Baird called the tea-baggers "Brownshirts". In a town hall he was reminded that the Brownshirts were members of the National SOCIALIST party. Based on the cheers from the audience over that, you could put a fork in Brian Baird. Evidently, he knew it.

Baird has always been pretty far right -- his main virtue was not being Linda Smith. Once he survived his initial reelection challenge has coasted on the power of pork and the lack of options for any real leftists or centrists, since the WA GOP pretty much followed Oregon's in losing its mind.

Baird is a true testament to the power and the problem with pragmatism ... other than getting reelected, he stood for nothing and will be remembered for nothing.

somebody who actually represents progressive values, as opposed to a Lars Larson Show darling channeling Joe Lieberman

Yeah, like the Democratic party is actually capable of that. Cf. Ron Wyden (R-N.Y.).

No kidding.

Lets see:

Served long enough to get the Congressional Pension? Check.

Representing a "purple" district that voted for Bush in 2000, Bush in 2004 and for Obama in 2008? Check.

Fully cognizant that Republicans will be running a competitive race in 2010? Check.

A member of the majority party that traditionally has low turnout in midterm elections? Check.

Expecting unemployment to be around or above 10% come November 2010? I am not a mind reader, but check.

By my calculations, Brian Baird is making the smart choice in a district that will, more than likely, go Republican in 2010.

I say "more than likely" because the traditional conventions regarding Presidential approval at or lower than 50% has shown since FDR onward,the majority party losing big in midterm elections. This fact is not even taking into account the unemployment numbers, which further complicate matters for incumbents of the majority party.

Obama ain't running in 2010, so those "progressives" from purple districts better hope the young and ACORN (dead people *cough* college students with a permanent residence in a different state *cough* illegal aliens *cough* homeless without an address *cough*) vote in the same numbers they did in 2008. Otherwise they are toast if the economy holds steady with unemployment between 9 and 12%.

Don't be so sure 2010 will be a big Republican year. As the special House election in NY demonstrates, the party has come under the control of an ideological faction so extreme that it is losing control of even long-held conservative areas. Granted, there will probably not be the same level of enthusiasm for Democrats next year as there was in 2008, but it may not be necessary. Right now I'd guess the 2010 election will be more or less a wash, with Baird's district a toss-up.

By the way, what's wrong with homeless people being able to vote? Or college students voting in the district where they are going to school (as long as they don't vote twice)?

I have my opinion on 2010, everyone else has their opinion. The back and forth would be endless. I have been wrong before and I will be wrong again.

One vote per person verified via permanent address.

Consider this, if I am taking online classes toward a degree from a university based in lets say, Illinois, should I be allowed to vote in the state where I am receiving my education?

I have no doubt that out-of-state college students living in Eugene, OR should be allowed to vote in Oregon elections. That is, after they change their permanent address to indicate that they live and work in Oregon.

As for the homeless, how can you verify a person's identity without a permanent address? Those of us born in the US are given a full name and social security number at birth. Yet, with states like Oregon and California who do the vast majority if not entirety of voting by mail, then how can you verify someone's identity, the very fact that they are a living, productive member of society if they cannot list a place of residence?

The greater question with homeless and voting is, if they are homeless, then are they even in the right state of mind to be able to choose between political candidates? What guarantee is there that those registering homeless are not buying their vote with money for liquor, drugs and whatnot?

One vote per person verified through a permanent address.

Questions like this get even more complicated when you think about online voting, which has a whole host of fraud possibilities and ways that computer savvy, politically-inclined hackers can exploit for one party or the other.

Sorry Jack: Vancouver is much more Conservative than Portland. Did you consider the results of the last Mayor's race? Pollard lost largely because he's been drinking the Portland light rail and progressive koolaid.

...if I am taking online classes toward a degree from a university based in lets say, Illinois, should I be allowed to vote in the state where I am receiving my education?

No, and if you look back at your earlier comments, you (correctly) qualified the college student question with the phrase "permanent residence in a different state".

As for the homeless, how can you verify a person's identity without a permanent address?

With proper identification presented at the time of voter registration.

The greater question with homeless and voting is, if they are homeless, then are they even in the right state of mind to be able to choose between political candidates? What guarantee is there that those registering homeless are not buying their vote with money for liquor, drugs and whatnot?

Wonderful attitude, RyanLeo. Maybe we should also reinstate literacy tests and impose a poll tax for voter qualification?

But I'll admit that I've wondered about the state of mind issue myself - but not in regards to the homeless; it was about anyone who supported the Repuplican ticket in the 2008 Presidential election.

In some ways, you have to admire the tenacity of the GOP True Believers, who are counting on a return to power in 2010 based on the notion that the voting public's mind works like this:

1. We are now suffering the consequences of eight years of incompetence and mismanagement.

2. The new guy hasn't been able to fix it in nine months.

3. Clearly, it's time to give the people who made this mess another chance.

Those votes weren't intended to get Baird re-elected. Their purpose was to get him a high-paying job as an insurance company or pharma lobbyist.

Rural Resident:

BINGO!!

John Rettig,

Neither should the Federal Government be funding ACORN with tax payer dollars when ACORN is getting out the vote for majority Democratic.

Then again, if 1% of those homeless who ACORN registers to vote, votes Republican, then does that qualify ACORN as a nonpartisan organization?

As for poll taxes and literacy tests, what do you think the fees for a driver's license and State ID card are?

Just because one does not pay the bill when voting does not mean that there is not a poll tax or literacy test.

Same goes for rationing of health care in the United States. We have done it since Democrats instituted Medicare and Medicaid under LBJ. Why is it that myself as a single, White Male 25 years of age cannot qualify for Medicaid or Medicare?

That is because we have chosen as a society under Lyndon Baines Johnson that Government funded healthcare is available for indigent women and children (Medicaid), the disabled, and those 65 years or over (Medicare).

Stop being so simple.

...what do you think the fees for a driver's license and State ID card are?

Driving is a priviledge not guaranteed by the constitution (unlike voting which is a fundamental right), and it's reasonable to have a fee and require literacy to get a license.

And if your point is that voting registration requires an ID which in turn requires a fee, then I'll accept that it's indirectly connected. But an additional tax related to the specific act of voter registration is forbidden, and should remain so.

The entire thread about whether homeless have a right to vote is absolutely disturbing. To even suggest you must have a home to have a basic American right is reprehensible. I love that we'll let people fight for our country, but if they end up homeless we take away their right to vote. I know many homeless people and I've found them to be split almost down the middle Dem and Rep.