The Washington Post gets it wrong
A postscript to the Allen-Webb campaign in Virginia
By Chad Dotson Posted in 2006 — Comments (137) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
With all the intrigue following the extremely close US Senate race in Virginia, I didn't want this article by Robert Barnes in the Washington Post to escape our attention. Now that George Allen has conceded that race to Jim Webb, Republicans in Virginia and elsewhere are trying to figure out what happened. The analysis provided by the WashPost is, frankly, shallow and misses the mark.
Barnes suggests that changing demographics in Northern Virginia is what did in George Allen. Well, NoVa certainly didn't help the Allen campaign, but there were other, more important factors.
Read on...
If the Washington Post had taken the time to give even a cursory look at the statewide numbers, they would have seen bad signs across the state. Allen ran behind President Bush's 2004 numbers in key precincts across the entire state, not just in Northern Virginia. In some cases, Allen ran behind the numbers of last year's gubernatorial nominee, Jerry Kilgore.
This demonstrates a fundamental weakness in the candidate himself. Running behind Bush and Kilgore's numbers in key precincts was a sign that the campaign just didn't make the case, and that's what caused Allen's loss. It's a stretch to blame NoVa for deciding the election.
I'm a big fan of George Allen. He has served Virginia with distinction as a state legislator, a Congressman, a Governor, and as a US Senator. He was brought down by the nastiest smear campaign in Virginia history, and his opponent -- who seems on the surface to be an honorable man -- did nothing to stop his campaign from tarring an honorable public servant.
That said, Allen certainly didn't help himself. His campaign made one misstep after another, and they never got themselves on track. The accusation that Allen was looking toward 2008 before taking care of his 2006 business deserves a close look.
But he should have won this race...even in a year in which Republicans were going down to defeat everywhere. Everywhere except Virginia, that is. All eight of Virginia's incumbent GOP Representatives won re-election. All of them, including Rep. Thelma Drake, who defeated her Democratic challenger, Phil Kellam, in one of the few very close races across the country in which a Republican emerged the victor. On top of that, the marriage amendment on Virginia's ballot passed with a very strong margin.
Allen's campaign, unfortunately, has only itself to blame for this loss. I don't want to minimize the challenges that the Republican Party faces in Northern Virginia, which are significant. As a friend said to me, however, blaming the loss on demographic change is a cop-out. Even in a terrible year for Republicans, after running a bad campaign and being the target of a nasty smear campaign, Allen still held Jim Webb beneath the levels that Democrat Gov. Tim Kaine reached in NoVa just last year.
After waging a zealous campaign to unseat Allen, don't expect the Washington Post to notice that their own analysis of the victory is superficial. After all, having seen the "coverage" they gave this year's Senate race, it's clear that the WaPo likes the idea of a "blue" Virginia.
The Commonwealth isn't blue just yet, folks.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | The Needed Reagan Revolution Redux . . . And Those Who Fight It — Comments (26) »
The Washington Post gets it wrong 137 Comments (0 topical, 137 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
to be rather anemic.
I sometimes wonder if he wasn't over confident in a victory, and didn't take Webb seriously until he had already stepped in the doo doo numerous times.
I also think Webb was a palatable alternative. Webb isn't a liberal, and he is more conservative than some of the GOP senators. So he was an acceptable alternative to moderates and dissatisfied republicans, because he holds some fairly conservative opinions.
What is going to be interesting is to see if he lines up and toes Harry Reid's party line, or if he bucks the party on issues he supports but they don't. In general I find the democrat party discipline to be heads and tails ahead of the GOP, so in the end I am not too convinced Reid will be as tolerant of the mavericks than Frist was.
That would be DemocratIC party, if you don't mind terribly, Senator McCarthy.
JM, it will also be interesting to see if the Sun rises in the west tomorrow. Please prepare yourself for the inevitable by trying to think of any democrat in the past 30 years that has broken with their party on more than the occasional isolated vote. I worry about you when I see all this misplaced hope in a dem or dems that campaign as conservatives. Southern dems have been doing that my whole life and lying thru their teeth. The only time they kept faith was when Reagan scared the s**t out of them. To be a democrat is to be a corrupt liar.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
the party, so your point is taken, although I did say that I thought it could go either way, mostly because the democrats have party discipline mastered much better than the GOP ever could.
Reid did a pretty good job of keeping his senators corralled over the last 4 years, I don't expect him to do differently, I just don't expect Webb to be a guy easily corralled if he doesn't want to be. I also think the direction the dems are going to take aren't going to provide too many "maverick" opportunities anyway, because the Dem's agenda seems to be focusing on things where Webb is already on the same page.
I think Nancy has already started to herd her cats, but I suspect if there are any little rebellions among the democrats it may be in the house rather than the senate.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
...I think it's folly to use Tim Kaine and Jerry Kilgore's race as a barometer. One, Virginia--like most states--takes a different approach to state elections than to federal ones. That's why Virginia, Wyoming, and Oklahoma have Democratic governors and Rhode Island, Connecticut, and California have Republican governors.
Two, Allen should always have held Webb under Kaine's totals. Allen was, at the beginning, a widely-liked incumbent on the path to a coronation. Kilgore was not an incumbent and ran a campaign that rivaled Mark Earley's and Don Beyer's in its utter inability to appeal to Virginia voters.
Demographics were only part of it--I suspect those seven letters uttered by the Senator at Breaks Interstate Park will haunt him for some time--but demographics were a big part still. And those demographics don't excuse Senator Allen's campaign. They failed to account for the fact that the Fairfax County that Republicans could often carry is now deep blue. They further failed to account for the fact that Prince William and Loudoun Counties are deep purple. Demographics are important to grasp, but mostly insofar as they are accounted for in campaign strategy. Loudoun County is the richest county in America, and Fairfax isn't far behind. Why wasn't Allen there talking about taxes?
The NYC metropolitan area is the wealthiest in the nation, and it's also the biggest concentration of moonbats on the planet.
Some very smart thinkers have suggested that the capitalist system carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. The evidence seems to bear that out.
Although the wealthiest counties (Hunterdon, followed by Morris and Somerset) in the NY metro area are also more conservative counties.
They voted for Kean in the last election. That makes them a bit more conservative than the state as a whole, but not neccessarily bastions of Reaganism.
NJ has nine of the top 100 counties in the US in terms of income, and the other six voted for Mendendez.
If you look at the states with the highest per capita income in the country, all of those over $40,00/yr are Democratic strongholds. Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.
And of course there are many politically active billionaires who are pretty far to the left.
...but taxes, along with growth and raods would have played very well in Loudoun. Senator Allen campaigned like this was the same exurban Loudoun County that gave him a 15-pt margin six years ago. It's not. Scores of liberal Arlingtonians, Alexandrians, and Fairfax residents moved out to Loudoun in recent years because housing was scarce and unaffordable in the aforementioned jurisdictions. They were replaced by other left-leaning transients. George Allen never accounted for this demographic shift.
In 2000, incumbent Democratic Senator, former governor, and native son Chuck Robb barely carried Fairfax 52-48. Six years later, political newcomer James Webb crushed incumbent Republican Senator and former governor George Allen 59-40. Allen's 15-pt winning margin in Loudoun County and his eight point margin in Prince William County in the 200 race, changed to roughly two point deficits in each county this time around.
that he needed to tack left. But I gather that he tried to do that and was excoriated by those who have the mental image of VA as a conservative bastion etched into their brain.
Traffic and growth management don't really have a necessary ideological bias.
More than left or right, he needed to sell them on George Allen. The George Allen who cut taxes, abolished parole, and who has a plan to manage NoVA's traffic-choked roads and exurban development.
That assumes he had a plan for those things. If he did, I never heard it. I did hear how Webb's critically acclaimed fiction had some nasty verbage and how he wasn't exactly a ladies man. Somehow, that didn't quite do the trick. In this regard, his campaign failed him, because if I was new to Virginia, I would never have known much about Senator Allen's long record of service to this great commonwealth or his plan for the next Congress.
to deal with choked roads and exurban development? How much did you hear about that? Or was it all "George Felix Allen" and the deer head he stuffed in a mailbox?
I did hear how Webb's critically acclaimed fiction
You people seem obsessed with that. Did you vote for Webb?
I didn't hear anything from Webb on it, as Webb ran a lackluster, issues-free campaign. And yeah, there was a lot of noise about "Felix" and the deer head and the supposed use of the N-word, and other unadulterated crap unworthy of a Virginia campaign. That doesn't change the poor campaign of Senator Allen.
This is not praise of Webb, it is criticism of Allen. Webb must have made some sort of Faustian bargain, because he didn't win as much as Allen lost. But Webb was able to run an issue-free campaign because George Allen failed to discuss issues and had a bad tide against him and a bad campaign. When the campaign got off of issues, it was "macaca" and the N-word, and the deer head, and all the other crap that Allen's folks just didn't know how to respond to. I further submit that they were blindsided by the Washington Post too.
The fiction bit was just a dumb attack. I don't know why suggesting its stupidity somehow transforms me into a Webbite.
That's the mentality that dooms the Republican party. You don't see the Democrats engage in that sort of thinking.
Ted Kennedy is a homicidal, lecherous old sot who owns his own oil company and hides his money in off-shore accounts. None of which is of the slightest interest to Democratic voters because he is a reliable voice and vote for liberal issues.
We are the opposite. We often seem a lot less interested in a man's stands on the issues than in his character, or what we think we discern of his character. On balance, the Democrats have the more sensible and pragmatic approach.
I'm tired of folks saying that caring about urban and suburban issues is "tacking left." These issues are essential to the functioning of a metro area and need to be managed in a fiscally sound manner.
If done right, a transportation system will pay for itself. (You need to consider both the direct revenues from fares, etc. in addition to the revenue generated from the local economic growth that is enabled.) More often, however, both road and railway projects are "welfare on wheels."
And a really untenable portion of the conservative moment. The current libertarian viewpoint on infrastructure roads and planning always reminds me of AI research in the 50's, back then they thought if computers got fast enough they just might wake up. Libertarians feel if you just let people do what they want you will get a working infrastructure. It just isn't so.
It's been a while since anyone called me a libertarian. But I'll don that hat for a moment and note that local transportation issues are just that - local. I would prefer it if US senators did not involve themselves in "infrastructure roads and planning".
(With apologies to Al D'Amato.)
All roads toll roads. ETC ETC ETC. Someone needs to remind the libertarians that if you chose not to decide you still have made a choice. (With all credit to Rush, the band not the pundit)
Public transportation is fine, with the proper goals. The trouble is that the business of running some local mass transportation district, Amtrak, toll authority, etc. tends to be self-perpetuating. They resist the introduction of private competition either by keeping their prices artificially low, or by political pressure. They claim they'll go out of business if they don't get this subsidy or that exemption, or if a competitor is allowed into their market.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
Ten years ago Republicans could count on Virginia Beach delivering a big plurality. Kaine won VB and Mark Warner came close (I don't think he carried it). Allen carried VB but not only by a few thousand votes.
Republicans need to fight hard for Virginia Beach. If it turns Blue and Loudon, Prince William and Stafford all go blue then it will be tough to carry the Commonwealth.
Virginia Beach went 54-46 for Allen in 2000, it went 52-46 for Allen this time. A bit of a drop, but hardly a major one.
Virginia will always be a different story on the state level than the federal one. Tim Kaine carried Virginia Beach, Staunton, Harrisonburg, Danville, and Henrico County, none of which Jim Webb carried.
Allen carried Harrisonburg, but barely (a hundred votes I think). Same with Staunton. The fact is the Democrats are now more competitive in the Shenandoah Valley towns, including Winchester, which Kaine also carried (I think) and Allen barely carried. But these places are all small and not that key anyway.
True, the shift in Virginia Beach was not big. I'm just saying that if Republicans continue to lose ground in Virginia Beach (Kaine, Mark Warner and Webb all did well there vis-a-vis recent history) then Virginia will become basically a 50-50 state, assuming the trends in NOVA continue.
Its tough to win the state if all the highly populated areas vote against you or are split. The only highly populated areas that remain solidly Republican are the Richmond suburbs. I don't see that changing any time soon.
the fact that Webb is not at all a typical Democrat, in fact in some ways he is to the right of Allen, and you can conclude that the election involved a contest between two conservatives, and Virginians chose (very narrowly) one they thought was just a bit more capable of representing their views in Washington.
I believe that the national democrats don't quite realize yet just how conservative is thier junior senator from Virginia.
Still, despite the extent to which Allen was beat up by the media, it's also true that his team ran a horrible campaign. The attacking web for writing naughty fiction stuff, I think, was the final nail in the coffin. I've always liked Gillespie quite a bit and it was painful for me to watch him pursue that dopey line of attack. I'm convinced that if it had any effect at all, the effect was favorable towards Webb.
-exits
If Allen had written those passages he would have had to step down. It was perhaps naive of the Allen campaign to think that the same standards applied to both Republicans and Democrats.
What cost Allen his seat was the right wing media. For two months before the election you could not read NRO, American Spectator, or any other outlet on the right and not get a huge dose of anti-Allen sentiment. You can't tell me that did not cost him several thousand votes, and the GOP the Senate. The day before the election I encountered an anti-Allen utube video at American Spectator.
I actually wrote an email to the Corner a month ago, asking them how stupid they would feel if Allen lost by a narrow margin and cost us the Senate, in an effort to get them to help elect the guy instead of helping defeat him.
We truly deserve to be called the Stupid Party.
To run statewide. In 1993 governor's race he ran against Mary Sue Terry, an incredibly weak candidate who advocated gun control, a killer position in Va. In 2000 Allen ran against Chuck Robb, who had barely staved off Ollie North in 94 and six years later Robb was definitely past his sell-by date. All Allen had to do was kick in the door. I suspect he was expecting another cakewalk. Oops.
Of course. And the same applies for Talant. And Burns. And Santorum.
Better candidates are not the cure for what ails the GOP. Better "pundits" and smarter voters are.
...are the problem is doomed to defeat.
Burns was on borrowed time. He says intolerant and stupid nonsense, and was the unfortunate recipient of tainted campaign dollars. I don't think his campaign was that bad--he almost pulled it out. I do think he was a bad incumbent in a bad year.
Talent, IMO, was caught up in a partisan wave in a competitive state. I would blame part of it on stem cells, but McCaskill outperformed the yes vote on that ballot measure.
And we are the problem.
We are the voters who fall into a faint if our candidates are not as perfect as we demand them to be. Meanwhile the Democrats march to the polls to vote into office people under investigation by the FBI. See Mendendez in NJ.
In a democracy, the ultimate responsibilty rests with the voters. They get the government they deserve. Our voters need to stop obsessing about whether they personally like the guy asking them for his vote. For all their faults the Democrats are far smarter and more sophisticated voters than we are in that respect. All they are interested in is in getting their party into power, nothing more. If you suggested to them that they not vote for their guy because of some incident in his past they would rightly laugh in your face.
This whole "cult of personality" on the right needs to end. It's not about the person, it's about the agenda.
Because their agenda is organized and massive corruption. So if you tell them a candidate is a corrupt crook its practically a recommendation. Whereas our agenda is a clean and limited government.
We have the harder road to travel.
when we reject people for any blemish on their record, regardless of whether they are corrupt or not.
I don't see how that advances conservatism. Too many people on our side want certain policies but also don't want to elect the people who will provide those policies.
We ask our candidates to go against the natural flow. Washington is in the robinhood business. They take from anyone who has anything and give it to people that will vote for them, keeping a sizable percentage for themselves. This especially true in entitlement/safetynet net programs.
So when we send someone to Washington to go against the tide. The first thing they will do is PO a lot of voters. This will not improve their chances for reelection. In other words we are asking our people to put principle ahead of personal expediency and privilege. Thats a tough demand. I'm not saying someone with a checkered past can't do it, just that they are much less likely to.
is George Allen.
He has been a solid conservative, and has stood up to the Washington pressure fairly well. As with just about any solid conservative, he has been smeared relentlessly. He is not the first its happened to and he won't be the last as long as its a tactic which works for the left.
You can't tell me that we would not be a thousand times better off with Allen in the Senate. He's not there because enough of our people allowed themsleves to be convinced that he is not a good person, and they work from the assumption that being a good person is a prime consideration in a candidate. I believe they were wrong on both counts, and that the responsibility for being wrong rests with the individual citizen.
About the only thing I know about the campaign is the Macacca incident. A word I have tried to find using the internet and the OED and not come up with a definition. But I can't believe the smear turned off republicans so much as it did swing voters. I have seen no one on this site saying Allen shouldn't have run. I have seen people say he screwed up his campaign.
Another person who suffered relentless attacks from what was supposedly her own side. Some of the stories on her here at RS would not have been out of place at Kos.
Blaming the candidates is a mistake. We as a party did everything in our power to lose this election. I've never seen such pointless, self-destructive behavior. That needs to change before '08 rolls around. Next time we need to support our people rather than rip them to shreds.
They need to be brutal after that they get our loyalty and then if they don't toe the line in office boot them out in the primary.
He is a very good example of the hold your nose and vote republican philosophy. Is Arlen spector advancing our agenda ?
Chafee didn't have scandal blemishes; he's just a liberal dullard. The grandparent post was talking about scandal blemishes, not liberalism. Chafee often voted with the Dems, which is by definition a lot worse, from a party point of view.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
He was also talking about cults of personality and not supporting people we don't like to advance our agenda. Chafee is someone that a lot republicans didn't like but was supported to promote the agenda. I submit it was a loser either way.
For me the republican party has always been, law, order, and justice. This is part of what I perceive as the agenda. So scandal blemishes for me are anti the agenda. Mark Foley, is the illustration of my point. He wrote a lot of good law but he wasn't living up to the standards.
Could you vote for Foley given his record and his blemish ?
I'm not asking we select saints. I am sure not going to hold hanky panky, a divorce or anything of that ilk against anyone.
But on the subject of agenda. We really need to make certain that the people we send to Washington have our agenda as their own. Everyone we send will have another agenda as well. You really don't want to send people whose conservative agenda is at best a secondary thing and at worst justthe product they are selling.
Then you had a president and a house of representatives that didn't read the agenda.
Bush may talk the talk about limited government, but his administration has moved aggressively to expand the powers of the executive branch.
The House of Representatives managed to get 2 guilty pleas, an indictment, and a nice little underage sex scandal. Add this to spending tax dollars like a drunken sailor, it qualifies neither as clean nor limited.
Wick
but we also know that your side is filled with hatred and misinformation.
The powers of the executive branch were not expanded. The most you can say is that they were freed from bureaucratic entanglement. Why should the CIA not tell the local city police department that a terror cell is living at 117 Pine Street, driving a tan Land Cruiser, and may be prone to spouse abuse?
As far as the House goes, I'll take the guilty pleas (and resignations) and a phony politically motivated indictment (Delay) over DUI (Kennedy), battery on policemen (McKinney), and William Jefferson (D-LA) caught on tape taking a bribe and storing the money in his freezer.
The Republicans expel members who commit crimes, while the Democrats cover up for them.
As far as underage sex, to whom are you referring? Surely not Mark Foley, whose unseemly and unethical flirting with subordinates, as I understand it, took place only with those of voting age.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
Hmmm. Nice of you to assume that I have a side. Everyone who criticizes your posts is obviously a wild eyed liberal filled with hatred.
What language in my post convinced you that I was "filled with hatred." I thought my tone was pretty measured. It's not like I suggested that a Supreme Court justice should be given rat poison. It was a joke, but it was not exactly filled with compassion. Neither side has a monopoly on hate speech. In fact, both sides use way too much.
I am conservative on some things, not so conservative on others. Like millions of people, I don't find that either political party fits my beliefs particularly well.
Speaking if misinformation, where in the name of all that is holy did you come up with the idea that anyone was demanding that "the CIA not tell the local city police department that a terror cell is living at 117 Pine Street, driving a tan Land Cruiser, and may be prone to spouse abuse?"
Do you have anything resembling a source for this? To my knowledge, no one is claiming any such thing. With all due respect, if you think surveillance without a warrant is a good thing, then you are not an advocate for limited government. I personally think upholding the constitution is conservative.
On to the house. First of all, I am not going to defend Jefferson. He should be in jail, and, hopefully, will be soon. Nor will I defend Ted Kennedy.
Tom Delay's indictment may or may not hold up, but, at the very least, he was performing an end run around Texas election law.
As far as republicans expelling members, that's why Bob Ney was expelled immediately upon indictment . . . not so much. He didn't resign until a month and a half after he plead guilty. 2 days after his guilty plea, Boehner, in response to a Chris Wallace question on Fox News, declined to call for his resignation. Transcript follows:
WALLACE: On this same subject, this week Congressman Bob Ney, one of your Republican colleagues in the House, agreed to plead guilty to influence-peddling. Now, he has stepped down as chairman; he’s still a member of Congress.
This is a man who is basically admitting that he sold his vote. Should he spend another day in the House?
BOEHNER: Bob Ney clearly admitted to making some big mistakes. And he’s going to pay dearly for the mistakes that he’s admitted to.
But he’s also checked himself in for alcohol abuse. And right now my prayers are with him and his family. It’s a sad day for the Congress and a sad day for Bob Ney.
WALLACE: Should he resign from the House?
BOEHNER: That’s a decision that he and his family are going to have to make.
Not exactly expelling the law breaker.
There is also plenty of evidence that House Leadership had red flags about Foley long before his story broke. Incidently, I was using the word sex in it's broader sense. I happen to think that talking dirty to underage boys is sexual in nature. Incidently, the page to whom Foley was IMing was 16, not of voting age as you claim.
As far as DUIs, given that the President of the United States has a DUI, I would suggest you don't want to go there.
Evil men should not
about the wall Jamie Georelick helped create during the Clinton years that prohibited the CIA and FBI from talking to each other.
Although I am pretty sure that wall has been torn down, and I am not sure that anyone is proposing it be restored not even Nancy Pelosi, but I admit I haven't done any kind of research on specific positions on this one.
Supposedly this has been fixed with another level of beauracracy and Pelosi has said she wants to implement the rest of the 9-11 commission recommendations so I will say that she at least does't seem keen on restoring the wall.
"It's not about the person, it's about the agenda."
This is exactly what I told my thirties kids, too busy parents to pay close attention day to day. They heard the scandalous news sometimes on TV, then needed explanations why to vote GOP. I told them agenda: Can't trust Dems to defend this country, ACLU, Judges, traditional values, the country you grew up in. All that is what is on the line. I have to talk fast to busy people.
To me GOP represents the true believers in high standards, character, right and wrong, nuclear families etc. That is why when one of ours in the GOP goes astray, the MSM and Dems can beat us to a pulp with it. They don't have to worry, they don't really care about character. But they will profess to be shocked! if a Republican "sins" because we loudly proclaim and want high standards.
How do we teach high standards and when we have a problem with someone in our party not meeting our high standards during a critical election year, "fall into a faint" as you so aptly put it that we can't see the forest for the trees?
I think we need some full time GOP media arm or we'll just get beaten down every time.
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
The Dems sold their electorate on fixing healthcare and sosec as issues. Their agenda was to keep selling the same problem and never actually fixing it. This is something that is horribly obvious to me because of personal reasons. If you select people because of expediency hoping they will advance your agenda make damn sure you have your thumb on them HARD !!!!
You are right. They have been milking this for years. That is why I think we need a constant (as opposed to just campaign cycle) education/PR/all media types to counter the Mainstream Misinformation Media that is the monster that we are up against.
No one wants any rats to get through, but there has to some big picture (DEFEND THE COUNTRY AGAINST PEOPLE WHO HATE AND WANT TO DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE) choices.
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
Burns was probably the only Republican that Tester could have beaten. For all of the anti-GOP sentiment in the nation this cycle, and despite all of the progress made by the state Democratic party in Montana, Burns managed to close and only lose by few thousand votes.
It makes one sick to ponder how Congressman Rehberg would likely have held this seat easily had Burns gotten out of the way for him.
I think I heard a blurb on the radio that there was suspiscion that the dems brought in a large number of out of staters speaking with broken english that registered on Election day?
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
looking for something on this after we spoke, but cannot find anything about it!
It is safe to bet that we won't hear anything about it in the MSM, even if it is true, so the internet is our only reasonable source to find out!
of blacks in 2006 after three straight elections in which they reported that the KKK wing of the GOP had prevented blacks from voting? It seems they would want to take credit for deterring the Grand Wizard!
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Webb was a very palatable alternative to Allen. Webb is anything but a left leaning democrat. He is probably more conservative than several current GOP senators and at least one that lost.
Like I said above, one of the more interesting things to watch over the next few years will be how Reid corrals Webb and if Webb opts to toe the party line. I suspect that the democrats have a maverick on their hands, although my one caveat is that the democrats have long seemed to have party discipline down to a real art and are much better at it than the GOP, so it is possible that by the time Webb gets sworn in on Jan 3 he will already be towing the line.
The Dems managed to hang together pretty well this year, but usually trying to get them in line them is like herding cats. What Will Rogers said about them* way back is still true today. And when the Dems are in power they act like prima donnas all singing from their own personal songbook. Bill Clinton (who was a skilled politician) had more success working with the GOP Congress (and with Republicans in the earlier Dem Congress before 1994). Jimmy Carter (an inept politician) got nothing from his Democrat Congress at all. Only LBJ had any real luck in that chore, and he was a former congressional power-baron (and a thorough-going son-of-a-know-what) who knew just how to crack the whip.
* "I don't belong to an organized party; I'm a Democrat"
or majority control.
As the minority party the democrats had party discipline down-they managed to trample and stifle a lot of stuff-it especially showed up with regards to judges and even in things like the absence of vouchers from the education bill. They were of course helped by our onw parties mavericks, but the democrats really stuck together.
But I suspect you may be right that the democrats with power may have more problem with the discipline-since they are now in charge of the agenda rather than opposing it.
I still think the democrats have better party discipline than the GOP-even when they are the party in power, but maybe my memories of the 80's and early 90's are dimmer.
Webb may be more conservative that the typical Democrat, but he has two planks that will mesh perfectly with the path that the Democrats appear to be taking over the next few years:
Economic Populism
This country is splitting into three pieces. As a result of the internationalization of the economy, the people at the top have never had it so good. The middle class is continuing to get squeezed by stagnant wages and rising cost of living. And we are in danger of creating a permanent underclass. We must reexamine our tax and trade policies and reinstitute notions of fairness, and also enforce our existing trade laws so that free trade becomes fair trade.
The testing and accountability included in No Child Left Behind are a good first step. Teachers and school districts must have access to the resources that are needed to implement the mandates placed on states by the No Child Left Behind law. It is vital that Congress fully fund the mandates of No Child Left Behind.
Jim believes that all Americans deserve access to some form of quality health care. Health care legislation should focus on providing people access to health care, not simply on corporate profits. Reforming the Medicare prescription drug benefit should be a priority. The plan is a step in the right direction, but the benefit is confusing to consumers. By preventing Medicare from negotiating a discount the cost of the program is excessively high.
There are many challenges facing Americans today: an unpopular war, skyrocketing health care costs, a shrinking job market and rising inequality in society.
Changing Course in Iraq:
First and foremost is Iraq. Iraq is in a crisis that we must address now in order to make progress on all other security matters. The invasion of Iraq was a double strategic blunder. First, it was a diversion from, not a response to, the war against international terrorism. Second, it has tied down our military in a costly occupation, fighting an insurgency that has strengthened not only the Shia population of Iraq, but also Iran itself. America needs – and deserves – a real debate: about all these issues, and about our strategy in Iraq itself.
We should not build permanent bases in Iraq. If we’re leaving, we don’t need them, and it sends the wrong message. In the short term, we could move our troops out of the country but within the region – strong possibilities could be Jordan and Kuwait. This would give us the ability to contain the terrorist threat within Iraq without continuing our occupation. From there, we could then bring them home when we’re sure the withdrawal is working. Congress should make sure of this by banning any expenditure for permanent bases in Iraq.
Sorry for all the giant blockquotes, but this is the platform that Webb ran on, and I think it is important to note that on the two big issues that will be facing the government over the next couple of years, he is pretty clearly in the Democrat's camp. He has, no doubt, conservative views on many topics, but calling him a conservative (as least by the RedState defintition of "conservative") probably isn't particularly accurate.
the majority of his party, and is more so than some of the elected congress members of the GOP. Basically-he doesn't fit in with the Harry Reid's or the Nancy Pelosi's-in some areas he does, but in others he doesn't.
He is absolutely going to either play maverick or toe the party line, and I am curious to see which one he does-his personality to me makes me think he would have fun playing maverick, but it is hard to say in this climate.
That's a problem that the majority always has. Because the only way you can get a majority in the current climate is to end up with some members that are really, really close to your opposition. There's no way that full-blown conservative is going to win in Maine and there is no way that a full-blown liberal is going to win in Virginia.
The trick is for the party leaders to make smart decisions on the kinds of bills to bring to the floor, to make sure that the conservative-Democrats don't get put into the position of choosing between the party and their values.
It certainly appears as though the big issues that Democrats are going to be working on are Iraq and economic fairness/equality. Pretty much all of the "conservative" Democrats that won appear to be in agreement with their party on these issue (or, at least, close enough to not make much difference from a conservative perspective).
had a higher ACU vote analysis rating than the lowest rated republican? ZERO
That's right, no democrat was more conservative than ven Lincoln Chafee.
What conservative democrat means is that they have a drawl and thats all...
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/374d9ac6-55fb-4d66-a872-e93ed4b1d14a
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Here is the ACU rating for the Senate for 2005.
Note that Linc Chafee had a rating of 37. Olympia Snowe only got a 50. Arlen Specter - 45.
Ben Nelson rated a 53.
The gist of your point may be true - that "conservative" as applied to Democrats is not at all conservative, but it's not true that every Republican was more conservative than the most conservative Democrat (in fact, as seen above, Ben NElson beat 3 of our members).
There have been years when what I said was true. I have followed this subject closely over the years having been a democrat and trying to convert others to the GOP after my 6/2001 epiphany!
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
is conservative for ours. He isn't going to be a Rick Santorum or even a John Sununu. But he will be the democrats Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe or John McCain (McCain may actually be the better comparison, since McCain is a solid conservative on some issues, but a little rebel on others).
Although depending on the agenda, it may be a while before he gets to play maverick, unless he is a John McCain type and wants the attention. But I don't think the democrats are dumb, they are likely only going to touch the agenda for the next couple of years that allows them to march in lock step.
Where I think Webb may in the end play maverick, is if the investigations start turning into perpetual hearings to "get" the president. Why? Because all those hearings are not going to make the WOT or the war in Iraq better-and likely will lower moral for the troops (this is where the democrats really do have a chance to turn Iraq into Vietnam), I can see the Webb types start saying "enough is enough, shut up already." But outside of that, most likely we are going to see bills for raising the minimum wage and the dems want to attach a COLA to it-which I doubt is going to fly-and I imagine business will fight the cola, but who knows. Webb will vote for that, and our president has pretty much already said he would sign it. After that they will probably make the medicare drug bill that they accused the GOP of making too expensive even more expensive. Then we will see.
is approaching these issues (and they are legitimate problems)from a conservative POV. Iraq has been disastrously mishandled; denial on that will not fly. And there are some serious socioeconomic dislocations in this country. IMO, conservatives need to get their heads out of the sand and start addressing these issues too. Have you read any of the works by Ross Douthat and Reihan Salem? They basically argue that the GOP needs to start looking out for the interests of "Sam's Club Republicans" rather than acting like the stereotypical party of country-club Repubicans.
Thomas Franks' resort to explanation by false consciousness weakens his argument. That said, his observation that Republicans use populist values issues like abortion and guns to gain votes from Kansas (and Tennessee, and Virginia, etc.), then pay those issues lip service when in government in favor of economic policies that primarily benefit the wealthy is right on target.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth
But I think you'd be hard pressed to find a more liberal current Republican Senator. I guess Specter or Collins maybe. Webb is against gun-control, but he's pro-choice and for civil unions for gays. And as far as I can tell he for the tax-the-wealthy approach to governance. He's for affirmative-action, although he keeps chaning his rationale. Anyway, the idea that Webb is a conservative is nuts. He's definitely no Ted Kennedy, but he ain't Rick Santorum. He isn't even John McCain.
are pretty much a moderate, mainstream position these days. Our incoming governor (Charlie Crist) has pronounced himself in favor of them, and even President Bush accepted the notion back in the closing days of 2004.
On Webb's socioeconomic POV I think we need to hear more before concluding he is a typical tax-and-spend liberal. There is a also conservative critique of the country's current situation in this area, and there should be a conservative program to ameliorate it.
...if they are imposed by the Courts, as in NJ and Vermont, and as I think Anthony Kennedy would do to the entire nation. Court imposition of any recognition of same-sex unions is in no way 'moderate', as the courts have no legitimate say in the matter. Therefore, any such action by the courts should be opposed.
Otherwise you are correct about overall national public opinion. I don't get the whole 'gay marriage-no, gay marriage in all but name-yes' position, but many do hold it. Still, let's not forget that the majority of the popularly-approved state marriage amendments also banned such civil unions. Only Arizona has rejected such a comprehensive amendment, and its worth noting that the Left/gay lobby's tactics focus more on false claims that these amendments will take away existing rights and interfere with private contracts, and less on advocating for and defending civil unions. That explains the generally lower margins for the amendments this year; though it was a strange mix of results. Blue Wisconsin's margin was greater than very red South Dakota, and marginally red Virginia.
Go figure.
defined by one's desire to engage in particular types of specific sexual activities. People can enter into contracts. Parents don't want to have to explain to children enquiring about what it means that the two men next door are civil partners. They used to just want to be left alone. Now they won't leave us alone.
I wonder if I could be partners with a friend based on our love for baseball and get marital tax status and be able to visit when in comas? We want to make sure who gets the Pete rose rookie card for we all know that only married people have the right to make a Last Will and Testament!
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
You might want to check on that. Recent polls show 25-35% support for "marriage" and 50-60% support for "civil union" or "legal partnerships".
This number seems to be going up by a percent or two per year, so in 5-10 years, gay unions are going to be a no-brainer.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
are very broadly and vaguely worded and that sort of thing pretty much invites judicial meddling, which the right claims to abhor. Instead of imprecise goobleygook about "incidents of marriage" and the like (phrases which can mean anything or nothing) why not copy the concise and clear wording of the federal 13th amendment and just say "no same sex marriage". There's no wiggle room in that any more than you get slavery past the wording of the 13th. The liberal scare tactics you complain about would not work if there was not room for such possibilities in these amendments.
Also, we should note that there have been cases (e.g., Georgia) wher the full text of the amendment has not been on the ballot, leaving at least some voters unaware of all that they are voting on. IMO, this should be flat out illegal to do.
...is pretty much inevitable so long as the inferior branches allow it, but its better to at least make it harder to meddle towards liberal results.
The reason simply saying 'no same-sex marriage' won't work is because that would be an invitation to activist judges to impose civil unions, or some other euphemistic substitute for gay marriage. A good judge, of course, would not do such a thing, but its pretty clear now that the temptations and glory of activist/living constitution jurisprudence greatly outweighs that of a restrained approach that is based on the actual Constitution and on our nation's traditions. So again, not explicity telling judges that they can't impose gay marriage in all but name is an invitation for them to do so.
And say what you will about national public opinion, but the clear truth is that many (and maybe most) states would choose not to offer same-sex unions any official recogntition for the foreseeable future, and maybe not ever (at least as far as 'ever' means for a state as now know it). And if one rejects the 'living Constitution' method of interpretation, then one must support the right of states to make that decision, regardless of whether or not they agree with the actual decision.
From my point of view, Allen's lowest debate moment (and I didn't see them all) was when the issue of aff action/racial preferences came up. To his discredit, Webb defended preferences for black Americans on the grounds of righting historical grounds, but to his credit, he said that if the 'diversity' rationale is to be used, then disadvantaged whites should also be included.
Then when Allen was asked to respond, he COMPLETELY passed over the issue. He brushed it aside and used his time to go back to some other issue. Its a bit disheartening when even conservative Republicans refuse to attack racial preferences and the insane 'diversity' justification for them. Sadly, its pretty much the norm now, as the state GOP in Michigan refused to support the anti-preferences measure that passed easily last week with 58% of the vote.
None of this is to say that I think Webb is a conservative. Being a pessimist on the new Senate, I believe he will come closer to towing the far-left party line of Schumer and Reid than voting the interests and values of Virginia. A perfect test would of course be if we get another SCOTUS opening, and Bush holds firm and nominates another conservative. I'd expect Webb to vote no on both cloture, and confirmation if it got that far.
James Webb was called here, among other places, a "dirty perv," and a pedophile in thought if not words.
What was said about Allen that was nastier than that?
Allen also insulted the intelligence of people of Virginia with his claim that he just "made up" the word macaca based on the word "mohawk" (not even the hair style of the Indian kid).
That was about as credible as someone with a Spanish-speaking Mexican-born mother claiming he just "made up" the word gringo or pendejo.
Note that I am not claiming that the story wasn't overblown, or that the media was not biased in this race.
...I don't think anyone here making those accusations was drawing a paycheck from the Allen camp. On the other hand, Webb did retain the services of a couple bloggers who relentlessly pushed the "Allen is a racist," "Allen abused his first wife," "Allen abused his sister," "Allen did [insert bad thing here]."
To what effect it made the difference, I don't know. But I don't believe the two situations are the same.
thatAllen suffered some vicius smears. But let's also grant that the negative campaigning this year everywhere and by everyone was way, way, way over the top, and that no one, Demopcrat or Republican, has any business whining about it now.
...but is ANY OF THIS (The Washington Post getting it wrong)possibly news?
First: just how often are they wrong? While a .377 averge is great in baseball, that average for reporting will only get you a job at WashP or the NYT.
Second: They got it wrong when we won, why not get it wrong when we lose?
Democrats win = happy reporters, it doesn't make them any smarter.
As soon as Allen said it the world came to an end. It was picked up on Wonkette and on YouTube and after that even people who might have voted for him and held their nose would no longer do so. That single word cost him the election, and Robert Hahn knew that in a way as soon as Allen said it and ABC reported on it.
It was all over at precisely that moment.
in the "macaca" incident, he was rude and condescending. Virginia, I have found, is ground zero of good old fahsioned Southern hospitality; I have seldom encountered a more courtesous, generous people in my travels than in this state (especially in the mountain parts). That betrayal of his state culture probably cost him every bit as much as the impression that he was racist.
and inexcusable. It's a lesson for him and everyone. I think you stated it correctly that he embarrassed the courteous, gracious culture of the state that he wanted to represent.
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
But as I say, that mentality on the part of the voters will be the death of conservatism.
But I'm skeptical its true. Jesse Helms was hardly the personification of idealized Southern charm and hospitality, and it never seemed to hurt him.
UTube wasn't around for Jesse Helms or many others who would have not survived either. Allen pointing to the guy and saying "macaca" doesn't leave anything to the imagination.
Poor Joohhhn Kerry paid the same price. He Swiftboated himself on UTube.
It's today's world.
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
It's our voters and pundits.
American Spectator ran an anti-Allen utube the day before the elections. We (the right-wing) took Allen down. There is no way of getting around that.
I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions, including Allen. But all I see are lots of people who cost us the Senate not taking responsibility.
That problem becomes how much information can busy people take in?
I didn't know about American Spectator UTube. The damage was already done. I certainly don't know what possessed the AS to take Allen down. So I must agree with you about drowning our own.
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
played politics with brass knuckles, and was admired for it. But in person he was saif to be a real Southern genetleman. Big difference there. (Allan of course hailed from CA so at best he was a fake Southern gentleman.)
I'm a proud conservative Carolinian BUT I have to tell you a little secret to the success of Jesse Helms during his day. AND it was the same secret to success that the Democrats possessed prior to the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. Insecure white males kept him in votes and Big Tobacco kept him in money.
This is not to say that he wasn't a fine person in other respects and no doubt his grandchildren loved him......but let's not kid ourselves.
but bullying. That's really what people didn't like. It showed a lack of class, like "We're all Republicans here, and you're not, so I'm going to pick on you. Come on, it will be fun! Right, gang?"
I don't want my representatives acting like that.
On the other hand, I'd hold my nose and vote for Allen knowing that the alternative is to have Senator Byrd as Chairman of the Senate Pork Appropriations Committee.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
Allen reminded me of JD Hayworth with the way that he addressed the guy 'macaca'. I do not think that acting like a football jock in the locker room is a good idea. I liked Allen's record as Senator and Governor a lot. I don't think he deserved the smears from the MSM. If he just did not project that football jock image the would have won.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Is Ted Kennedy "senatorial"? Dick Durbin? Harry Reid?
Too many of our people, like yourself, are less interested in what their candidate stands for than in his public image.
Which is one reason we have the Guilliani bandwagon. Hey, he's terrible on the issues but he appears "presidential".
Dem senators almost to a man and woman have called Bush a liar for 3 years. Yet GOP senators grin and bear it and regularly being accused of racism and wanting to starve the old, disable, and esp the children. Dem senators play by different rules. They are not honorable, yet get called honorable friend by the GOP senators all the time. The MSM covers for them, like parents for unruly children.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
that is politically untenable, it is an image of traditional manliness. Kowalski has commented extensively on this on the "Fox News" thread, and I agree with him. If your public image is decisive, agressive, and authoritative, you'd better be in a safely Red district, because if you need votes from independent women, you're not getting them. The single mothers and career women, especially those who have been divorced, want the Sensitive New Age Guy (SNAG) and if you give them the slightest indication that you might judge their conduct and, especially, the conduct of their children, you can forget their support.
I'm frankly surprised that Webb got the apparent support that he did from independent women and I suspect his "nuanced" position on abortion may have had a lot to do with it along with better Democrat campaigning.
These ladies may love outlaws when they need their toes curled, but they don't want them making decisions or potentially disciplining their kids. This is a cultural phenomenum that the Republican Party needs to learn how to deal with to be successful in urban and upscale suburban areas, and I'm not at all sure how it would be done. I don't think running women in these districts works either, because these women distrust "traditional" women even more than traditional men.
I was frankly astounded by some of the things being said by women on the political blogs here about Sarah Palin, many saying she shouldn't be elected because she should stay home with her kids! Apparently, that is the only role they will accept for a woman who espouses conservative/Republican principles. The Republican Party has a good cohort of attractive, agressive, successful women, but, if anything, they bring out more resentment from liberal-leaning independent women than do traditional men.
In Vino Veritas
Yes, AC, it is a problem, a major problem, that we have so many liberals in this country. It is the biggest problem we have. I know you agree that we not cave on principle. There is a dilemma, but he resolution of the dilemma is that we cannot get their votes until they are mugged by reality and become conservative.
Luckily, conservatives outnumber liberals, and an aggressive, unapologetic conservative message wins landslides every time its tried nationally and in a majority of states, both in number and electorally and district by district, county by county.
Plus, in the long run, procreation in our crowd rules the future. The libs have aborted the margin of victory since 1972. Plus, the undisciplined children of these dregs of the female gender will probably never be eligible to vote given the life of crime they are inevitably headed to without the discipline of a father.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Procreation might favor us, but immigration more than makes up for any liberal birth dearth.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth
studiedly liberal, as that term has meaning in an ideological sense. Some certainly are; female lawyers, most academics and teachers almost universally are. But there is a large cohort of women who are not studiedly political but who do vote and who cannot stand to be confronted with traditional male authority or women in traditional married lifestyles.
I've worked with them, for them, had them work for me, and I'm married to one. At the upper levels of large organizations, you'll find large cohorts of professional women in their late-twenties to early forties either divorced with a kid or two or working on marriage 2.x or greater. They have univerally in my experience been somewhere between distrustful and disdainful of men generally and of women in apparently happy marriages. As a male supervisor of female professionals, you can manipulate them, but you cannot just direct them. You can snap an order to a guy with some expectation of his carrying it out. Snap an order to a woman and depending on how she plays it, you get tears or passive aggression and sometimes outright defiance. Many are inveterate intriguers and some see the "horizontal career move" as the advancement method of choice; men after all are just dumb beasts who can be led around for sex. It is both astonishing and ironic hom much these college educated daughters of sixties femminists objectify themselves as sex objects and use it as a weapon.
Few of those I've dealt with were liberals on economics, workplace conduct or productivity, law and order issues and the like; some were rock-ribbed conservatives. But on gender roles and abortion, nobody was going to tell them what to do and all men were inherently stupid beasts to be tolerated when you wanted sex and manipulated or ignored otherwise.
I've never gotten past consternation in dealing with them, including the one I'm married to. I know that a family with a bonded male and female who raise the children is vital to our culture. I also know that there is a large cohort of women in our society that cannot or will not live that way. As to what, if anything, to do about it; I have no airspeed, altitude, or ideas.
In Vino Veritas
that "all men were inherently stupid beasts to be tolerated when you wanted sex and manipulated or ignored otherwise."
Then they are too stupid to "deal" with, other than to find a reason to fire them, not let them infect your children with such an attitude, and
out vote them.
But then again I work for me. And the existence of these PC lib women are one of the reasons why.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
"PC lib" women in any other area of thought or behavior. They have blinders though for anything that relates to sex/gender roles and to raising children. They might well be rock-ribbed Republican "Dixie Darlins," but God help the man that tries to get their kids to act like a human being.
In Vino Veritas
main reasons was the issue of the disciplining of her children, ie my step-children. I won the battle battle but lost the war, ie I was the man of the house and the children that were wild animals before DeVine, were civilized respecters of real men post Gamecock. But the mom fought to wear the pants the whole 8 years and when she and girlfriends talked they bashed men unmercifully.
But they all voted republican.
The proudest moment of my life was when devine-civilized step-son told my dad at thanksgiving in front of my wife and equally bullying mom-in-law, that i was the only man they ever knew that stood up to them and NEVER gave in.
Hence, Gamecock was born!! The master of the henhouse
until divorce papers were served kicking me out!
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
and no more, but we're still together and the kids are pretty much on their way - much to her chagrin; she'd much prefer that they remain her "babies."
If one of my buddies came to me and said he was with a woman with a couple of kids by another man who was still alive and was thinking of marrying her, my advice would be to go sleep with her one more time for old times' sake and RUN!
In Vino Veritas
But you can't say anything. It drives us women nuts. This is for your understanding only.
It's the curse. Seriously. Do you remember the sin of Adam and Eve? God cursed Adam with blood sweat and tears in order to make a living. He cursed Eve by making her submit to a man. I believe the reason it's a curse is because our natural inclination is for control. We want to control our environment, hence the extraordinary pickiness over the most trivial things (in my house it is things like the method with which the towels are folded on down), but also control over the levers of power. Which, like it or not, is you guys.
We recognize power the same way our kids do. Just a little example: At the George Bush rally my kids were running down the bleachers to get a better picture shot and I was hollering after them to tell them not to get off the bleachers. I may as well have been farting in a hurricane. A man in front of me yelled, "Morgan," (my daughter's name, the same name I had been screaming) and she instantly turned around. He sounded just like her dad. And it's that way at home. I can tell the kids ten times to shut up and go to sleep, or my husband can tell them once. He's got more of 'that thing that men got more of' and they know it.
The desire to control that man is enormous (and in my case, absolutely fruitless. The man is his own man and I may as well shut up and go along for the ride. 'Cause he sure ain't gonna let me drive.)
Anyway, you guys have to cut down thistles, we have to submit to men, and we don't like it any better. But let me tell you, when men don't hold their own rightful position of leadership, life is hell for everyone.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Exceptions happen. About midway through my childhood, my mother went back to graduate school when it seemed my father's job might disappear (ultimately, it didn't). Anyway, at some point early on, she came up to break up my brother and I, bickering (our hobby at the time) and made it clear that Things Had Changed, she was leading a Very Busy life, and that our lives wouldn't be worth tuppence if we made trouble for her. (That last was subtext.) My brother and I decided she was serious, and ever since then, all she has to do is say "Gentlemen!" in the right tone of voice and both of us will come tumbling to attend her.
Re: Luckily, conservatives outnumber liberals
Yes they do. But neither conservatives and liberals are a majority in and of themselves. You (and the oliberals) need people like me, who defy easy labeling.
many simply don't identify as such to pollsters. But if you talk to them, they turn out to be so. Its just that liberalism is so seductive, appealing as it does to sloth, envy and sustained adolescence and a Utopian security that all powerful elitist experts will always be there to catch us if we fall, lest we ever have to suffer the consequences of our actions or not always have the rightful suffering free life theat we are entitled to. whew......
But conservatism can be sold. It must be sold aggressively on moral terms though. Like dems sell liberalism. the difference is that what we sell is the truth.
And Alecs we are happy to have you to the 311th power!
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
be conservative is by mainstream definition to be racist, misogynistic, homophobic, haters of all but those just like them.
So, they define conservative as people who are like that. I think the reality is that a lot of people are conservative, and just don't know it, because conservatives are those evil guys in the GOP, and they know they aren't all those things. I admit I pulled the democrat lever for several years before I realized I was much more conservative than the guys I was voting for-and nobody actually told me.
are small "c" conservative: they agree, for example, with the statement "If it ain't broke don't fix it." However Americans in general are not large "C" ideological Conservatives. They (we) are all over the map on the issues of the day. For example, we may like tax cuts, we may be pro-life and against gay marriage, but we will vote by huge majorities to raise the minimum wage, and we don't buy into the President's Social Security proposals (probably because we don't think it's broke and so shouldn't be fixed). Moreover the desire to be "left alone" cuts against at least some of the Religious Right's designs-- the GOP's problems with the electorate actually began with the Terri Schiavo business (which in some ways was a betrayal of even large "C" conservative principles). Nor are very many people in favor of a morality police enforcing sectarian fatwahs on sex upon them ("Just don't do it in the road and scare the horses" is the attitude most people take on that), so they oppose gay marraige, but otherwise don't think their gay friends and relatives should be mistreated let alone criminalized. And while we have a strong nationalist strain in us we aren't willing to sign blank checks for effectless and wasteful foreign wars: either win the darn thing and get out, or don't go in the first place (Gulf War I was supported; Gulf War II is not now).
have supported the right of the disabled not to be starved or dehydrated to death, even if federal court review under the 14th Amendment is necessary, as in the case of convicted murderers. I know of no one that wants to criminally punish gays. I do know that if most Americans in the past shared the attitude of not fighting anything but easy wars that leave dictators in place we would not have beaten off Britain, much less kept the Union whole or beaten Nazi Germany and Imperial japan and rebuilt them with 1000s of times the losses we have suffered in the present conflict.
It was the fact that we didn'r t finish Korea and that Clinton played realpolitic or bribery that we have madman with nukes and that we didn't finish Gulf War I, that we had to fight Gulf War II. The Powell Doctrine that you seem to say describes what Americans are willing to do sends the signal to the enemy that we will not fight long wars.
Surely you don't advocate simply nuking enemies if they don't surrender after 2 weeks of 75 casualties?
WE, (I too am part of the we you know and used to be a lib dem) are the we that put Reagan in and the GOP since 1994. We still hold the White House and most of the new blue dog dems are more like me than the other kind of "conservatives."
The giddiness of the unique Year 6 dem respite is quite overblown. Most Americans do not want courts usurping their right to govern themselves or to lose a war that could spell disaster for the US.
JFK - We don't do things because they are easy. We do them because they are hard.
And after 911, beacuse we must. The war is not an option. Losing unfourtunately is.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Re: ...have supported the right of the disabled not to be starved or dehydrated to death, even if federal court review under the 14th Amendment is necessary,
Ms Schiavo was not "disabled"; she was effectively brain dead. I can understand that her parents might not have been able to face up to the fact that their daughter was dead and gone, but others have no sentimental excuse for wishful thinking. Unhooking her from her feeding tube was the moral equivalent of unhooking her from a respirator, an artificial means of prologing biological life when human life had long since ceased.
Re: I know of no one that wants to criminally punish gays. I do know that if most Americans in the past shared the attitude of not fighting anything but easy wars that leave dictators in place we would not have beaten off Britain, much less kept the Union whole or beaten Nazi Germany and Imperial japan and rebuilt them with 1000s of times the losses we have suffered in the present conflict.
We had a strategy for victory in the wars you mention. In Iraq there is none. The only discernible strategy seems to be sit around indefinitely, hoping that sooner or later the Islamists get tired of taking pot shots at us. Not unlike Vietnam, actually. Iraq could have been won, and we would have been out of there years ago, and the GOP would be riding high. Instead an utter botch was made of it.
Re: And after 911, beacuse we must.
9-11 required us to go into Afghanistan and smash Al Qaida, which we did, though we didn't quite finish the job. We are talking about Iraq, not Afghanistan.
Re: The Powell Doctrine that you seem to say describes what Americans are willing to do sends the signal to the enemy that we will not fight long wars.
The Powell doctrine works (See: Gulf War I-- and Panama and Grenada and, going back a bit, the Spanish American war and the Mexican War). And nothing succeeds like success, you know.
(Are you still glad to have me back?)
Both as to her condition and the
"remedy". Brave new world is coming.
The strategy for victory in the previous wars left hundreds of thosands dead over varying periods of time and the strategy changed many times during same. What we had then was the will to win no matter what. The strategy is Iraq is clear, ie stand up the freely elected giovernment so it is secure from invasion and cannot be toppled by the saddam deadenders-al qaida coalition.
The job in the new war after 911 won't be finished anytime soon, and it will not be fought like other wars, just as they weren't fought like wars previous to them.
If we are to survive the new barbarians we have to have the will not to give up. Iraq is being won and will be won. If you think it can't be won even with a foolproof strategy for victory then you contradict yourself.
America cannot afford another loss in war, like the left's previous glorious moment in Vietnam. There are consequences to losing wars, esp post 911. You have given up on the war. That is sad.
Powell Doctrine and lowest denominator coalition in the UN failed. It kept the main WMD, Saddam's regime in power. The other wars were insignificant. The main wars we fought were crucial and not amenable to any silly powell doctrines.
WILL
Still very glad to have you back, and don't worry, one day you will win an argument. smile!
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Allen lost the race by less than 8000 votes. That right there tells you the race was not lost in September.
What lost us those 8000 votes were the relentless attacks on Allen in the right-wing media over the following two months. Anyone from VA reading the Corner was encourged to not vote for George Allen. The same holds for most sites on the right. A local (VA) right wing radio station spent its time hammering him also.
Mational Review - a fair weather friend and foul weather foe for conservatives. If they had expended a fraction of the effort in cheering for Allen as they did for Santorum we might still have the Senate.
Re: Anyone from VA reading the Corner was encourged to not vote for George Allen.
Where on earth do you get that from? I never found the Corner to be anti-Allen. To be sure, he didn't have the kind of desperate swooning champion that Santorum had in KLo, but I don't recall a concerted "get-Allen" campaign either. At most I recall some solid and quite justified criticisams of his poor campaigning. And some approval of Webb-- but why not? To the extent Webb is conservative, why should NRO not be saying good things about him? "Conservative" and "Republican" are not synonyms after all and the National Review is not a publication of the RNC.
By being a huge embarrasment to his party and acting like a Democratic parody of conservatives, Allen was no friend to the right. Any unknown businessman or well-spoken state senator could have beaten Webb. I am thinkful his sneering grin is no long one of the faces of my party. In the end Webb did us a favor by nipping his 2008 campaign in the bud.
My top two candidates for 2008 are McCain and then Huckabee. I am glad they are not going to have to go up against Allen's money and political operation.
Webb lost me when I found out he left Reagan saying Reagan's policies were wrong and when he then tried to use the image of the man he insulted to try and get a posthumous endorsement.
Webb's Lack of character dwarfs any macaca. But neither Allen or Webb are racist. If they were we would know it or we wouldn't know them because they wouldn't have made it public life being racist. Plus, he's wrong on most issues.
But his book "Born Fighting" is great.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Have you taken a look at Jim Webb's bio. on his web page? Does that look like a Democrat? It sure doesn't to me. And he isn't going to be a back bencher to the likes of Harry Reid with creds like he has going way back. And, I don't see anything in his bio. that would give a hint he would side with the Pinky crowd of Murtha, Reid and Kerry.
I didn't know much about Allen, but he sure didn't seem to have any charisma and Webb is loaded with it. If I didn't know about the (D) after Webb's name and just read that bio. I'd be signing up to work on his campaign. I actually think Repubs. may be glad to have him there in the long run. My only memory of Jim Webb goes back 15 years or so, when I saw him on TV describing his vision for the modern military and it sounded like he was one of the original architects of the very thing Rumsfield was charged to do -- turn the military into a fast attack force of smaller units of specially trained forces easily mobilized to hot spots as needed and do away with the large standing armies and fixed silo missiles of the old cold war.
Sara (Squiggler)
That's how southern dems have played their constituents for decades, with biography and rhetoric. But of course its a 'personal attack" if one dares to cite their actual votes on laws.
Biography is irrelevant. How one votes is what matters. Webb hasn't yet voted, but I am confident that he will be no different that the countless other so called moderates in the dem party. The media will call them moderate and cite a VERY FEW conspicuous votes near election days and cite their rhetoric, but at the end of the day they will vote the party lib line 80% of the time or more.
Parties control, and that's why I consider it a character flaw to be in the dem party.
The main dynamic that gets them is that they want to go back for re-election and have something to tout that they did for the voters, and for them to buck their party and vote issues is risky because they can't be sure that their vote will result in a passed law they can tout. So they get offered pork to vote the party line.
Sometimes they get "free" votes. To be in the dem party is to be corrupted in one's character. To be, a liar.
mark my words friend. i was a southern dem for 20 years, incl a delegate, and county chair. I know these people. I switched in 6/2001.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I am of the opinion that if we leave Iraq without securing a permanent base there for strategic purposes, then all has been for naught. I think Jim Webb also sees the need for bases in strategic places to facilitate the faster attack forces he envisioned. He understands that having to fly from Britain to the Midddle East without French flyover rights puts us at great disadvantage. The same with having to come from Diego Garcia. I like having someone there who I'm sure understands the strategic importance of the region.
Sara (Squiggler)
Sorry, you are wrong. Right on Webb's official site, it says this:
We should say clearly to the people of Iraq and of the region that we have no plans for a long-term presence in that country. This will take the moral high ground away from the insurgency in the eyes of the Muslim world, and defuse the concern of some Iraqis that we plan to stay for good. This will also put the Iraqi government on notice that it cannot wait forever to stand up before we will stand down. We should not build permanent bases in Iraq. If we’re leaving, we don’t need them, and it sends the wrong message. In the short term, we could move our troops out of the country but within the region – strong possibilities could be Jordan and Kuwait. This would give us the ability to contain the terrorist threat within Iraq without continuing our occupation. From there, we could then bring them home when we’re sure the withdrawal is working. Congress should make sure of this by banning any expenditure for permanent bases in Iraq.
Webb's main objection to the Republicans, and what brought him into the race, was his disapproval over Iraq. This is why the Democrats recruited him, ignoring his overwhelming conservatism in other areas. He actually supported Allen in Allen's 2000 election. Sooner or later the Democrats are going to find out that he is not truly one of them.
He is VERY pro-military and his son is actually serving in Iraq now. He's pretty much a fanatic in his loyalty to the armed forces, and if I were Dick Durbin I'd be very careful about I said in earshot of Webb.
Webb is going to be a very interesting figure in the Senate.
Webb is obsessed with building up the navy and never using it, like Murtha. Murtha wants to "protect the troops," by declaring defeat 72 hours after action begins . Webb like Murtha is obsessed with China. They prefer chess games at sea. They are decidedly pre-911 dems. they don't get it.
And Webb is liberal on abortion, free speech, gay rights, and anything else the dem party tells him to. I have watched many a dem go up there and be called a moderate due to their drawl and campaign speeches and 2-6 yrs later the MSM still calls them moderate, but is all drawl, beacuse they have voting records that are 80% dem party lib line. They will have a few high profile conservative votes in the last few months of election years.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
as in Emily's list isn't going to endorse him, but his positions against late term abortion and reasonable restrictions are palatable to the democrats.
Like I said earlier Allen ran a crappy campaign, and Webb presented a palatable alternative for the moderate voter and from the results in the congressional races a pretty palatable one for the GOP voter.
I wouldn't call him a liberal-but he definitely isn't a Rick Santorum either. I think he fits in nicely with the typical Southern democrat-which may make him difficult to beat in 6 years.
many webbs over the past 30 years.
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Re: They prefer chess games at sea.
There's something to be said for this, you know. The oceans are still our barrier against invasion as long as we have the most powerful fleet on the seas. And our chief foreign interests involve trade, not (I hope!) conquest and empire, so keeping the sea lanes friendly goes a long way toward keeping America strong and healthy. Britain dominated the entire globe in the 1800s on the basis of a strong navy. Why shouldn't we do the same today?
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
He's pro-military and for the 2nd Amendment. Besides that he's basically a liberal: for abortion, gay civil union, affirmative action, high taxes, etc.
not a Republican. He was driven into the Republican party after he returned from two tours of duty in Vietnam. He has spent his career, in fiction, journalism, movies, advocacy and public service excoriating the antiwar left and promoting the interests of the American fighting man against pacifists, feminists, appeasers, defeatists and left-wingers. Although he is quite conservative on some issues -- gun rights and immigration are examples where Webb and Allen had virtually no difference -- he is in other respects a tax-and spend Democrat, protectionist, etc. Apparently this combination confused Allen and he was never able to mount a campaign against Webb that would expose some of Webb's liberal positions to Virginians (on the whole, despite all the demographic talk, a rather conservative bunch). Example: Virginia is a right to work state, yet Webb welcomed the support of labor unions. And oh yeah, he said that his first act as Senator will be to vote to raise the minimum wage.
Instead -- and you really have to be a genius to do anything like this -- Allen attacked Webb for taking positions on affimative action and women in comabat that are shared by many conservatives/Republicans!
When Webb won the Democratic primary I dared to opine on this very blog that Webb would be a formidable candidate. He was well-positioned to run in Virginia, having lived in the state continuously since returning from Vietnam. Although Webb was an Army brat, growing up in a series of military bases around the country (his father worked on missile guidance -- Webb wrote about in "Born Fighting" - pretty interesting), Webb's family has deep roots in Virginia, going back to before the Revolutionary War, and he still has family living in the rural, Southwestern part of the state. It was, therefore, especially maladroit of Allen to open his campaign against Webb by visiting rural areas of the State and sneering that Webb (who he characterized as a carpetbagging Hollywood writer) had never seen these parts of Virginia. This is rich coming from Allen -- a Californian with no roots in the state, who moved to Virginia when he went to college.
Virginia is also home to the largest population of active and retired military personnel in the nation. Though Webb does not have national regognition yet, he is very well-known in the military community, and has been since he was at the Naval Academy. He has his detractors, but also many admirers, who appreciate his depiction of war and the conflict he sees between civilian elites who promote wars and the warriors who fight them. Webb has been active in politics in Virginia and was heavily recruited by Republicans to run against Charles Robb for Senate in 1994 (Oliver North, an old rival of Webb's from Annapolis, ultimately ran against Robb and lost).
It's pretty clear that Allen figured his support for the Iraq war and for Bush would win him support among military voters. By the time the election came around, though, Allen had started talking about the need for a "change" in Iraq and had attached himself to Va's popular Sen John Warner, whose warning on Iraq had rattled the White House before the election. The issue became less salient as the difference between Allen and Webb was blurred as Allen distanced himself from Bush. Say this for Webb -- he never changed his position -- he opposed the war before the invasion and opposes it now. He opposed the first gulf war too, and for the same reason -- elite civilians waging wars of choice and sending working class youth to fight and die.
My view, obviously, is that Allen didn't lose the election -- Webb won it. And don't get me started on the literary criticism of Webb's novels!
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
He was inching up again and then the brilliant move of using novels as a rationale to vote against Webb. I hope that someone writes a report on the Allen campaign which has to be one of the worst in recent memory. You said that Webb was opposed to both Gulf Wars. Well, if Allen had a competent campaign they should have said that if Webb had his way Saddam Hussein would not only be still in power in Iraq but he would be controlling the large oil resources of Kuwait. Talk about high gas prices!!!!
http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Webb got more votes than Allen. Any questions?
If 7,000 votes out of 2.5 million isn't a mandate, I don't know what is.
Just wait until Webb is asked to toe the liberal line. You may want not want to schedule that hot oil massage for ol' Jimbo until after you see what he does, princess.
As a Virginia voter I'm still mystified as to why and how Allen lost. I think it is similar to the way Kilgore lost. The top ticket Republicans are seriously underperforming the lower ticket Republicans. Why?
Who voted for the undertickets (and voted for Allen in 2000) but didn't vote for Kilgore or Allen? I'm hearing a lot of personal peccadillo stuff. The VA GOP better figure this one out.
Yes, Allen ran a bizarre campaign but he shouldn't have had to explain his positions yet again. He's a known quantity at this point. Either you like the job he's done over the last few years or you don't. He didn't have any scandals during his time. It's "inconceivable" that he lost!
Of course for relatively clueless independent voters he probably should have done some "issues" ads but for Republican voters he deserved support.
What the WaPo did to Allen was inexcusable. It was anti-Allen 24/7. But that was typical of the MSM all across the country. Allen, conservatives and the GOP are foolish to expect equal treatment from the MSM.
As for Webb "the conservative," color me very skeptical.
Will we see the famous "My way or the highway" Jim Webb of the Reagan Navy Dept.? That man did not suffer fools gladly. Will he tell Harry Reid to shove it!
Or will we see this new Webb? The one who does see the light of affirmative actions, abortion, unions and "civil" unions?
I suspect in six years we'll find Webb with an ACLU rating well into the 70s but he'll make a mad dash in the election year to get it into Ben Nelson-like 40s or 50s with a 50+ rating from the ACU.
that a significant part of the loss was his failure to remember a very important principle: run for one office at a time. I don't live in Virginia so i'm surmising from news reports, blog comments, etc., but it seems to me that in the early stages of the "campaign" Allen seemed to positioning himself for a presidential run in 2008 and was almost assuming he would be re-elected in the Senate race.
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel