Nov. 12 Daily News editorial

Predictably, Congressman Brian Baird is taking quite a lot of heat from his Democratic base over that Saturday vote against the narrowly approved House health care bill. Labor union officials arrived at the congressman’s Olympia office early Monday with letters of protest, according to The Olympian newspaper.

Democratic Party leaders have generally held their fire. But they’re clearly disappointed by Baird’s defection, and that disappointment could be expressed in any number of ways down the road.

If Baird is concerned about paying a political price for his vote, he’s not showing it. The congressman remains very clear and firm in his reasons for breaking from his party’s leadership and opposing the House bill. There were no reliable estimates as to the bill would affect costs for those already insured, Baird explained the day before the vote. There were no estimates as to how the bill would affect Medicare and Medicaid. And, too, party leaders’ decision not to allow consideration of any amendments by members of either the minority or majority party troubled the congressman.

These concerns strike us as legitimate. But regardless of how we might feel about Baird’s stated reasons for this vote, his readiness to elevate principle over party is admirable.

This is by no means the first time Baird has broken ranks with his party or defied popular sentiment to do what he genuinely believes to be in the best interest of his constituents and the country. In the run-up to 2003 invasion of Iraq, Baird was among the relatively few in Congress to vote against the resolution authorizing that military action. Four years later, after public sentiment had largely turned against an increasingly chaotic and bloody engagement, Baird supported former President Bush’s decision to send more troops to Iraq.

Baird announced his support of the so-called troop “surge” after having visited Iraq and Jordan and deciding that we had a moral obligation to do as much as possible to end the chaos and bloodshed in Iraq. The Democratic base, for the most part, was too dead set against both the previous administration and the war in Iraq to appreciate Baird’s thinking, and went after the congressman with a seeming vengeance. Baird stood his ground, demonstrating the same political courage displayed by his earlier stand against the initial invasion.

We’ve witnessed this independence of thought and action often. It’s in evidence this year in Baird’s dogged effort to pass legislation requiring a three-day time-out to give lawmakers and the public time to read legislation before a final vote is taken. This so-called 72-hour rule has long been opposed by the leaders of the party in power, which now happens to Baird’s party.

Baird’s willingness to take principled positions independent of party orthodoxy or popular sentiment is something most everyone would applaud in the abstract. It’s a quality most people would say they want in their elected leaders. In reality, the political response can be harsh. That’s why relatively few members of congress exhibit this quality. Baird’s constituents should be glad they’re represented by one who does.