Currently, in Southwest Washington and the Portland (OR) metropolitan area, the City of Washougal (WA) is getting a lot of attention in the press due to what seems to be a significant scandal involving one or more of the city’s elected officials. The gist of this is that the Washington State Auditor’s Office is conducting a special investigation involving unaccounted for expenditures of over $100,000 and other alleged “mismanagement issues”, by the city’s Mayor, Stacee Sellers.

Since Congressional Candidate Jon Russell is an elected member of the Washougal City Council, his political opponents within the Republican Party are eagerly manipulating this to reflect negatively on Russell. Though this is personally disappointing to me, I can't say that it's surprising. Ironically, I believe that stepping back and looking at the facts (not the innuendos) here would lead a reasonable person to the conclusion that Jon Russell’s related conduct indicates that he is exactly the sort of person we should have in the office he is seeking – i.e., U.S. Representative from Washington’s 3^rd Congressional District.

Here are some of the facts I have in mind:

Russell has been in the Conservative minority since joining the City Council. Shortly after his initial election he began to develop concerns related to the matter currently being investigated. This included that:

•  Expenditures were signed off by whatever council members were available.
• City Department Heads were instructed not to speak directly to council members; all communication was to go through the Mayor.

Although Jon raised these concerns, due to the council’s Progressive majority and their loyalty to the Mayor, Jon was unable to rally support for his alarm. However, Jon remained vigilant. For over two years, Jon has requested P&Ls for city events that the administration had sponsored … the very events now being investigated. These requests remain unfulfilled. Just this year, Jon asked to be appointed to the finance committee and immediately upon joining that committee, he began bringing forward a motion that would require the committee to routinely scrutinize every city expenditure. Again, the council’s Progressive majority was unwillingly to join in making this commitment.

Thankfully, fairly early-on, Jon recognized the importance of being able to voice his concerns from a greater position of strength. With that in mind, he began developing a strategy to achieve a Conservative majority on the City Council. In 2008, he was joined by another Conservative. This past Summer, yet another Conservative was added. And, it’s likely that next week’s election could lead to Jon being in the Conservative majority on the City Council. From that perspective, Jon issued the following statement to supporters:

“My objective is to work through our city administration’s chaos and to bring a clearer picture to the citizens of Washougal. I am convinced that, with a newly–elected Conservative majority coming in January, we will provide a responsible path out of the disaster permitted by the current progressive administration.”

And he added:

“This experience has given me a deeper appreciation for what I am trying to do on a national level. We need sweeping government reform, which brings more accountability to government and places more scrutiny on government than on individuals. Too much control in the hands of the few will always result in disaster and corruption. As your next Congressman, I will fight for open and transparent government. The people deserve to know the truth.”

It should be noted that one of the most recent developments in this matter is that the Washougal City Council has now passed a resolution censuring Mayor Stacee Sellers, expressing “disapproval of her behavior and her lack of effective communication.” Jon Russell voted for the resolution and in doing so, expressed his belief that additional action should be taken, saying, “I don’t think censure is strong enough.”

I think the facts that I’ve outlined above speak for themselves in supporting my earlier statement that “Jon Russell’s related conduct indicates that he is exactly the sort of person we should have in the office he is seeking.” However, I’d like add a personal observation to emphasize why it adds up that way for me. I’ve been in business in a Sales role for most of the past four decades. During that time, it’s not been uncommon for me to be confronted with a situation where a prospective customer tells me that, in comparing what I’m offering to what a competitor is offering, they can’t find a decisive difference. In those cases, I’ve almost always found it to be effective to get the prospective customer to consider who they want to be shoulder-to-shoulder with when there is trouble. No matter how good your company, your product, etc., if there are human beings involved, there will be problems. I make sure my prospective customers know that when problems come, there is one thing in particular they can count on that the competitor can’t offer. That difference is me … I will be there for them. That’s what I see Jon Russell doing in this matter. He suspected problems and he voiced his concerns. He took actions to prevent the problems he suspected from occurring. He developed a strategy meant to give authority to his actions. And, when trouble came, he stood firm to do the hard work the citizens of Washougal are relying on him to do.

In summary, I’d like to touch on a couple of aspects related to my disappointment with the actions of Jon’s political opponents within the Republican Party who have so eagerly manipulated this to reflect negatively on Jon. In one instance, the question was raised, “If Jon is unable to stand up to the mayor of a small town of some 9,000, how would he ever stand up to the likes of Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Washington D.C.?” Of course, this question is a bit short-sighted, since I expect Nancy Pelosi to be an ex-Member of Congress and for her party to be the minority party after the elections of 2010. However, it does raise an interesting hypothetical question: “What would Jon Russell be doing about a similar situation in the current U.S. Congress … oh say regarding Charlie Rangel … if he was the Representative from Washington’s 3^rd Congressional District, instead of Brian Baird?” Well, I know what we’ve heard from Baird on this … nothing! And, based on what I’ve outlined above, I’m pretty confident Ms. Pelosi would be hearing from Jon Russell regularly.

Finally, I want to offer some advice to Jon’s political opponents within the Republican Party who have so eagerly manipulated this to reflect negatively on Jon. Take a look at all the Comments left by readers of what you’ve published on this. No doubt, I haven’t found all that has been written along these lines but of the ones I’ve found, I haven’t found one single Comment that supported the author’s position. With that in mind, I would encourage you to consider what I have termed the “Hoffman v Scozzafava … Wake-Up-Call …”. As the old folk song says, “The times, they are a changing” and you should be giving more sober thought to how your words and especially your actions, fit in with the current political landscape.

When I was born, Give ‘em Hell Harry Truman was in the White House. That means I’ve experienced life in the U.S. under 12 different Presidents and I’ve had over six decades to learn about the Presidential Administrations that preceded the ones I’ve experienced first hand. Based on that education, I have to say that the Obama-led Sitting Government seems to be the most obvious in deliberately ignoring the will of the people they were elected to serve. Although Obama’s election is not quite a year old and his inauguration was just over nine months ago, there is already a litany of examples to illustrate this. However, I don’t think there is an example that is more obvious, nor more ominous, than the Obama administration’s current all-out campaign to marginalize Fox News.

Charles Krauthammer’s article on this topic is entitled “Fox wars”. Here, Krauthammer says that, in doing this, the current White House is “Seeking to deliberately undermine, delegitimize and destroy …” and he labels it as “Nixonian”. And, he goes on to note that Fox News, the target of this Nixonian attack, is in fact watched by more viewers than those of CNN and MSNBC combined and that in his opinion (an opinion I share) Fox News Special Report is “the best hour of news on television.” Krauthammer doesn’t go on to offer details of the purpose of this attack on this particular target. Perhaps, to most, it’s obvious. However, I think it’s quite important to shine the light of truth on these specifics as well.

To me, the overall goal seems like a common goal of a common Democrat Party tactic … instead of addressing a message they oppose, they blunt the message by marginalizing the messenger. This past Spring, I experienced this personally in a conversation with a Democrat friend during the time that Nancy Pelosi was claiming that the CIA lied to her. Rather than address the issue at hand – i.e., the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives was lying – my friend started talking about alleged lying by former Vice President Cheney. Although I don’t accept that Cheney was guilty of the lying my friend alleged, so what if he was? That shouldn’t negate the seriousness of dishonest conduct on the part of our government officials … especially ones that are 2^nd or 3^rd in the United States presidential line of succession.

Of course, diminishing the message (the news) conveyed by Fox News is an issue of greater importance (by several orders of magnitude) over what happened in my conversation with my Democrat friend. Just the fact that Krauthammer pointed out … the fact that Fox News is watched by more viewers than those of CNN and MSNBC combined … makes this so. But, I don’t think it’s just the quantity of viewers involved here that makes this so important … of at least equal importance is considering who these viewers are. Although I don’t have hard statistics to back this up, I don’t think it’s hard for most to accept that, with those who have been involved in activities opposing key elements of the Obama administration’s agenda – i.e., activities like those of the Tea Party movement, a large majority look to Fox as a key source of news. In other words, the current White House wants to shut up those who oppose their agenda … they have done so as the Tea Party movement has developed and its coming to a crescendo in the attack on Fox News.

Finally, I think it is important to go beyond just considering the general purpose of this campaign against Fox News, to consider the specifics. The specifics are that “litany of examples” I mentioned at the outset. It ranges from the folly of Obama ignoring Petraeus and McChrystal on Afghanistan, to the chagrin of having the French chastise us for appeasement in foreign diplomacy, to ignoring the majority of American’s wishes on government-run healthcare, to nearly quintupling the federal budget deficit in less than a year, to …

So, what is the appropriate response to this Obama onslaught? Frankly, I think the response that Fox News has been making is just the right response. Considering all that’s at stake for them, as a result of this attack, I’m sure it’s been far from easy to not only refrain from “getting down in the dirt” with Obama and his followers, they haven’t even blinked. They have boldly continued to be just what they have always claimed to be … Fair and Balanced. My reason for emphasizing “boldly” is that I’ve noted, at the end of Fox News Special Report, the current host; Bret Baier has reinstituted the closing of his predecessor, Britt Hume, by saying, “Fair, Balanced and Unafraid!” I admire them for their stance and though I don’t generally think much of those who most Conservatives refer to as the MSM (mainstream media), I appreciate that “White House ‘pool’ news organizations” have been willing to take a stand on this with Fox News. As Americans, we really need to be able to depend on each other for that. Regardless of our differences, if anyone of us is come against with this sort of tyranny, its just as essential now as it was in 1776 for us to stand alongside our fellow Americans. So I want to encourage you, my fellow Americans … if you’re a regular viewer of Fox News, stick with them … if you’re a regular viewer of the MSM, take some time to check out Fox News and form your own opinion … and as we do this together, we can demonstrate that, as a people, we all strive to be “Fair and Balanced” and that one of the qualities we share that continues to define us, as Americans, is that we are, especially, “Unafraid!”

Once again, Jon Russell, Republican Candidate for U.S. Congress in Washington’s 3^rd Congressional District, has hit the nail on the head. He’s provided one answer for several related questions that most Americans seem to be asking. According to a Fox News Opinion Dynamics Poll, conducted at the end of September, the top issues Americans are worried about are: 

1.      The federal government spending too much = 79%

2.      The increasing size of the federal deficit = 77%

The only issue that’s on a par with this, in terms of causing Americans to worry, is Iran developing a nuclear weapons program. With this in mind, I have to imagine that most Americans have the same questions on this as I do: 

How in the world could those who are supposed to represent us have allowed themselves to spend such a phenomenal amount in less than one year?! 

AND 

Why have they continued to do this and make plans to spend even more, against our clearly communicated wishes that we want them to stop?! 

Congressional Candidate Russell has provided one answer for both questions: 

It’s BDD … BUDGET DEFICIT DISORDER! 

Be sure to check out Russell’s current YouTube Video on this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7MTJWK5Xvk

More than just an answer, it’s a diagnosis of a classic addiction of Career Politicians.

It’s Time To Invest In The Next Great Step In Regaining Our Nation’s Bright Future

It has been marvelous to watch the Tea Party Movement that’s grown up across the U.S. this year. For me, it’s been a bit like being able to step into the pages of a U.S. History Book. Probably like most of you, I first heard the stories of the Patriots of the American Revolution when I was an elementary school kid and I wondered what it was “really like.” Thanks to this year’s Tea Party Movement, I have a better sense of what it was “really like” to be a part of a watershed event, leading up to the American Revolution … the Tea Party Movement’s namesake … The Boston Tea Party.

I think it’s fair to say that the Boston Tea Party was not the result of a group of people who were just looking for an excuse to overthrow British rule and establish their own country. In fact, it’s my understanding that, generally, American Colonists were OK with being British Subjects. If it wasn’t for certain ways in which the American Colonists felt that The Crown was dealing with them unfairly, we might all still be attending cricket matches instead of baseball games and singing “God Save The Queen” instead of “The Star Spangled Banner” … you may have noticed they use the same tune. But, there were those unfortunate “certain ways in which the American Colonists felt that The Crown was dealing with them unfairly” … the Sugar Act, the Currency Act, the Quartering Act, the Stamp Act, etc. resulted in more and more organized colonial protest and the Tea Act led to the hallmark protest we know and honor as The Boston Tea Party.

The parallels between The Boston Tea Party and today’s Tea Party movement are striking. When you look at the actions of our sitting government, that the Tea Party Movement has protested … the Federal Budget, the ARRA, the National Debt, Tax Increases, Nationalization of major business entities, etc. … the similarities are obvious.

Sadly, it seems that those of us, who align with the spirit of the Tea Party Movement, are at a point of confronting another great similarity with The Boston Tea Party … in spite of our vigorous protestations, the sitting government is ignoring us. In the 1700s, in the face of Colonial opposition, the British continued to pass Colonial Act after Colonial Act and to turn aside the Colonial opposition, including the “turning aside” known as The Boston Massacre. Today, heedless of months of Tea Parties and Town Halls, where present day Patriots have stood up and said “Forbear!”, the Obama-led sitting government seems determined to proceed with their self-absorbed partisan agenda, while using various disparaging labels to describe Today’s Patriots.

The obvious question about our current state of affairs is, “What do we do next?!” To answer this, I think we can, again, look to the actions of the Patriots of the American Revolution. When, in their minds, they had “bent over backwards” to give the sitting government every opportunity to listen to them and to respond by dealing with them fairly, they began to invest themselves in next-steps they believed would achieve the results they had in mind. Namely, they began developing the First Continental Congress and they began preparing for war. Before going on, let me be clear that I’m not in favor of Today’s Patriots completely emulating the actions of the Patriots of the American Revolution … especially the “war” part. I’m certainly not in favor of that and I don’t want to even hint that and invite my fellow countrymen who work at the FBI to come visit me. But, I do think Today’s Patriots would be wise to follow the general example of the Patriots of the American Revolution – i.e. When it became obvious that the wealthy and powerful organization they had established for organized protest was continuing to be ignored, they determined different next-steps where they could invest the resource they had created in order to actually effect change.

Thankfully, there are encouraging signs that today’s Tea Party Movement is recognizing the need for “different next-steps.” With the Tea Party Movement in my own backyard, I’ve noticed: A very successful Labor Day event was held in Portland, today an impressive Vancouver-Portland Patriot Rally is being held, in two weeks there will be a Glenn Beck event at Safeco Field in Seattle and at the beginning of October there will be an “Open Candidate Call” in Beaverton. It’s this last event that I find most encouraging. Its not “just another tea party” and in fact, it seems like it may be an example of the direction I believe the Tea Party Movement should take next. My fear is that, if the Tea Party Movement was to just continue having more tea parties, that might continue to be good fodder for radio and TV Talk Show Hosts and a few personalities might be raised up along the way who will get their “15 minutes of fame” but in the end we won’t have raised up a “Revolution Army of Alternative Candidates” who have Servant’s Hearts, whose central desire is to take their turn at Representing us in D.C. More specifically, my fear is that if we don’t invest in this way, the alternatives we will end up with will face the Career Politicians of the sitting government, who will beat them like a drum.

In summary, then, I want to say: I’m very thankful for what the Tea Party Movement has accomplished and I truly admire those who have invested themselves in this, to the benefit of us all. My recommendation and hope and prayer is that this rich resource will now be invested in leveling the playing field between those who truly want to Represent us (and who are truly qualified to do so) versus the incumbent Career Politicians of the sitting government, who can continue to ignore us, while having access to the tremendous resources of the offices they hold.

The Unanswered Question For Baird Remains:

 “What have you learned from the 3rd district's constituents this month that will cause you to behave differently in representing them when you return to DC?”

According to an article in Thursday’s edition of The Columbian, “U.S. Rep Brian Baird closed out a tumultuous congressional recess Wednesday with a final town hall meeting before a capacity crowd at the Corbet Theatre in Centralia.” I’d say that The Columbian’s use of the word “tumultuous”, though not inaccurate, is putting it mildly. Here are some of the highlights (or lowlights, depending on your perspective) of Brian Baird’s visit to Southwest Washington during the Congressional August Recess of 2009:

§On July 31^st, just as the recess was beginning, Victoria Taft, KPAM 860AM Radio’s evening drive-time Talk Show Host, interviewed Baird. When she asked about his plans for Town Halls during this critical time, Baird’s responses revealed that what he had in mind was more of what I have termed “Brian Baird’s Stealth Town Halls” … something I first commented on in an article this past April entitled ‘How Does “Baird Marketing Baird” Fit With Representing His Congressional District?’

§Baird’s leading opponent for the 2010 congressional race, Republican Candidate Jon Russell, announced his schedule for a series of Town Halls he would be holding throughout the 3^rd District, “to give voters the oportunity to be heard.”

§On August 7^th, still refusing to meet with constituents face-to-face, Baird, still claiming to be “The King of Town Halls”, conducted a “Telephone Town Hall” in Clark County. Notable aspects of this included: 

o      In commenting on a related article in The Columbian, Larch Mountain’s Pam Benson said she realizes Baird disagrees with her on health care reform but the lack of town hall meetings makes her feel angrier and more helpless. She went on to say, “He’s supposed to be our representative. He’s supposed to listen to us, whether he’s on our side or not.”

o      One of the handfull of callers who actually got to speak to Baird was Nansen Malin, Chair of the Pacific County (WA) Republican Party. She said “Come here to Seaview. I will host a Town Hall in my living room. We can disagree and still have a conversation. I will be your bodyguard.” Baird’s response was “I will take you up on that.” However, though he strung her along on this promise for most of the rest of the month, he ended up rejecting her offer.

§Finally, on August 18^th, Brian Baird came out of hiding to face voters. Over midway through the Congressional August Recess Baird gave in to political pressure (in particular, the pressure of having his Republican opponent schedule Town Halls while he was refusing to do so) and the related bad press he was getting on this, to hold a “Health Care Town Hall” at the Clark County Fairgrounds Amphitheater. Some of the more remarkable moments of this event were: 

o      Baird being taken to task on several occasions for having referred to those attending Town Halls as “Brownshirts” and likening them to Timothy McVeigh.

o      A Vancouver woman, who first quoted the Patriot, Patrick Henry and then said, “It seems to me that most of the time lately our Congressmen and Representatives have been representing the President to the people instead of representing the people to the President.” Baird made no response to the woman’s implied question but, in response to her quoting one of our great Patriots, he threw in that his kids’ middle names are Washington and Franklin.

o      The Marine Corps Vet who told Baird to “Stay away from my kids!” and asked him, regarding the oath he has taken to defend the Constitution, “Do you ever intend to keep (your oath)?”

For the balance of August, from Baird’s first appearance at the Clark County Fairgrounds Amphitheater to this last event in Centralia, it seemed to continue like this. The consituents of Washington’s 3^rd Congressional District kept showing up, hoping that the one charged to be their Representative would truly hear them. Sadly, they just continued to see a Career Politician trying to make lemonade from lemons his misrepresentation has produced. One of the clearest examples of this was when Baird was questioned about his support for the ARRA (AKA the stimulus bill). One speaker was Gordon Johns, an ophthalmologist from Chehalis, who said, “We’re responsible, we raise our kids, we pay our taxes, we vote, we go to church, we contribute to charity, but then we do all of these things, and when other people who don’t live the same lifestyle don’t follow those same principals, we are asked to bail them out.” Although Johns received a standing ovation, Baird ended up responding by saying that by no means did he agree with everything in the bill, adding that when the votes are already locked in for a bill he has to weigh the benefits of going against it. Then he said, “If I go to the speaker of the House and say, ‘There is no way I would ever vote for this bill. This is what I want,’ it’s not going to work.” In other words, pleasing Nancy Pelosi will continue to be his priority over representing the people of Washington’s 3^rd Congressional District. So …

… for the Vancouver woman who raised the implied question: “It seems to me that most of the time lately our Congressmen and Representatives have been representing the President to the people instead of representing the people to the President” … Baird’s response seems to be … Don’t expect to see any change in him with this.

… and, to my question: “What have you learned from the 3rd district's constituents this month that will cause you to behave differently in representing them when you return to DC?” … Baird’s response seems to be … Nothing!

Republican Congressional Candidate Proactively Filled Void Left By Baird

This past Saturday, I got to attend an event that seemed unique in at least two ways. It was the first in a series of Town Halls being made available to voters in Washington’s 3^rd Congressional District by Republican Candidate Jon Russell. The first aspect that I believe to be unique was that this was a Town Hall being offered by a Congressional Candidate instead of a sitting Member of Congress. The current Member of Congress from Washington’s 3^rd District is Brian Baird, who initially refused to hold face-to-face meetings with constituents during the current Congressional August Recess. In the face of this, Russell scheduled his series of Town Halls to assure that these constituents would have the opportunity to be heard. Another aspect that I know was unique was that I got to attend in person. Up to this point, it had only been made possible for me to attend one Baird Town Hall by watching online.

Voters Find A Career Politician Still Not Listening To Their Message

This past Tuesday, over midway through the current Congressional August Recess, Brian Baird, the current Member of Congress from Washington’s 3^rd District, came out to face constituents for the first time during this season. As you may know, this was a reversal of Baird’s earlier decision, refusing to meet with voters up to this point. Of course, I can only speculate about what led to Baird reversing course on this but the political pressure to do so was obvious. The fact that Baird’s Republican opponent, Jon Russell, had scheduled a series of Town Halls throughout the district, in order to give the people opportunities to be heard, had to be a key factor in this. And, in light of the bad press Baird was getting on this, it was just as obvious that this was a case of a seasoned Career Politician producing lemons and trying to turn them into lemonade.

In other accounts of this event, you can read about Baird humbling himself in apologizing for “some statements I regret”, in referring to protestors at Town Hall meetings as “Brownshirts” and likening them to Timothy McVeigh. You can, also, read the specifics of discussions at this event, touted as a “Healthcare Town Hall”. However, for me, the most interesting aspect of the entire Town Hall event was just observing Brian Baird’s behavior, as our Congressional Representative. His reaction to many of the questions coming from those he is sworn to represent was most telling. Out of the 38 questions posed at this event, the one I saw as being most poignant came out of a statement from a Vancouver woman who first quoted the Patriot, Patrick Henry and then said,

“It seems to me that most of the time lately our Congressmen and Representatives have been representing the President to the people instead of representing the people to the President." 

Baird’s only response was to say that his kids’ middle names are Washington and Franklin.

For me, there couldn’t have been a better underscore to the fact that, while Brian Baird has acquired some skills allowing him to function with some aplomb, as a Career Politician, he lacks one major quality necessary to truly be a Representative of the people … the heart of a servant. 

Not long ago, I heard Victoria Taft, KPAM 860AM Radio’s evening drive-time Talk Show Host, interview Baird. Although she disagrees with Baird on many issues, after the interview, she said that she thought Baird “seems to be a nice guy.” I agree. And he looks the role of a yuppie middle-manager who would be up to the duties of Congressman. Likewise, he seems to be intelligent and well educated. But Washington’s 3^rd Congressional District is not wonting for people with these qualities who are willing to go to Washington D.C. What we are sorely lacking, as evidenced by Brian Baird’s non-response to that Vancouver woman’s passionate plea is a person whose heart is to seek to truly understand all that underlies her question in order to be able to fully represent her in the U.S. Congress. With this in mind, if I get to ask Brian Baird a question during the current Congressional August Recess, it will be: 

In a radio interview this past Thursday evening, Jon Russell, Republican Candidate for Congress in Washington’s 3^rd District (WA-03), said that he has taken the initiative to arrange a series of Town Halls “from Olympia to Vancouver” during the current Congressional August Recess “so the people can speak”. Russell’s interview was on a Victoria Taft Show (KPAM 860AM Radio) that focused on WA-03’s current Member of Congress, Brian Baird, disparaging Constituents and refusing to face them. When asked for his explanation of Baird’s behavior, Russell offered that it seems like “a symptom of a Career Politician” whose “focus is him, not us”.

Meanwhile, where was Brian Baird? Well, he wasn’t on that Victoria Taft Show. On the same day as that show, he was in Toronto, Canada, giving the Keynote Address to the American Psychological Association Annual Convention. Now there’s a fancy way to duck confronting the electorate! And, what plans did Baird have for engaging with the electorate? When Victoria Taft asked about this, during her last interview with Baird, he said that he had changed to Telephone Town Halls. Here’s how those work, as reported in The Columbian:

• If you happen to be sitting near a publicly listed Clark County telephone line on the right day at the right time, your phone will ring.
• In order to avoid software problems, Baird’s office says, the exact date and time will be kept secret from the public.
• If you answer your landline, an automated message will ask whether you have a question for your Congressman.
• Press *3, and you’ll be asked your location and the subject of your question.
• Sitting at his own telephone at an as-yet-undisclosed location, Baird then will choose a name based on its location and the topic.
• There will be no further pre-screening, Baird said. After the call is over, the recording will be posted on his Web site. 

As of this morning, the article that included the above description had received 184 Comments. The majority of them reflect the following Comment, from Larch Mountain’s Pam Benson, that was included in the article: 

She said she realizes Baird disagrees with her on health care reform. But the lack of town hall meetings makes her feel angrier and more helpless, she said. “He’s supposed to be our representative,” said Benson, a purchasing manager for Portland Cascade Architecture and Engineering in Portland. “He’s supposed to listen to us, whether he’s on our side or not.” Benson said she doesn’t understand why health care reform is moving forward when everyone she talks to seems to oppose it. “We are not nut cases that disagree with this issue,” she said. “There are a lot of very well-informed people that are against this health care thing.” It’s enough to make a Republican like her paranoid, she said. “It makes me feel that there is a conspiracy here to screw up the whole entire United States,” she said with a laugh. “It’s just too much, too fast.”

Although I agree with Jon Russell, that Baird’s behavior on this seems like “a symptom of a Career Politician” whose “focus is him, not us”, he has been a crafty enough Career Politician to get reelected several times so its not surprising that he was, at least, aware of the tumult he had instigated back home. In what seems to have been a move aimed at stemming the tide against him on this matter, Baird hastily scheduled a Telephone Town Hall on Friday. And, today, Baird’s Website trumpets this, saying:

Brian Holds Telephone Town Hall Meeting with 6,000 Constituents

In this article, Baird refers to himself as “The King of Town Halls”. And he says, “Today was an incredible opportunity to talk with thousands of people in Clark County about what is on their mind, and how government can serve them better.”

You may be interested to know that when I came home yesterday, after my workday in Portland, I learned that I had missed out on this “incredible opportunity”. I found a voice mail letting me know that I had been invited to join in this Telephone Town Hall … at 1:01pm on a Friday afternoon. This morning, a 30 minute recording of the Telephone Town Hall was made available on Baird’s Website so, at least, I got to listen to that. For me, it served as another reminder that The Emperor (“The King of Town Halls”) has no clothes and it’s well past time for his Subjects (AKA the Constituents of WA-03) to point that out to him. Here are some of the “highlights” from the recording that you probably won’t get on Baird’s Website:

§BAIRD SPOKE WITH 7 PEOPLE! At the outset of the recording, he says there are 400 people on the call. Just before the next-to-last caller, he says there are 3,500 people on the call. And, as mentioned, on his Website he says there were 6,000 people on the call. BAIRD SPOKE WITH 7 PEOPLE!

§The key issues raised by callers and their frequency was:

o      Health Care – 4

o      Debt-burden being created by government deficit spending – 1

o      Government programs not helping the mainstream – 1

o      Request for Baird to have face-to-face Town Halls – 3

§This was a classic example of “Baird marketing Baird”. In starting the Telephone Town Hall, Baird touted the fact that he is a clinical psychologist. And, with almost every question, he first responded by giving his resume-points on the related topic … “I sit on X committee”, “I introduced Y bill”, etc.

§Likewise, this was another excellent illustration of what Jon Russell pointed out … that Baird’s “focus is him, not us”. A Career Politician, who has been in the same job for over 10 years, should be able to speak coherently on the issues. However, as our REPRESENTATIVE, especially after this long in office, he should have some interest and skill in extracting what the voters want. Here again, you heard a lot about Brian Baird’s views but NOT ONCE DID YOU HEAR BAIRD ASK WHAT THE CONSTITUENTS WANT!

Needless to say, it should be quite interesting to watch the continuing metamorphosis of this situation. One specific I’ll be watching for is Baird’s follow through on an offer made by one caller he did talk to. Nan Malin, Chair of the Pacific County (WA) Republican Party, was one of the 7 who got to speak with Baird. She told Baird it was a disappointment that he was not listening to both sides. Then, in response to his claims of anarchy and threats, she said “Come here to Seaview. I will host a Town Hall in my living room. We can disagree and still have a conversation. I will be your bodyguard.” Baird’s response was “I will take you up on that.” We’ll see. This is the same Brian Baird who told Victoria Taft that having the media participate in his Telephone Town Halls “would take some arranging” but that “it could be done.” So far, nothing has come from that implied promise.

The one part of this that I do have confidence in, as these circumstances continue to unfold, is the brave role that Jon Russell is playing. Of course, he recognizes that no matter what he learns from voters at the series of Town Halls he is hosting “from Olympia to Vancouver”, he is not yet charged with representing that in Congress. However, he is an elected official. Taking this action in response to the tumult instigated by Baird shows that he has the experience and maturity to do what is called for. Beyond that, this clearly demonstrates the leadership of one who has a heart to serve. With that in mind, my hope and prayer is that attendance at Jon Russell’s Town Halls will be overwhelming, both to clearly demonstrate that we appreciate the opportunity Jon is making possible “so the people can speak” and that this courageous “leadership of one who has a heart to serve” is precisely what we want and what we desperately need.

• Dr. Thomas started by asking everyone to join hands.
• He expressed his thanks to God for things we're all blessed with, as Americans.
• He asked for God's blessing of, protection of and guidance of the incoming President.
• He closed, "In the name of Your Son and our Savior."

"Faith & Family are my priorities." That's the statement I use, in beginning my Twitter Profile. Knowing that, offers understanding of why that prayer managed to break through my "auto-tune-out". Since my Twitter Profile goes on to describe me as "A Bleeding-Heart Conservative", that should, likewise, help provide understanding that I still wasn't drawn to join in the celebration. But it did help me gain perspective on how I can actually go about being "supportive of the Obama administration where I can". Surely, Obama had a hand in selecting Dr. Thomas to offer this opening-prayer. Just as there are many issues where I don't support Barack Obama, I might find that to be true of Dr. Thomas. But I support what Dr. Thomas lifted up in prayer and I support Barack Obama, in choosing Thomas for that role. I see this much the same as I did Obama's invitation to Pastor Rick Warren, to participate in the inauguration. That invitation and its acceptance, was criticized both from the Left and from the Right. Though I'm not a Rick Warren fan, per se, we're in fundamental agreement on doctrine so, I'm pleased to know that this will be a part of the inaugural ... especially considering the "Wright" choice that Obama might have made.

Though I do want to be "supportive of the Obama administration where I can" I'm not expecting to be found out in the public square in the near future singing Kumbaya with those who did vote for Obama. There are many issues where I'm in disagreement with our incoming President. None is more significant than our differences on abortion. When and if the Obama administration becomes proactive with their pro-abortion attitude, you can look for me to oppose that as strenuously as I know how. But, as a Conservative, I don't think we are doing our best for those who share our views or for our country, if opposition is all we put forward. I agree with U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham when he speaks against "playing Gotcha Politics" (though I don't think challenging the Geithner appointment necessarily falls into that category).

My hope with this, in general, is much the same as what I've stated in earlier posts - e.g., America's 21st Century Civil War. In that posting, I stated that, "Unfortunately, our nation has drifted away from ... a quality that made us great in the first place. Some think of it as Yankee ingenuity. I say its a greater strength that comes from the synergy of the best of our differing ideas." That's a perspective I want to maintain. Hearing Dr. Thomas' Prayer in Baltimore has helped me to do that. Whether or not you share my views, I recommend taking time to check out the video link I've highlighted above and then give some added thought to how you, as an individual, can add to that "greater strength".