I respectfully disagree with Jaynes on Baird.

It's relatively easy to treat someone from the loyal opposition with respect when they, in turn, treat us all with respect.  In this case, a true example of disagreeing without being disagreeable.

I continue to express some amazement at the work of Greg Jayne.  Comparing his efforts with those of his predecessor, who, like the editor of this waste of wood pulp view(ed) their positions not as responsible stewards of the news, unvarnished, unslanted and without bias... but as a lever to TRY and influence the people of this community to accept their agenda... what the people want or need be damned... is like comparing Murrow with Goebbels.

Over the course of the campaign running up to his election and for the campaigns beyond that, the democratian supported Brian Baird in every way.  They held news, slanted news, belittled or ignored information provided by others and generally acted like they were a wholly-owned Baird-subsidiary.

For the most part, Baird's tenure will be marked by two elements of note, both of which will brand it as something less than desirable.  And here, of course, is where I disagree with Jayne's conclusions:

"Baird actually did his job"

To the extent that he showed up and cast votes.... then yes, in the technical sense, he did do his job.

But this is a man who set a standard, and then repeatedly violated that standard having set it, and that, of course, makes him a hypocrite.

This is also a man who lied repeatedly and particularly towards the end of his tenure about threats to him personally as an excuse to forgo town hall meetings.  And these two elements are what he is known for.

This blog discovered the truth concerning Baird's lies and excuses for not holding town hall meetings and printed it from the FBI, word for word.  Having read the truth, 2 weeks latter, the democratian did the exact same thing, failing to note the source (me) and failing to note that I had, in fact, once again beaten Brancaccio to the punch.  (Brancaccio's well known disdain for bloggers notwithstanding, this blog among others have been repeatedly used for story sources and ideas.)

Our own, current, Congresswoman is just as cowardly as Baird... and oddly, who could of her own admittance, "find no reason to criticize Baird," because she to, is too much of a coward to hold open town hall meetings herself.

So, we have a congressman that demanded a 72 hour window to consider legislation, and then, ignoring the overwhelming opposition to Obamacare, proceeded to violate his own standard by voting "yes" for a bill he could not have read... because he did what he was told.

Baird's claim that he read 2700 pages during the 36 hours or so it was available is pure fantasy.  Further, had he read that crap and then voted "yes" on it KNOWING what it contained?

There is absolutely and utterly no excuse for that.  Which leads to two conclusions: Baird is lying, or Baird has the common sense of a rock ape.

Baird's insistence that, for example

"coverage for people with pre-existing conditions was the deal-maker.

"That is a terrifying reality for people," he said. "The choice was not between the ACA and some fair, comprehensive alternative. It was vote for that or nothing. Do I wish we had another alternative? Yes."

Excuses nothing.

If there was no "alternative," then his choice was between driving a car that ran badly (what we have) and a car that didn't run at all (what we're getting).  And it is Brian Baird's legacy that he aided the slime who are stuffing this ill-conceived, lied about legislation down our throats.

What amendments did he offer?  What effort did he make to PROVIDE "another alternative?"  WHY did he vote for something that violated his own 72 hour rule?  Why did he ignore the vast majority of the American people generally and his district specifically?

That, of course, doesn't even mention his other abysmal failure... his complete betrayal of our community by doing absolutely nothing to impact the CRC Scam, which he support(ed).

I oppose the pre-existing issue being forced on private companies.  I freely admit it.

I've read the Constitution many times and there is nothing in there that gives the government the right to force private entities to produce any product for consumption by the public any more than, for example, government has the right to force gas stations to sell tires.

Forcing an insurance company to my mind to accept pre-existing conditions is right up there with forcing car dealerships to accept cars without engines on trade and then paying full price for it.

So, by making one claim (false as I believe it to be) he falls into another category of just... plain stupid.  He would have been better off allowing the people to believe he was a crook then, by his own admission, verifying it for all to see.

So, when Jayne tells us:

Baird actually did his job. He considered all the facts, he employed due diligence, and he did what he thought was best for the country. I happen to disagree with him, and that's OK. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably, something that all too often is lost on Washington, D.C.

I completely disagree.

Had he done his job, he would have considered ALL of the massive, adverse impacts confronting us today.  He should have known, like we all now know, that the basis used for Obama's lies were fallacious, that when a bill has to be lied about, it shouldn't be passed, and that when a slimeball like the Belle of Botox has to babble that we "have to pass the bill to see what's in it?" then his duty, particularly when combined with his own requirement of a 72 hour window, was to vote "no."

Thus, Baird did NOT actually "do his job," particularly when you consider that like most of those in the position to ram it down our throats, HE will not have to utilize these services.

And how easy it is for those in a position to do so to use OUR money for the programs THEY support... but won't have to pay for.

Shades of the CRC Scammers. 

I don't understand the revisionist element of Jayne's column, nor the image rehabilitation effort.  But leaving out the true picture, which Jayne appears to have done because that picture contains "inconvenient truths" is troubling indeed, and smacks of a Brancaccio/Laird column.

I hope it doesn't happen again, because I hate this nibbling at the edges.  ALL of the facts and issues have to be included... not just the ones attempting to justify the unjustifiable.

For light reading, here's my "cowardman" series that details all this concerning Baird.