More on The Left’s double standard.

The loyal opposition blog discusses Baird’s vote based on “reality-based writer Gregg Herrington’s” column in today’s Columbian.

I can take Herrington’s position on this or leave it.

What gets me is the difference in perspective and treatment of Baird in this matter.

Just a few days ago, stillwell was foaming at the mouth over this issue, quoting other ultra-leftists sniveling about the Congressional vote in the Schiavo matter.

A few days ago, it was all about “theocratic extremists,” and the “reckless Republican right,” not to mention “egregious distortions… by the far right.”

But, since we on the far left LIKE Brian Baird, he falls under the category of “pretty good congresscritter.” (He is, after all, a democrat. And as such, he could molest a girl-scout troop on live TV and it wouldn’t make any difference to the left)

(And no, this is not to impugn Baird. I disagree with his vote as well. But the whole point of this post is to illustrate the rank hypocrisy of the left. The issue here is the rabid, foaming at the mouth approach to this matter that the ultra-leftists have taken towards Republican supporters of this bill... Their convenient inability to remember that roughly half the democrats present voted FOR the bill… and the fact that while they can apply one standard to democrats like Baird, they are incapable of applying the SAME standard to Republicans!)

I just want to know this:

Why is it that it’s kinda OK for Baird to have voted for this bill… but the world is going to hell on a Dutch Ferry because Republicans voted for it? What about the Republicans who voted for it because of similar reasoning to that expressed by Brian Baird?

The haters on the left simply cannot help themselves. And they reek with hypocrisy.

Friday, March 25, 2005

Herrington column hits right tone

The Columbian's editorial board has been strangely silent about Brian Baird's decision to vote for The Madness. But today, reality-based writer Gregg Herrington hits about the write tone:

Opinion - Congress: Schiavo isn't your case

Two days later, Baird told me, "I am concerned about Congress embarking on a slippery slope of intruding in the judiciary and into personal decisions. But, it was a choice of an irreversible decision or one more opportunity for review. Given the divisions within the family, given that the woman had already been in this situation for 15 years, it seemed to me that a bit more time for review would not adversely impact her, might offer further insight and assure her rights and wishes were protected."

"Remember," Baird said, "Congress did not vote to reinsert the feeding tube. We simply voted for further judicial review ... to make sure no stone was left unturned before decisions of such finality are made."

I have plenty of respect for Baird, (Christopher) Shays and (Dave) Reichert for thinking for themselves and breaking with their parties. Congress and our state Legislature are overrun with members whose votes and verbiage slavishly follow party lines. ("A woman's right to choose is sacred." ... "No new taxes, whatever the circumstances and consequences.")

But I like Reichert's explanation best: "Congress overstepped itself here," he told The Seattle Times. "It's been going on (for) 15 years with 19 judges. Do we know more than those judges?"

Baird's defense of his vote doesn't quite wash, but what's done is done. He obviously weighed the decision in a serious manner and at the end of the day, he was the one who had to cast a vote, and now he has to live with it.

But I'm still going to support him in 2006, because he's an overall damn fine Congress-critter.

# posted by stilwell @ 10:28 AM 0 comments