Baird votes against caucus on Iraq War funding

It what must be a first, The Hill refers to Brian Baird as a conservative in a article discussing the passage of the Iraq War funding bill that establishes a non-binding timeline on getting out:

Staring down the threat of a White House veto and some internal opposition, House Democrats Wednesday night passed legislation linking $50 billion in funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a withdrawal date.

The spending bill, which requires Bush to begin bringing troops home from Iraq within 30 days and to complete that withdrawal by Dec. 15, 2008, passed 218-203. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who had said he was undecided earlier in the day, voted present.

Republican Reps. Phil English (Pa.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Christopher Shays (Conn.) and James Walsh (N.Y.) supported the bill. English and Walsh had never sided with Democrats on war-related funding measures.

Fifteen Democrats voted against the bill, including conservative Democratic Reps. John Tanner (Tenn.), Brian Baird (Wash.), Dan Boren (Okla.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Gene Taylor (Miss.), John Barrow (Ga.), Jim Marshall (Ga.), Jim Matheson (Utah), Nick Lampson (Texas) and Vic Snyder (Ark.) voted against the bill.

The vote from Baird BFF Chris Shays (R-CT) is significant, as Baird kept referring to the Iraq trip with Shays and how he had repositioned himself on the surge. Also, those are some mighty Red states those other Democrats are from that voted against the bill. Is the political dynamic of the 3rd Congressional District a match for Texas, Mississippi, or Arkansas? Admittedly, it's a somewhat conservative district, or as I'd rather put it, a pragmatic district, not looking to swing either to far left or right.

We have a congressman who's not only willing to not carry out the will of his constituents, but will now vote against his caucus on the most pressing issue of our time. The "surge" is "working" since there's no traditional media actually reporting from Iraq these days. Silence is truly golden.

I'd have to go dig it up, but any hope that Baird will somehow modify his position come spring time is wishful thinking. Buried in an article in The Columbian when his about face first took place ("I was against the war before I was for it"), was a quote essentially saying that he would not be opposed to extending the 15-month rotation period for the troops, so the Pentagon could extend the surge indefinitely.

As observed by the recent election, three long time local incumbents were tossed out of office, and the voters are in a volatile mood. Baird's always been perceived as a pretty moderate guy, but expect for mass defections among the Democratic base given his sharp tack to the right. Does it mean that he loses in a primary? No, but I'd expect someone credible to step forward who will gain quite a bit of support and attention.

No one in the base is really in the mood to have the spectrum of discussion be about supporting the surge or attacking Iran.