Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« A Victory for the People of Co... | Be Afraid »

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Footnote on Rep. Brian Baird in Vancouver

posted by on August 28 at 13:40 PM

I’ll have a full report about Rep. Brian Baird’s showdown with his constituents in Vancouver last night in tomorrow’s paper.

There was one moment from last night, though, that I couldn’t fit into the story. Right after Baird gave his opening remarks, the “Impeach Bush” crowd hijacked the meeting for about 20 minutes. I’m being derisive because the impeachment discussion played out as a sanctimonious attack on Baird that had little to do with the legitimate discussion Baird had laid out about Iraq policy.

(Regarding impeachment, Baird did say the votes weren’t there. And in a bit of a Catch-22, he ultimately dodged a shout from the audience asking if he would vote for impeachment by saying he couldn’t answer because there has been no impeachment trial yet.)

As much as I thought the impeachment talk was boring chest-thumping, it did provide the best one-liner of the night. Frazzled as the audience continued to push him on impeachment, Baird asked one outspoken audience member, “And what would your grounds for impeachment be?”

With perfect comic timing, the man paused, leaned into the mike, and said casually: “Um… lying?”

That brought the house down.

RSS icon Comments


Jesus Christ.


Why not "being mean"?

These don't sound like grownups. Real people get less and less likely to go to meetings like this every day.

Posted by Fnarf | August 28, 2007 1:43 PM


That's a *qualification* for being president. The last president we had who didn't lie was Jimmy Carter, which hardly constitutes an advertisement for truth in high places.

Posted by BB | August 28, 2007 2:11 PM

Were they wearing suits like grownups?! Kidding. But isn't lying about certain things grounds for impeachment? Blowjobs - no. Intelligence used to justify a war - yes. It's sort of like when Tony Snow claimed that Alberto hadn't done anything wrong. It would take 15 minutes to explain the nuances of his transgressions, but "asshole liar" sums it up nicely.

Posted by skweetis | August 28, 2007 2:36 PM

i'm with fnarf. if you're going to go for the zinger you have to follow it up with a thought out response that details your view.

"lying [pause: wait for applause] George Bush has violated... reasons reasons reasons..."

Posted by infrequent | August 28, 2007 2:36 PM

He deserves whatever crap is thrown his way.

He was in Bagdad for less than 48 hours and very little of that outside of the green zone.

Filet and fry him....we dems don't have time to put up with shit like this.

jack jett

Posted by Jack Jett | August 28, 2007 2:53 PM

But, that's pretty much the opposite of a classic "zinger", which by definition has to be short, pointed, and brutal. Anything more than about four words may be a better response in terms of providing argumentative proofs, but a zinger it is not.

In this case, "um, lying", while not particularly articulate, certainly came pretty close to fitting the above definition.

Posted by COMTE | August 28, 2007 2:54 PM


And this, Jack Jett, is precisely why the GOP will never be counted completely out of the game, so long as we continue to eat our own based on their not falling 100% into lock-step with some particular constituency's ideological dogma.

Okay, Baird was duped, and took a faulty stance as a result. At least give him the opportunity to see the error in his thought-process before calling for his head, because the likely alternatives aren't necessarily going to be any better, and you'll just end up with someone who will eventually exhibit a 2% non-compliance on some other issue that will have the "true believers" calling for their head the second they fail some single-issue specific litmus-test.

Posted by COMTE | August 28, 2007 3:01 PM

Better yet, can somebody explain to me why he should not be impeached? Do we the people have to explain to establishment Dems why Bush should be impeached, when more books are going to be written about Bush then Hitler? Impeachment is off the table Nancy Pelosi apologists, Iraq war apologists, we need a draft fucking liberals: the stranger crew is just a bunch of stellar human beings that have us the American people’s interests at heart. Thank you for being the informed media this planet needs. I hear the Neo-cons really like Hill Clinton now, and she is spouting off on how the surge is working: surprise, surprise.

Posted by GJ | August 28, 2007 3:05 PM

Yadda Yadda Yadda.

Lots of verbiage, but still no impeachment.

Lesser men have hung for less.

Posted by Will in Seattle | August 28, 2007 4:01 PM

@9: And lesser men are sometimes hung...(as in hung like a horse) sorry, couldn't resist...hehe. I know it is stupid. I shouldn't even post this. I don't care. I'm going to live life on the wild side and say stupid things all the time!!!

Posted by Kristin Bell | August 28, 2007 5:03 PM

Being there, the little "Impeach" sidetrack meant something slightly different to me. I detected it in the tone, and the look on peoples faces. To me it meant "DO SOMETHING!", not necessarily a direct call for impeachment, per se, rather a plea for action. People are exhausted with this administration, and they are frustrated.

So Rep Baird decided to "do something" alright. Baird is not a neophyte. He didn't merely change his mind, he came out with a hard sell and partisan talking points, and his constituents wanted nothing to do with it.

Posted by Blender | August 29, 2007 8:14 AM

@10 - Kristin you shouldn't post when you're drunk.

Admittedly, that would really impact your posting, but hey ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | August 29, 2007 10:05 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).