Brian Baird’s Dec. 9 announcement that he will retire from Congress at the end of his current term within mere days attracted a frothy mix of potential and announced candidates for the rare open Congressional seat. So far, the roster of announced plus possible candidates includes at least three Republicans (David Castillo, Jon Russell and 18th District state Rep. Jaime Herrera), two Democrats (State Senator Craig Pridemore of the 49th District and state Rep. Deb Wallace, 17th District) and one declared independent, John McKibbin, long-time Vancouver Democrat and former county commissioner.
Observers with a sense for the dramatic must be struck by the thorny challenges facing strategists for both major parties in Clark County. In the midst of one of the biggest sea changes in U.S. political history — the Obama election followed within months by a strong conservative resurgence in the Tea Party movement — they must resolve primary battles within their parties, prepare for the likely opposing party candidates, and maneuver through the subtleties of at least one third-party candidate.
Above all, they must each avoid the ultimate humiliation of sending no party candidate to the general election. (As a top two primary state, the top two candidates in the primary election voting advance to the general election, irrespective of party.)
Adding to our local share of the drama, next June both state party conventions will be held here in Vancouver, ground zero for the upcoming political brawl.
Baird’s decision to end his congressional career at the young age of 53 may reflect factors both personal and political. The district he represents will become more conservative in future redistricting, not a hopeful trend for a politician already in the cross hairs of the energized Tea Party movement for ducking town halls last summer. Congressman Baird has cited family concerns and (as quoted in John Laird’s Dec. 13 column in The Columbian regarding Baird’s decision) the need to be concerned about “what is good for my soul.”
Simmering irritation
That’s a worthy concern. I have to believe it would not be good for one’s soul to take orders from U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi’s snippy comment on Baird’s decision — “He didn’t give me 72 hours’ notice” — reveals simmering irritation over Baird’s persistent efforts to secure at least three days for members of Congress to review proposed legislation before a vote.
To the very opposite effect, both Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have gone to great lengths to hide controversial legislation such as health care reform from any public scrutiny, in direct contradiction of candidate Obama’s promise to conduct all such deliberations “on C-Span.”
Nor would one’s soul be safeguarded by casting votes (such as Baird’s “no” vote on the House health care bill) under the watchful eye of Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff. When Eugene, Ore., Democrat Peter DeFazio dared to act and vote independent of the White House, President Obama (as quoted in The Hill on Dec. 18) told DeFazio, “Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.” Emanuel, who famously sent a dead fish to a recalcitrant pollster, is Obama’s enforcer.
Baird is one of four “centrist” Democrats who in recent days have announced retirements. According to Mike Soraghan in The Hill (Dec. 20), Pelosi and her whips are now pressuring these four lame ducks to “take votes for the team,” freeing up four vulnerable members facing re-election to vote no. On Dec. 16, all four voted yes — Baird switching his vote at the last minute — on the controversial bill to raise the debt limit by another $290 billion.
Meanwhile, Reid and his handful of insiders have repeatedly met in secret to hand out political payola to health care holdout senators Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, and who knows how many others?
Is it surprising that Brian Baird has had enough?
