Brian Baird on the hot seat: "Assessing Organizing for America through the health care lens"

Chris Cillizza:

A few weeks back, we wrote that Organizing for America -- the operation built in the wake of the 2008 campaign to push President Obama's legislative agenda -- faced a serious test of its efficacy as it pushed hard for passage of the health care bill.

In the immediate aftermath of Sunday night's vote, OFA claimed a sweeping victory (and a validation of its mission), noting that they had produced hundreds of thousands of phone calls -- among other voter contacts -- to fence-sitting members in the week prior to the vote.

Their work, in turn, drew praise from several people who have followed the organization very closely.

Ben Smith of Politico headlined a post "Credit to OFA" and concluded that in the "legislative trench warfare that has defined this year, [Obama's] campaign organization was a serious asset."

Ari Melber of the liberal Nation magazine, who has studied OFA (and its effectiveness) closely, offered this take:

"In the homestretch...the numbers and coverage suggest that OFA was able to channel grassroots support for the bill in effective and even confrontational ways."

If OFA's success or failure as an organization is entirely hinged on the fate of the health care bill passing, then it's tough to draw any other conclusion than the Sunday vote was a rousing victory for the organization.

The truth, however, of OFA's efficacy in regards the health care vote is far more nuanced and more difficult to accurately assess.

OFA's mission statement is simple: rally Obama's base -- and the more than 13 million email addresses its possesses -- to persuade and/or cajole members of Congress on the president's legislative priorities. And, assessing persuasion is a complicated game that is as much about human nature as it is about politics.

Take Washington Rep. Brian Baird (D) who voted "no" on the health care bill back in November.

Baird, who announced his retirement in early December, was publicly wavering in advance of this vote. In a memo outlining OFA's effectiveness sent to to reporters this morning, Democratic National Committee communications director Brad Woodhouse noted that Baird "said that the number of calls he received from inside his district in support of reform was persuasive in moving him" from "no" to "yes"; Woodhouse added that OFA was directly responsible for nearly three-quarters of all calls to Baird's office in support of the health care bill.

Compare that claim with Baird's quotes in a Roll Call story detailing the effort to win his vote.

Said Baird:

"Everybody knew in my case -- no point in cajoling me, They were likely to get punched in the mouth if they said, 'You're not running,'. You say that to me, you insult me personally, because it implies all I care about is election."

The story goes on to note that as Baird made up his mind he had a private sitdown with President Obama as well as conversations with Vice President Joe Biden and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke (Wash.). He even went over the plan "point by point" with Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orzag.

What then made up Baird's mind? Was it OFA's calls? Or the conversations with top Administration officials and members of the Democratic leadership in the House?

It's impossible to know and it's almost certain that no one thing did the trick.

(In truth, Organizing for America is likely to get less credit than it deserves in some circles because individual Members of Congress are often loathe to credit a persuasion campaign as the reason that their vote changed. The typical stated reason is generally far more high minded citing a detailed analysis of the bill after which they decided it was the right thing for the country.)

But the Baird back-and-forth gets at the fundamental chicken and egg-ness of OFA. We could argue until we are blue in the face as to whether insist that Baird was swayed primarily by calls from OFA or conversations with the President and his aides without coming to any real resolution.

The best (only?) conclusion we are left with is that, at a minimum, OFA helped around the edges to rally support for the vote. If the choice is between scads of calls in support of passing the bill into wavering Members' districts and no calls at all, it's hard to argue against those calls and the work OFA did.

"Sen. Craig Pridemore on Health Care Reform" (video)

PridemoreForCongress, with video (01:29):

Sen. Craig Pridemore, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Washington's 3rd District, gives his views on health care reform.

Howie P.S.: The current occupant of this Congressional seat, Brian Baird, is featured in a WaPo story this morning:

Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) had a lengthy meeting in the Oval Office on Tuesday morning -- the first time he has had such an audience with a president in his 12 years in office.

"He understands well that the current system is unsustainable," said Baird, who came away with a positive impression of the president's knowledge of the health-care system.

Baird, who is retiring this year, said he has agonized over his decision. He was among the Democrats who broke with the party last fall to vote against the original House bill. He woke at 4 a.m. Wednesday to read the health-care legislation that the Senate approved on Christmas Eve.

The wavering lawmaker, however, said he stands by what he told Obama: He still needs to see the specifics of the new House bill, including a forthcoming analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.

"Health vote pits Democrat vs. Democrat"

Alex Isenstadt (Politico):

Democrats who thought a vote against the sweeping health care package would inoculate them from political attack are facing serious blowback from angry constituents and interest groups on the left—fierce opposition that could prove as consequential as anything Republicans could have thrown at them.

For some of 39 House Democrats who opposed the bill, there are protests outside their offices and promises of retribution. For others, there are attempts to shut off their campaign money spigot. Still more are about to get drilled in a television ad campaign paid for by Democratic donors.

What they’ve all discovered is that there’s no safe harbor when it comes to the $1.2 trillion measure that the House passed Saturday

Darcy Burner, executive director of the American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation, said that the anger over the vote was a natural outgrowth of the value liberals have placed on the health care push.

“I think, for the most part, the Democrats who voted ‘no’ on the health bill and who are getting heat deserve it,” said Burner.

One of those Democrats is Rep. Jim Matheson, who represents a solidly Republican district in Utah. Despite the difficult nature of his district, local Democrats responded with indignation upon hearing of his vote.

Democratic state Sen. Scott McCoy immediately floated the idea on his Facebook page of launching a primary campaign against the five-term incumbent.

On Tuesday, McCoy took a step back and told POLITICO he wasn’t interested in a run. But he made little secret of what he thought of Matheson’s vote, saying, “I think there [is] a sense of frustration and disappointment out there.”

“There are a number of people in Jim’s district who are disappointed,” he added.

Veteran Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, also found himself under fire Monday for his ‘no’ vote as the group Grassroots Organizing held a protest outside his Jefferson City office.

“The man has been in Congress for 32 years,” said Robin Acree, the group’s executive director. “I never thought I’d be arguing with people who for years and years and years campaigned on doing the right thing.”

In central Florida, first-term Democratic Rep. Suzanne Kosmas was branded a “traitor” on signs at a protest Sunday that attracted about 60 people. Late last month, a group called the Alliance for Retired Americans staged a rally at one Kosmas’s district offices—an effort the group plans to repeat again this week.

“She was quite deceptive,” said Tony Fransetta, president of the organization’s Florida chapter. “It was kind of like a slap in the face from someone you’d expect to be a friend.”

“We’re not going to take it sitting down,” he said. “There will be a price extracted from what she did.”

In Washington state, state and local party officials also made clear that they were unhappy with the course that Rep. Brian Baird pursued.

“The Washington state Democratic Party expects all of the members of our congressional delegation to support the President and Speaker Pelosi. And vote for this bill,” Washington state Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz told local reporters after Baird announced last week that he wouldn’t be supporting the package.

A delegation from Vancouver’s Clark County Democratic Central Committee on Monday requested a meeting with Baird in the district to encourage him to vote yes on the final version of the Health Care Reform bill.

Chris Bassett, a Vancouver-based Democratic activist who writes a blog about Clark County politics, said the congressman had damaged his standing within the party.

“Brian’s really moving the wrong way,” he said. “A lot of Democrats are going to sit on their hands in 2010.”

“This, for a lot of folks like myself frankly, is the last straw,” Bassett said.

Much of the backlash is emanating from the progressive online community, where on Monday Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas urged fellow netroots activists to “ditch the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee], ” arguing that the party committee would be committed to protecting incumbent Democrats who voted against the bill.

“So here's the bottom line—skip any donations to the DCCC. Their first priority is incumbent retention, and they're (necessarily) issue agnostic. They'll be dumping millions into defending these seats. Instead, give to those elected officials who best reflect your values,” wrote Moulitsas.

One specific target of netroots anger is Rep. Larry Kissell, the first-term North Carolina congressman who, activists are quick to point out, was a favorite of the liberal blogosphere in his failed 2006 House bid.

On Friday, after Kissell announced he would vote against the bill, Chris Bowers of the prominent liberal blog Open Left sent an e-mail to Kissell donors urging them to ask the freshman for their money back.

“Right now, Democrats do not have the votes to pass this bill, and Congressman Larry Kissell has merged as a potential vote against reform,” Bowers wrote. “Tell the campaign that, if Congressman Kissell votes against health care reform this weekend, you will be calling again on Monday to ask for your money back.”

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee was equally direct.

“Folks like Larry Kissell and [Democratic] Rep. Heath Shuler emanate weakness. Both first won their seats with netroots money, both won by double digits in 2008, both have constituents that desperately need health care reform, and neither has the self-confidence to explain a vote for health care reform to voters?” he said. “Weak sauce. Luckily, we know they won't fight back when we beat them up in their district.”

That won’t be the only Democrat-on-Democrat violence that results from the vote.

Other liberal groups are preparing to bring in the heavy artillery, launching advertising campaigns targeting the Democrats for their ‘no’ votes. MoveOn.org has announced that it was launching a $500,000 TV campaign targeting six Democratic dissenters. On Tuesday, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee announced the launch of a “Hit the Blue Dogs” online ad campaign targeting 10 Democrats.

MoveOn.org Executive Director Justin Ruben said his organization—in addition to airing “thank you” ads at the Democrats in competitive and marginal districts who took a tough vote in favor of the bill—planned to hold rallies this week in front of offices of Democrat and Republican members who voted against the bill.

Ruben said the Democratic votes against the bill represented a slap-in-the-face to activists, noting that the loss of their liberal bases could spell political peril.

“For a lot of members, this was the most important House vote in a generation,” said Ruben. “Many of these folks are people our members worked hard to elect and there is a tremendous feeling of betrayal.”

“I think they will pay a real price from the base if they continue to take this position,” he said.

Howie P.S.: H/t to Darryl, who says

"Attention Senators…There is an important lesson to be learned from the lower house of your august body..."

Viral Video: Town Hall Meeting with U.S. Congressman Brian Baird

HedrickDavid, video (02:19):

I, David William Hedrick, a member of the silent majority, decided that I was not going to be silent anymore. So, I let U.S. Congressman Brian Baird have it. I was one questioner out of 38, that was called at random from an audience that started at 3,000 earlier in the evening. Not expecting to be called on, I quickly scratched what I wanted to say on a borrowed piece of paper and with a pen that I borrowed from someone else in the audience minutes before I spoke. So much for the planned talking points of the right wing conspiracy.

Baird (D-WA) Cancels Town Halls, Fears “Brown Shirt Tactics”

Greg Sargent:

Republicans think they’ve nabbed a Dem Congressman in a bad gaffe, and are hoping to use it today to shift the argument over the town hall meetings their way.

Specifically: Dem Rep. Brian Baird of Washington State has canceled in-person town halls, citing the protestors’ use of “Brown Shirt tactics.”

The Colombian reports…

Instead of appearing in person, where “extremists” would have “the chance to shout and make YouTube videos,” Baird said Wednesday, he’s holding what he calls “telephone town halls” instead.

Baird said he’s using the new system because he fears his political opponents may be planning “an ambush” to disrupt his meetings, using methods Baird compared to Nazism.

“What we’re seeing right now is close to Brown Shirt tactics,” Baird, D-Vancouver, said in a phone interview. “I mean that very seriously.”

Expect the GOP, and a talk show host or two, to jump on this as proof that Dem criticism of the Tea Party brigade amounts to a refusal to acknowledge legitimate dissent.

Both sides are navigating a balancing act. Republicans need to portray the outbursts as proof that public sentiment is swinging wildly against Obama — without embracing extremism and thuggery. Dems need to make the GOP “own” the extremism and thuggery without appearing dismissive of public opinion. Yesterday Robert Gibbs said he doesn’t “doubt” that some are asking “honest questions about the direction of the country.”

This Brown Shirt comparison could ratchet up the noise level a few more decibles today.

"Brian Baird featured in Freedom Crock ad" (with video)

Kagro X (front paged on Kos), with video:

Nice going, Bri!

Ellen Tauscher clearly revealed the dynamics of the game to everyone (who was listening):

Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), who recently returned from Iraq as well, said his experience led him to believe the escalation should be sustained until next year. Asked to address Baird’s comments, Tauscher suggested he had become a victim of the "green zone fog":

I will tell you that when you get in the Green Zone, there is a physiological phenomenon I think called Green Zone fog. ... It’s death by powerpoint. ... It’s always that their argument is winning.

She added later, "It’s very, very easy to be influenced, from their point of view, that things are better." She said they will "shape" facts to show gains being made. Meanwhile, the reality in Iraq is that there is a lot of sectarianism in the government, particularly at the Ministry of Interior. "The MOI is basically this sleeper cell organization of Shiite death squads," she said.

And then laid out the consequences of intellectual and political sloppiness:

"I don't know of anybody who isn't desperately supportive of the military," she said. "People want to say positive things. But it's difficult to say positive things in this environment and not have some snarky apologist for the White House turn it into some clipped phraseology that looks like support for the president's policies."

Bingo.

And Brian Baird fell for it like a ton of bricks.

As Matt Stoller points out at Open Left, he's going for The Full Lieberman, too:

Meantime, Baird has so many requests for interviews that he already has offered a two-hour media availability Monday, after Petraeus and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, testify before the House.

Do I mean that Baird has gone irretrievably over to the dark side when I say that? No. I mean that Baird has discovered what, for Lieberman, proved to be the "gateway drug" -- media stardom for being the Democrat who will go on record to provide the coveted Dems Divided^TM storyline.

Best reaction to this so far?

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., told Congressional Quarterly: "I'll give Brian a gun and let him go to Iraq and shoot whoever he wants."

Unfortunately, it seems Baird's been aiming squarely at Democratic feet. And loving it.

Howie P.S.: This is like what the opposition is doing to Darcy Burner with Deb Eddy's recent remarks.

"The Trouble with Moral Clarity" (Updated)

UPDATE II: Geov Parrish sent me this comment:

There's a lot of evidence that the American presence is in an of itself making things worse. McGovern's plan - apologize for the invasion, full withdrawal, no bases, no oil laws, and pay for a Muslim internnational peacekeeping force - seems to me to make the most sense. Bush/Cheney would never consider it, of course, but neither will any of the leading Dems, which is pretty damn discouraging.

UPDATE: Howie Opinion--I think I'll put myself in with the Postman-Shue option. As dinazina commented to me:

What evidence does Baird have that Bush & Cheney (they are controlling everything, after all) will do ANYTHING decent, moral, or constructive for the people in Iraq?

David Sirota seems to agree.

switzerblog (Evergreen Politics):

So I'll be the 38th blogger to weigh in on Brian Baird's "change of heart" concerning Iraq. Since voting for a bill containing a timetable for troop withdrawal, he's visited Iraq and decided he can no longer support such an idea. Truth be told, of course, his heart didn't have to go far; he was reluctant to vote for the withdrawal amendment in the first place.

He didn't like it, and after visiting Iraq andTardy Howie Opinion: I think Postman-Shue combo seems about right. dinazina commented to me, "What evidence does Baird have that Bush & Cheney (they are controlling everything, after all) will do ANYTHING decent, moral, or constructive for the people i seeing the changes (progress? I don't know) brought about in the situation after the "surge", decided he just couldn't do it again. Baird's view on things?

"We have a moral responsibility to try to help these people whose lives we have impacted."

and

"It seems to me the threat of withdrawal is not such a clean instrument and may be counter-productive."

Something of a "we broke it, we bought it" view, one I've argued against, but not entirely unreasonable. It's important to remember that Baird voted against the war in Iraq and would do so again today, but his view is that we have to deal with the situation as it is right now. The interesting part of what he says, though, is his suggestion that we have a moral responsibility to the people of Iraq.

Much is made about moral responsibility regarding Iraq - many on the left view it as a moral imperative that we get out of Iraq immediately or as close to it as possible, while many on the right view it as equally morally necessary that we stay and "finish the job". Both see themselves having moral clarity and the other side lacking moral standing altogether. But is that true?

Where do we all stand on Iraq? All rhetoric aside, are the bulk of people that far apart? Is Brian Baird that far out of touch with morality, with his constituents, with Americans? Are we? I think if you strip away the rhetoric, you'll find that, aside from cranks on both sides who advocate extreme solutions, right and left aren't arguing over goals as much as methods, and while that's a heated discussion, ultimately the morality of the discussion is inherently vague.

• A moral case can be made that we have brought physical, emotional and financial ruin on Iraq, and must correct this abhorrent situation before we move ourselves out of their world (let's call this the Baird imperative for today).
• Another moral case can be made that we have brought physical, emotional and financial ruin on Iraq, and must correct this by moving ourselves out of their world (let's call this the...Postman imperative, for lack of a better term).
• A case can be made that there are horrible people in Iraq just waiting to pounce, first on Iraqis, then on us, as soon as we leave, and therefore we must stay and pacify them (Lieberman imperative).
• A case can be made that there are horrible people doing horrible things in Iraq and we have to leave quickly so the Iraqis can roust these troublemakers out on their own (I'll call this the Shue imperative, although it doesn't map directly to Mr. Shue's own stance. His vocal advocacy deserves its own imperative).
• And a case can be made, popularly in our own Northwest, that we have a moral need to get our own children, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, out of Iraq and prevent further loss of American life (we'll call this the Sheehan imperative).

These are, of course, simplified and do not include variants and combinations, but I think this is a good outline of the root mainstream belief structures about Iraq in American discourse today. I do not include end-of-the-spectrum ideas intentionally.

Each of these cases has polls, proof points, Iraqi and American voices, troops on the ground, and logical strength behind them. Each has moral weight, and each provides its own moral clarity. The nature of such things is such that there exists a ready-made blockage to any other idea. I see a moral issue. I have moral clarity on that issue. If you disagree on any point, you are wrong, and therefore immoral. There is no need to debate an immoral person. And that, my soon to be leaving angry comments readers, is the trouble with moral clarity.

We cannot change Baird's mind, nor he ours, for each stands in moral opposition despite each wanting to get our troops out and see a stable, safe, self-governing Iraq. Many will, I'm sure, condemn his moral failure and support of the Bush ideas for Iraq (indeed, at the Slog, a commenter has already pondered where Baird intends to find "more people to sign up to be Darth Cheney's Imperial Stormtroopers", as though this were Baird's hope or plan). War supporters will trumpet Baird's moral conversion and the imminent collapse of Democratic unity on the issue. But what will not happen, in the house down the street or any Congressional meeting room, is a meeting to discuss what can and should really be done.

Originally, the argument on Iraq was "Go or Don't Go". It became "Stay or Leave", and now that "Stay" has lost, the argument should be "When do we Leave". Unfortunately, moral clarity has intruded, and we waste time claiming that Baird wants permanent occupation, or Kucinich wants to abandon our troops, or someone else wants to abandon Iraqis...all nonsense, all ultimately irrelevant, and all distracting from any possible solution.

We must drop this moral clarity and seek answers. Moral clarity has led too many politicians to find the answers they've wanted - Republicans (and Joe L) visit Iraq and find progress, troops who embrace the mission, high morale, while Democrats visit Iraq and find chaos, death, danger and troops lost in hopelessness. Pre-screened audiences and carefully designed routes provide cover. But why are we lost in these one-answer mazes? Why do we spend tax dollars on these Iraqi campaign ads? Would it not be more fruitful to bring John Murtha and Brian Baird and Lieberman and John Thune together in Iraq to meet with all manner of troops? To simply listen to their feedback? To meet with Iraqis in secure neighborhoods, as well as those not secure? Sunnis and Shias?

But this won't happen, because we've lost our way. We're blinded by our moral clarity, unable to seek further answers or ask better questions, and in the chokehold of the madmen in charge, run by their own moral clarity which drags us all down with them. I'm sick of moral clarity. I want questions and doubt. We don't know what will happen when we leave Iraq; we don't know if we're better off staying or leaving. We don't know if it's making us safer or not. And we can't admit we don't know because we no longer doubt, we no longer question, and we no longer talk.

I disagree with Brian Baird, based on what knowledge and understanding of the situation I have. But I have to listen to him because I don't know the answer. Until our leaders - Republican and Democrat - take that one small step back and decide that they don't know the answer, they'll just keep asking the wrong questions, and these short-term Congressional battles will continue to resolve nothing, letting the very real war continue with lethal results and no way out.

Our moral clarity is creating a moral vacuum around Iraq, and in the end may be the biggest moral failure of all.

"Tauscher hits Baird"

Markos:

Ellen Tauscher, just back from Iraq, essentially calls Baird naive and easily manipulated:

Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), who recently returned from Iraq as well, said his experience led him to believe the escalation should be sustained until next year. Asked to address Baird’s comments, Tauscher suggested he had become a victim of the “green zone fog”:

I will tell you that when you get in the Green Zone, there is a physiological phenomenon I think called Green Zone fog. … It’s death by powerpoint. … It’s always that their argument is winning.

She added later, “It’s very, very easy to be influenced, from their point of view, that things are better.” She said they will “shape” facts to show gains being made. Meanwhile, the reality in Iraq is that there is a lot of sectarianism in the government, particularly at the Ministry of Interior. “The MOI is basically this sleeper cell organization of Shiite death squads,” she said.

Don't you sense a "night and day" difference with Rep. Ellen Tauscher? She's apparently decided that being a Lieberdem isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

As for Baird, if there are any credible, hungry Democrats in that district looking for a promotion, now might not be a bad time to consider their options.

"Report from Vancouver, Washington: Rep. Baird Gets Blasted"

Slog (The Stranger):

This report is being filed by Josh, who’s down in Vancouver. He couldn’t find WiFi in the trendy Uptown Village neighborhood. The Starbucks on the corner of Main was closed and the password at the friendly Ice Cream Renaissance didn’t work, although they let Josh hang out well after closing. He’ll provide a longer report tomorrow, but he phoned this in.

Congressman Brian Baird (D-3 Vancouver, Washington) hosted a town hall tonight at Fort Vancouver High School. It was Baird’s first appearance in front of his constituents since reversing his position on the war. ALTHOUGH he’s been an adamant critic of the war—he voted against the war and the surge—he announced last week that he thinks the surge is working and he wants to give it time.

He spoke in a high school auditorium that was packed with at least 500 people who were overwhelmingly vocal in their opposition to Baird’s new stance. There were also protesters outside calling for Baird to resign.

He was hammered by Jon Soltz, the young, good looking, charismatic chairman and co-founder of political action committee VoteVets.org. Soltz is also an Iraq war veteran, having served in 2003. Speaking calmly and to raucous applause, he said Baird (who recently returned from a visit to Iraq) was fooled “by a dog and pony show” and is unfortunately providing cover for President Bush.

Afterwards, Soltz told me that his goal is to bring Baird back into the Democratic fold.

Another speaker who brought down the house was Zanne Joi, a Vancouver activist with Code Pink Women for Peace. Joi called Baird “arrogant” for trying to dictate how Iraqis should govern themselves and said the war was only about “American oil profit.”

A third speaker, who also spoke to tremendous applause, was Jane Lustig from Vancouver, whose main complain was that Baird was not representing his constituents’ point of view.

I also talked to several people as they left the auditorium and asked them if they found Baird—who was there to explain his new position—to be persuasive.

To a person, everyone shook their head “no way,” including Doris Holmes, active member of the 18th district Democrats, who said, “He lied. He’s towing the Bush party line. I can’t believe he’s a Democrat.”