3 is a member of the Democratic Party who has backed George Bush on several matters of critical importance to U.S. citizens in general and progressives in particular: 1) support for the occupation of Iraq, and, especially, support for ‘the Surge’; 2) approval of the Peru Free-Trade Agreement in late 2007; and 3) an affirmative vote for the construction of 700 miles of fence/wall along the U.S. border with Mexico in 2006.

This update takes us to some more of Brian’s strange voting behavior. You may know that Baird voted for (yes, FOR) the FISA bill, complete with telecom immunity, three weeks ago. As in the case of ‘The Wall’, he voted with a minority of fellow Democrats. This latest sell-out rivals his support for the Iraq occupation for flakiness. Our boy has really lost his credibility now and should be rejected by Democratic Party voters in the upcoming primary election (August 19th). In case you don’t know, his opponent, Cheryl Crist – the true Democrat in the race, opposes the FISA bill including telecom immunity (of course). In other words Cheryl lines up with the majority – and with the best part – of the Democratic Party.

And, of course, there is still southwestern Asia – now with a twist. As I wrote previously, I have had two direct conversations with Brian where he has made the statement that, on his trips to the Middle East, officials in Egypt and Jordan have told him that the U.S. must stay in Iraq. He has made the same statement in various written documents and ‘town-hall’ meetings. Now he has organized a ‘bi-partisan’ caucus within the U.S. House of Representatives called the “Friends of Jordan” — the country, Jordan — the pseudo-democratic country wherein reside “officials” who have persuaded Brian Baird that the U.S. should stay in Iraq. What the hell is going on here? Friends of Jordan?

Just for comparison, I looked to see what other similar caucuses might exist in Congresscritterland. There’s Friends of Norway, Friends of Switzerland, Friends of Scotland, Friends of Ireland, Friends of Spain, Friends of New Zealand, Friends of Australia, and the Israel Allies Caucus. Seems fairly harmless, and at least these are all democracies to various degrees. Then there is a Friends of Thailand chartered by one William Jefferson, the Louisiana Congresscritter who was caught with his bribe money in his freezer. Doesn’t seem to have too many members for some reason. Now there’s Brian and his “Friends of Jordan” caucus – one other Democrat and two Republicans – ah, bipartisanship.

Maybe I’m a suspicious person, but the first thing that comes to my mind is that Brian is looking for a lobbying job after retirement from the U.S. Congress. There was a rumor this cycle that he might not run; and now there’s a rumor that he will retire after this term – assuming that he wins. If he doesn’t win, that gives him about 6 months to further ingratiate himself with the Jordanian power structure. It just rings too true in our current sell-out Congress.

His latest legislative endeavor – a bill to create that illusive health-care coverage for the masses – is another Baird classic. A bipartisan – the man does like to be bipartisan – health care insurance program to make sure that we pay insurance corporations a cost-plus-profit premium to insure the uninsured – via our taxes. Here, to be sure, he aligns with all of the current Democratic Party elite, all of whom apparently do not really understand the reasons that we taxpayers like the Social Security Insurance program. We might not like the small size of the benefit, but we like the fact that – except for the loans that it gives to our federal government to run its day-to-day business – it is a solvent program that does what it says it’s going to do for the benefit of almost all of us who work for a living in this country.

In what way does Brian’s bill move the health-care issue forward?

Look at Cheryl Crist, please. You’re going to find a lot to like. Www.cristforcongress.us

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

1 Comments

• At July 13, 2008, bushtool wrote:

  And don't forget that we paid for a very important trip to the Galapagos for Rep. Baird.

  Baird maintains there is no substitute for being on the site of research to learn what is being done about the problems of global warming, and effects of natural phenomena such as El Niño. “You can’t learn about this just by reading scientific papers or in a telephone conversation.”

  What a bunch of hooey.

  And our Congressman can afford to pay for his own vacations:

  Brian Baird (WA-3)Lawmakers Avg. Net Worth Movement

  Avg. Net Worth in 1998 $-40,700 (Range: $-62,615 to $-18,786)

  Avg. Net Worth in 2006 $1,917,517 (Range: $452,036 to $3,382,998)

Image via Wikipedia

Cheryl Crist was a guest with Thom Hartmann on KPOJ AM 620 this morning. The audio is here of the interview starting at about the 18 minute mark:

Download audio file (7-9-08POJ_crist.mp3)

There is also a KPOJ poll that Cheryl Crist is winning about who you will vote for in the primary, Crist or Baird, here:  KPOJ Poll

Please check out Cheryl Crist and go on over and participate in the poll.

It would be nice if the KPOJ Morning Show would give Cheryl Crist equal time on the show considering Brian Baird is on the show almost every week and has been for at least a couple years.

Afterthought: Oh and please note how Hartmann says (and I am paraphrasing) on the audio what a great guy Baird is although he doesn’t vote the right way.

So let’s all re-elect him just cause he is a “great guy”.  And believe me not everyone that knows him thinks he is anywhere near a “great guy”.  Guess there is no connection between being a “great guy” and voting in the best interests of the people he represents.  Could it be he is a great guy because he spends most Tuesday mornings on KPOJ which helps their ratings?  Nah that couldn’t be.

Hartmann does do a very nice interview with Cheryl Crist here and I give him mucho credit for his professionalism.

Update: Crist won the KPOJ poll 88% to Baird’s 12%.  Hartmann sounded rather shocked this morning at the result even though he admits Brian Baird has made some bad votes in Congress.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Image via Wikipedia

Comes now a letter to the editor today in the Columbian re our Congressman Baird:

FISA vote is last straw

I recently heard, then read, about Congressman Brian Baird’s rationale for voting for the new FISA bill. What a bunch of half-truths.

First, I am an independent. Baird has willingly changed his philosophy in recent years, supporting the “surge,” now supporting the elimination of my constitutional rights, giving communication companies a retroactive financial and legal break and giving the strangest rationale for why he has done so.

Baird has become a Sen. Joe Lie­berman-style Democrat. I have voted for Baird every year since 1998. No more. I suggest everybody in the 3rd Congressional District look for alternatives to Baird, before they have no civil rights left.

Could not agree more with this sentiment but the author left out that there is an alternative actively running for Baird’s seat.  Her name is Cheryl Crist.  Here is her website.  Check her out.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Are the telecoms paying to get amnesty for illegal acts?
• Craig Newmark: Are the telecoms paying to get amnesty for illegal acts?

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

1 Comments

• At July 7, 2008, me wrote:

  Great headline! Baird is quite the disappointment. Crist has a good chance.

Congressman Brian Baird will host a town hall meeting from 7 to 8:30 p.m. Monday in Cathlamet.
…
“No problem is too big and no problem is too small. Everything’s up for discussion, but to join in the conversation you have to be there,” Baird, D-Vancouver, said in a written statement.

I’d give him a piece of mine, but I’ll be on vacation (thanks to Rich and bushtool for keeping the lights on over at my place).

So, if you’re at home in Washington’s 3rd District next week, please give Brian Baird some of what’s coming to him:

Monday, June 30, 7:00-8:30 p.m.
River Street Meeting Room
68 Main Street, Cathlamet

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver