Remember Rep. Brian Baird, a Democrat who represents a district near Seattle, Washington? I wrote about him yesterday. So now, the liberal Democrat pressure group MoveOn.org is mounting an ad campaign against him---all because Baird went to Iraq and, based on what he'd seen, came back in favor of the surge and against a quick pullout from Iraq.
Now I'm not surprised that Baird's change of position on the war irritates MoveOn. But the argument they seem to be making here should be (one would think) untenable. Baird didn't change his mind for no reason, after all. He wasn't bullied into altering his position by a meeting with President Bush either. Instead, Baird went to Iraq. He saw things. He believes he saw evidence mandating a change of position. But MoveOn, and his antiwar critics in his district, seem to be saying that he ought to shut his mouth, ignore whatever he saw in Iraq, swallow any doubts he has about the antiwar position, and, er, march in formation with the rest of the antiwar army.
But that's not what a representative should be doing, and frankly it smacks of an attempt to use pressure tactics to stifle dissent within the Democratic Party.
