Why I Support James Webb for the U.S. Senate

[dolstein]

The following statement from candidate Webb says it all:

<<During the coming months I intend to focus on four major themes.

Refocusing America's foreign and defense policies in a way that truly protects our national interests and seeks harmony where they are not threatened.

Repairing the country's basic infrastructure, which has eroded badly over the past decade, and developing more creative ways to assist disaster-stricken areas such as those in New Orleans and along the Gulf coast.

Reinstituting notions of true fairness in American society, including issues of race, class, and economic advantage; and

Restoring the Constitutional role of the Congress as an equal partner, reining in the unbridled power of the Presidency.>>

There it is. In a few sentences, James Webb has set forth an agenda that Democrats in every part of the country can united behind. And I suspect that Webb didn't have to run focus groups or take polls to come up with this.

Now, I suppose a few unrepetent left-wingers out there are wondering --"what about abortion? gun control? gay marriage? school prayer? the death penalty? He doesn't say anything about these issues!" No, he doesn't. And frankly, I don't care. I already know where George Allen and the Republican Party stands on these issues. Putting Webb in the Senate couldn't possibly make things any worse from that perspective. Personally, I would much rather have a Democratic majority in Congress united around the principles Webb has enunciated and let the chips fall where they may on everything else than to have an impotent Democratic minority united solely by a left-wing social agenda.

Others have pointed out that Webb has been highly critical of John Kerry's war protest activities. That doesn't bother me in the least. The truth is, James Webb speaks for a lot of Vietnam veterans (indeed, one could easily argue that on this point, he speaks for more veterans than John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War ever did), as well as a lot of Americans - many of whom used to be Democrats. If the party isn't big enough to include these people, then we can pretty much forget about becoming the majority party again. And the fact is that the Democratic Party's close identification with the anti-Vietnam protest movement has so crippled its image on security matters that it simply isn't capable of mounting an effective opposition on foreign policy matters. That was pretty obvious during the 2004 campaign. Someone like Webb can speak with authority on military matters, and when the Republicans start to impugn Webb's patriotism, as they inevitably will, those charges simply won't stick they way they did against Kerry.

I just hope that the Michael Moores and Cindy Sheehans of the world have the good sense to stay the hell away from this race. They may think they've found an ideological soulmate, but they'd be wrong. Webb may be a critic of this administration's Iraq policy, and a very effective one at that, but he's no pacifist.

[WildEyedLiberal]

1. I hope he wins, but

It's SO unfair to imply that Kerry somehow deserved a "weak" label because of his protest activities. Even disregarding the moral courage it took to protest that farce of a war, he displayed a REAL soldier's battlefield courage and honor. They don't just hand out Silver Stars.

[msongs]

2. what if he favors school prayer to kill all the gays and then

give life sentences to any woman who has an abortion or gets a divorce from her wife beating husband?

you don't care about that either?

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[WildEyedLiberal]

3. I assume you were replying to the OP.... n/t

[dolstein]

4. It may not be fair, but it's the truth

Can you seriously deny that John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War protest activities cost him enough votes in states like Florida and Ohio to keep him out of the White House? You can't deny that there's a pretty large block of veterans out there who intensely despise John Kerry. Indeed, James Webb is probably one of them, And the fact that Webb is now running as a Democrat shows that not all of them can be dismissed as right-wing wackos whose votes were never seriously up for grabs. These are the people who might have voted for someone like Wes Clark, but would never vote for Kerry.

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. It's based on lies and bullshit

No, I'm not going to sit here and justify the Swift Boat lies or the inability of bitter old bastards to accept the fact that the war they fought for was bullshit. What John Kerry did took more courage than all his battlefield heroics combined. I refuse to accept the denigration of his service from fucking John O'Neill - why would I want to accept it from a so-called Democrat? Fuck that.

[dolstein]

7. If you think Kerry's anti-war background didn't cost him in 2004

I've got a bridge you may be interested in buying.

[WildEyedLiberal]

8. I think it was exploited by liars and smearmasters

And it didn't help that he received nothing in the way of support from the New Left who insisted on still turning their nose up at his military service.

If people can't handle the truth about fucking VIETNAM, what makes anyone think that they can handle it about Iraq? Sorry, I don't see the need to pander to those who have to believe in falsehoods to justify their worldview.

[dolstein]

11. I think people can handle the truth about Iraq -- with the right messenger

The fact is that the anti-war left just doesn't have any credibility among a huge segment of the population. The truth is that the Democratic Party's close association with the anti-war movement, an association that began with the McGovern campaign in 1972 and was only reinforced by the nomination of John Kerry, has given the Republicans a built-in advantage on national security matters. It may be an inconvenient truth, but it's the truth nonetheless.

When people like Michael Moore start talking about terrible the Iraq War is, that just doesn't register with the vast segment of the population that doesn't identify with the anti-war/counterculture movement. When people like Jack Murtha and James Webb criticize the administration, however, that means something, because these people simply cannot be dismissed as pacifists they way the Michael Moores of the world can.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. It's both messenger and message.

I think we have to remember that the reason the American public is turning against the war has nothing to do with the fact that it was illegal, wrong, immoral, or built on lies. It has to do with the fact that we're not winning. But how do we communicate to the public that the war is unwinnable without falling victim to the right-wing "cut-and-run liberals" line of rhetoric? I see how having someone like Webb deliver the message helps us out to some extent, but the message itself isn't a pretty one.

[karynnj]

27. Actually note the parallel

You're saying that Webb can deliver this unpleasant message because his credentials are impeccable.
That's exactly what Kerry, a war hero with a squeaky clean record thought in 1972.

[karynnj]

28. Do you see your own inconsistency?

John Kerry in 1971 was a squeaky clean war hero which put him in the category similar to what you are describing Murtha and Webb to be for this war. Kerry was absolutely NOT counter-culture, though the Nixon administration tried to label him that way. He was a squeaky clean all American boy.

Look at his pictures and find any college yearbook for 1971 and look at the sophmores - seniors, Kerry's hair was short, well groomed and he was always neatly dressed. (The VVAW pictures are as messy as he ever looked - but that was after a few days of protest. Look at the pictures where he debated O'Neil)

Kerry and his brother in law had worked on Fr Drinan's congressional campaign and (in Tour of Duty) there were references that some of the people in Kerry's VVAW were vets who Drinan (as Boston College Law Dean) had suggested meet with Kerry. The Jesuits wre in the war movement but were also not counterculture.

I agree that before the SBVT got their garbage out, it would have been good if more of Kerry's biography were known. Consider also that his opponent was, by his own admission, a drunk and wastrel until he was 40. At worse, Kerry's language was slightly over the top - though it was acceptable to the Senators sitting there. He spoke truth.

[dolstein]

31. Kerry's problem was his message

Kerry outraged many of his fellow veterans, including Webb, when he detailed "war crimes" committed by American soldiers.

[WildEyedLiberal]

32. Too bad it was TRUTH

My Lai pissed off veterans, so it shouldn't be talked about?

Abu Ghraib pisses off veterans and Republicans, so I guess those pix shouldn't be published or talked about, either?

It's sad to see you coming down against truthtellers and whistleblowers and in favor of those who would cover up atrocities to suit a political agenda.

[karynnj]

33. He related what he heard as he was asked to by congress

The fact of the matter is that My Lai and other atrocities happened. Powell admits it and Tommy Franks admitted it. Kerry told the truth. Also he listed war crimes - not "detailed".

Also, the war crimes part was less than at most 50 words in a speech - the question is how many read the speech. A WWII vet I knew actually did, and though he was pro-VNW, he understood what Kerry was talking about and came away impressed.

As to the reputation of the vets? I was a college student at the time, if there was any group likely to change their impression due to Kerry, we were it. Before, Kerry, the dominant face of the Vietnam soldier was Lt Calley (of My Lai fame, much in the news in 70-71). Can you honestly tell me, that the eloquent, serious, moral John Kerry wasn't a quantum improvement? I was a listener - I can say that MY impression improved as did my sympathy for the soldiers.

What of the young soldier who put out the Abu Ghraib pictures, was it him or the soldiers who did those things who hurt are image.

Webb is a REAGAN REPUBLICAN. Does he really fool you? Do you really support someone who had no problem with the SBVT - feeling it was karma because he hates John Kerry, who is 10000000000000000 times the man he ever will be.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

35. I believe those were war crimes not "war crimes". n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

20. It's interesting.

Everybody here rants about the swiftboating of John Kerry, then we've got people who turn around and say that it was irrelevant. It can't be both.

[karynnj]

29. No, there was swiftboating - it did hurt - at least because he had to

respond to it. The fact is that, in spite of it, he still would have won without the Bin Laden tape and the media's repition of RW memes.

Part of the response is due to his BLAMING KERRY FOR HAVING SPOKE UP, that wasn't the problem it was all the lies the SBVT distortion's of both his service and his protesting. That poster is in effect swiftboating Kerry himself.

[blm]

25. The TRUTH about his antiwar activities or the LIES about his antiwar

activities?

Because the TRUTH about his antiwar activities would NEVER hurt him, but the lies that they were used to torture POWS and the lie that Kerry led protests were spitting at vets - those made a difference - and THOSE were lies abetted by the media who will spread ANY LIE put forth by their GOP masters.

The media has even helped spin Murtha now into a radical leftist who wants to "surrender" and "cut and run" when his plan was nothing at all like that.

So, please, let's not pretend that there is any Dem who can't be spun into the exact opposite of what he is or what he has done.

[karynnj]

26. The election was so close that you can say almost any factor

caused it. In fact, there are some that have said that if he would have voted - against his conscience - for the Partial Birth Abortion ban (which didn't consider the life of the mother) or called for the minors to notify parents, he would have lost less of the Catholic vote.

Kerry's protesting was legitimate - the hatred has been stirred up by the RW for 3 decades. Look in any book on the Vietnam war protests that was published through the mid-80s, Kerry is consistently described as:

-polite, articulate, well-mannered, eloquent speaker who brought up the issue of leaving VN by leading a PEACEFUL protest of vets to DC. Kerry even got the needed permits and ran around resolving conflicts that could disturb the peace. He was invited to speak to the Senate and was complemented by everyone there - with Senator Pell expressing the hope that Kerry would be a part of the Senate at a later date. The 3 networks gave him almost 5 minutes of coverage each covering most of his speech.

_One book, mentioned that unlike the other protestors, Kerry was a boy that any parent would be proud of and then mentioned that, in fact, he was currently (sic) Massachusetts' Lt Gov.

- Many books mentioned that a very large part of the anti-war movement resented Kerry, because he was telling people to stay in the system and disputing the contentions of leftwing people that Mao or communism in general had any answers.

- Kerry left the VVAW and joined Bobby Mueller as a co-founder of VVA, which is the organization now recgnized as a veteran's group, that fought for almost every benefit the Vietnam Vets got. Kerry and Mueller and others channeled a huge number of very angry vets into the productive actions of VVA.

Kerry was following his conscience to fight against the war and for better treatment of the veterans. It was very unselfish and showed the kind of man he is. He was not going to face returning to Vietnam nor with his education, connections, intelligence and talents, did he need the help he sought for other veterans. As WEL said, he was more a hero for this than for the incredible bravery he showed in Vietnam.

Also, much of the RW hatred stems, not from this, but from the fact that Kerry's work showing that Reagan's administration allowed the Contras to bring Cocaine into this country in order to fund the contras, openned up the proof that the CIA was funding the Contras.

You are willing to support a Reagan administration official, but argue we shouldn't have nominated one of the most principled, decent, honest, intelligent, inspiring men of his generation. THe fault may have been the weak defense many Democrats gave him. Where were Webb or Clark on Iran/Contra?

[Free the Press]

9. It cost Kerry less votes than voter intimidation & disenfranchisement did.

For historically Democratic leaning precincts, how many hours did voters spend standing in lines to vote before being challenged and disqualified or being subjected to glitches and discriminant allocation of voting resources at polling sites?

For historically Republican leaning precincts, how many RNC sponsored express buses launched from churches, where pastors preached to church members to vote for *, to private and exclusive access polling stations without lines or challenges or glitches or even a lack of allocation of voting resources?

Of course some claims are well documented. Is yours?

[SaveElmer]

5. I can tell you what will happen...

He will be the most popular person on DU, until he gets elected. Then he will get the Tim Kaine treatment from many. Derision for his centrist views.

[karynnj]

34. Centrist?? What do we know about him -

Just that he was in the Reagan administration, which was pretty darn RW.

[The Magistrate]

10. All He Has To Do, Mr. Dolstein

Is defeat the Republican reptile he is pitted against, and that will be fine by me. Nothing matters but removing the Republicans from majority status in the Senate and House....

"If Hitler were to invade Hell, I would find some good thing say about the Prince of Darkness himself in the Commons next morning"

[Free the Press]

12. Certainly, all DU'ers should be happy to add Democratic Senators, but ...

It seems that the process is not exactly free from controlling forces that protect the military establishment and corporations.

That is where most of the controversy arises, IMO, here in DU.

If the Democratic Primary process was transparent, then a lot of the arguments we read every day and night here @ DU would be without any basis, IMO.

If the DLC was not so secretive and stealth in its finances, which clearly will demonstrate who it is beholden to, and its political activities, which clearly will demonstrate whose interests it is advocating on behalf of, then I dare say that most anti-DLC'ers would be without weapons of mass dissidence (WMD's).

Instead, the lack of transparency for selection of Democratic Congressional candidates by the DCCC combined with the darkness of the DLC seem more like two points in the Democratic Party's own axis of evil.

What say ye, The Magistrate?

[The Magistrate]

15. In My VIew, Sir

Much of that is irrelevant, and some of it verges on nonesense.

An old uncle of mine used to view Communists about the same way some here seem to view the Democratic Leadership Council: they were everywhere; their machinations lay behind every event; there was nothing they would not stoop to; they were ceaseless, indefatigueable in their crusade to destroy all that was good and decent, and nothing and no one, ever, anywhere, was safe from them....

The D.L.C. is simply one faction in the Democratic Party; despite the use of "leadership" in it name, it does not lead the Democratic Party, nor does it control it, nor does it dictate every action in Party political affairs. Nor does it collude with Republicans to secure Republican victories, nor is it a covert agency of the Republican Party. It is a group which thinks the best strategy for the Party is to tack towards the center and even the center-right, as a means of crippling the extreme reactionaries dominant today in the Republican Party. Whether that is a wise strategy or not is certainly a matter for debate, and sound arguments can be presented on bioth sides. The weakest element of their position is that positioning which sums up as "Me, too!" seldom succeeds, most people on the market being disposed to prefer the genuine article to the imitation. The strongest element of their position is that great proportions of the electorate are obdurate in rejecting conventional liberal and leftist rhetoric, and this being the case, new means of appeal must be found if the Party is ever to regain the sort of power it enjoyed in the period between the New Deal and Reagan.

Nor is the problem some here complain of really "transparency" in Democratic Party primaries. Rather, it is that dearly held positions often do not prevail when put to the test of actual campaigns with real rank and file Party voters participating in large numbers, combined with the belief of many who hold those positions that they are the "real" Democrats themselves. If the latter view is to be maintained, in the face of the former event, some reason to explain the defeat must be found, and it must be a reason that allows the belief of constituting the "real base" to remain firm. Hidden machinations, treachery, et al, are a natural and convenient view in such a circumstance.

[Free the Press]

16. Interesting, but Rahm Emanuel is a DLC member and Chair of the DCCC.

Further, the DCCC is primarily responsible for choosing Congressional candidates for the Democratic Party and supporting these candidates in their campaigns for election to Congress.

Therefore, the link between the DLC and the DCCC is not without concrete and verifiable evidence.

That is no conspiracy theory, and it goes directly to the arguments waged @ DU in regard to transparency in Democratic Primaries.

Rahm Emanuel has already chosen, selected, or backed candidates in at least a few races that were not popularly supported (evidenced by polling voters who will be voting in the Democratic Primaries) but whom fit into a larger DLC advocated pattern.

A pattern that is more than simply finding the best candidate for winning.

Here, I am not even attempting to dismiss the pattern as faulty, but instead demonstrating the DLC's influence over the Democratic Primary process via DLC member and point man Rahm Emanuel as he carries out his DCCC duties.

Some DU'ers believe that simply denying the pattern will explain it away.

***

Beyond the direct link between the DLC and the Chair of the DCCC (Rahm Emanuel) are legitimate questions on the financing and political activities of the DLC.

If there was no link between the DLC and the DCCC, then this would not be an important issue to me, but there is a provable link, so it is an issue.

Yet the DLC is not forthcoming.

Who are its benefactors? The DLC is not required to disclose that information because of its IRS 501(C)(4) tax-exempt organizational status.

Can it be denied that by the established link between the DLC and the DCCC that the DLC is able to control Congressional Primary candidate selection and thus the Democratic Primaries themselves?

The DLC - DCCC link doesn't make that argument go away or seem less credible.

Further, the DLC is treading on unclear legal ground, IMO, because the Republicans have been assailing the 501(C)(4) IRS tax-exempt status of the DLC since day one and have plenty of IRS decisions to refer to when making their arguments.

The Republicans cannot get that status for their political organizations, because the burden is difficult and the IRS almost always uses its discretion to disallow such status for political organizations, thus the prevalence of 527 organizations, and now the Republicans may have the winning argument that convinces the IRS to revoke the 501(C)(4) status of the DLC.

If the Republicans now demonstrate that the DLC is substantially involved in selecting and supporting candidates for federal elected offices (Congress), then the DLC itself can be brought to its knees, with the DNC caught up in the scandal, and the 2006 midterm elections could be jeopardized.

To be sure, there is more to this argument than these simple truths.

Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[The Magistrate]

17. That Is Not Evidence, Sir

Rep. Emmanuel is a fellow with an excellent reputation as a hard polotical in-fighter, gained from his days in President Clinton's administration, when he was a prominent and effective aide. His position in the Congressional campaign is a tribute to his colleague's recognition of his skills and energy. All you have to offer in this connection by way of proof for your assertion is that, like many Democratic Patry elected officials, he has signed up with one organization. That is not a link of any consequence, and so far short of proving a grand and hidden design to his exercise of Party office it hard to seriously engage it as an attempt to do so.

The rest of it boils down to no more than the fact that your judgement of what is the best course for the Party to take in slating candidates is different from that of Rep. Emmanuel. The fact that there is a difference of opinion between you two hardly establishes that his aim is to secure defeat for the Party, or to stifle the will of the Party's membership, or any other similar and nefarious thing. With all due respect, Sir, if it were necessary for me to secure political advice on some pressing matter touching my own welfare, my inclination would be to seek out Rep. Emmanuel rather than you to supply that advice.

[Free the Press]

18. Correction: I have not said Rahm's choices are wrong! DLC linked, yes!

There is quite a difference.

My position on the candidates, which is evidenced in this forum in numerous threads, has not been to state that the choices that Rahm Emanuel is making are wrong.

Instead, I have pointed out the circumstances surrounding his decisions as DCCC Chair and raised red flags because of the appearance of a lack of transparency for the Democratic Primaries due to Rahm Emanuel's membership to the DLC.

Also, I have raised red flags about the DLC's protection from disclosure on its political activities and financing that result from the benefit of it having IRS 501(C)(4) tax-exempt status, as a result of this appearance of a lack of transparency in the Democratic Primaries.

Additionally, I raised flags because the DLC IS NOT allowed to conduct substantial activities in support of federal candidates for elected office, as a result of it having IRS 501(C)(4) tax-exempt status.

***

As far as my "evidence," I didn't offer evidence.

I only stated the readily observable truth about Rahm Emanuel, the DCCC, the DLC, and the candidates.

Evidence can only be obtained by power of subpoena served upon the DLC or by IRS revocation of the DLC's 501(C)(4) tax-exempt status, because the DLC is under no obligation to disclose its specific activities and contributors in public filings.

***

I merely detailed how and why that might occur, and acknowledged a real effort on the part of the Republican Party to achieve that end.

***

Is Rahm Emanuel the first DLC member to become chair of the DCCC?

If not, then kindly advise me of who the previous DLC member - DCCC Chair was, and blow my argument out of the water.

If so, then kindly recognize that my argument reflects the new relationship.

[The Magistrate]

23. Since, Sir, You Acknowledge Having Presented No Evidence

There is no reason to take the proposition seriously. The gentleman in question is a member of many organizations, as all politicians are, and you could as readily allege his actions are "linked" to any of them. Unless one begins with the idea that this particular organization is some sort of nefarious engine, his membership in it will not be seen as having any signifigance or "proving" any particular influence on his actions.

Nor do the private or professional actions of some particular member of an organzation demonstrate that organization, as a corporate entity, is engaged such action. You are a member of Democratic Underground, but if you cheat on your taxes, that hardly demonstrates Democratic Underground is an organ involved in tax fraud, and would hardly justify calls for investigation of this Forum and its Administrators to find out if that were so. You do not have even a prima facia basis for claiming the D.L.C. is engaged in acts in support of candidates for Federal office, as these are defined by the law.

[Free the Press]

24. Rahm Emanuel should quit the DLC. Then the DLC - DCCC link will cease.

Then the Democratic Party Primaries transparency issue will cease.

Then the DLC's 501(C)(4) status will not be jeopardized.

If not, I predict that the DLC - DCCC link will come back to haunt the Democratic Party, the DLC, and Rahm Emanuel.

[dolstein]

13. Love the quote -- Churchill, right?

NT

[The Magistrate]

14. Indeed, Mr. Dolstein

The man had a way with a phrase....

[RogueTrooper]

19. Good to see you back dolstein

:hi:

I hope he wins.

[Armstead]

22. I don;t know anything about Webb, but I do like those four points

>>>>Refocusing America's foreign and defense policies in a way that truly protects our national interests and seeks harmony where they are not threatened.

Repairing the country's basic infrastructure, which has eroded badly over the past decade, and developing more creative ways to assist disaster-stricken areas such as those in New Orleans and along the Gulf coast.

Reinstituting notions of true fairness in American society, including issues of race, class, and economic advantage; and

Restoring the Constitutional role of the Congress as an equal partner, reining in the unbridled power of the Presidency.<<<

Of course the devil is always in the details, but Points 2 and 3 especially COULD be the basis of a program that many "centrists" and liberals/progressives can united behind IF there is actual beef there.

What IMO has been the largest gaping hole innthe democratic Party over the last 30 years has been a lack of REAL emphasis on those points. "True Fairness" is what has been missing because the notion of "Winner Take All" has been shoved down the country's throat by the CONservatives.

Likewise, the infrastructire has been neglected, sold off and privatized.

If Webb really means it, and really intends to support it with real proposals, I think a lot of those on the more liberal and progressive side could certainly get behind that.

[globalvillage]

30. He seems like a real jerk to me

Webb STILL links to his anti-Kerry articles and interviews from the front page of his website.

By contrast, Kerry's leadership of Vietnam Veterans Against the War is not only fair game; it speaks to legitimate issues of loyalty, and his actions at that time are the true core of this dispute.
http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/NPR/npr8%2024%2004.htm

To be sure, Kerry deserves condemnation for his activities as the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (WAW).

http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/variouspubs/usatoday.htm

And yet, he condemns others for doing the same

After all, in recent years extremist Republican operatives have inverted a longstanding principle: that our combat veterans be accorded a place of honor in political circles. This trend began with the ugly insinuations leveled at Senator John McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries and continued with the slurs against Senators Max Cleland and John Kerry, and now Mr. Murtha.

http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/recent_articles.htm

Change of heart, or just shifting loyalties for his own purposes? If he's had an epiphany, why doesn't he take that crap off the front page of his site?

His opponent (Harris Miller) looks like a good Dem. Why support a republican Swift Boat enabler when there appears to be a real Democrat running against him? What do we know about Miller? Does he have a shot?