The interesting Mr. Webb.
Will he trim, or will he vex?
By Paul J Cella Posted in Democrats — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Andrew Ferguson, truly one of the most underrated commentators around, has been following Senator-elect James Webb for awhile now, and judges him “the most exotic bird in the Washington aviary.” The bitterness of the campaign for Virginia’s junior Senate seat has obscured his fascinating tensions:
Read on . . .
Unlike most modern politicians, Webb hasn’t spent his entire adult life running, or plotting to run, for political office. He is a man of unimpeachable physical courage and battlefield heroism, having been awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star and two Purple Hearts for his service as a Marine in Vietnam.
As the author of six novels, most of them bestsellers and all of them bristling with interesting ideas, he enters the Senate with a record of creative and intellectual accomplishment not seen there since the death of Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
And best of all, his election last Tuesday makes him the most deeply conservative national Democrat since Grover Cleveland.
His opponent in the election just passed, George Allen, was understandably perplexed by him. The perplexity issued in cynicism of a particularly base variety: Webb was castigated publicly by Allen supporters — that is, supporters of a man who once nursed ambitions to be the conservative candidate for President in 2008 — for his opposition to women in combat. In short we were treated to the almost unbelievable spectacle of conservative Republicans attempting to enforce p.c. feminist orthodoxy against an anti-war Democrat. It would be absurd were it not so ignoble.
Ferguson counsels us to keep an eye on Senator Webb. The past campaign also demonstrated the man’s capacity for trimming. (He publicly embraced both Bill Clinton and John Kerry, men for whom he previous reserved only biting contempt. Will he next embrace Jane Fonda, a women of whom he once declared — as reported in The Nightingale’s Song — he “wouldn’t cross the street to watch her slit her own wrist”?) It might well be that he will simply “evolve” in office, as they say. Or it might just be that he will give his party fits, and continue to perplex and dismay his opponents and the media. So I second Ferguson’s counsel.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | CREW Blasts Pelosi Endorsement Of Murtha — Comments (17) »
The interesting Mr. Webb. 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The question is will they. The dinosaurs who will be their leadership in Congress would indicate they won't, but they are totally divorced from the rank and file. It will be of interest to see what happens after the Waxmans and Conyers make fools of themselves.
even stranger than in Webb's novels.
First off, I agree that the Allen campaign blundered horribly in attacking Webb from the left (as well as with the silly attacks on his novels) rather than zeroing in and pounding him for his sudden coversion to numerous liberal orthodoxies.
Webb was promoted by the Dems in large part based on his contempt for Bush and the Iraq War, and I suspect he will hold the line on Bush-hatred and opposition to the war for the next two years. It is only after Bush is gone from the scene and Iraq is less of a centerpiece issue that Webb will feel free to be a McCain/Hagel/Lieberman/Ben Nelson style maverick. Or he could drift left after the fashion of Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Mary Landrieu and Ken Salazar. But we won't begin to know until 2009.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
It's amazing to me that Allen didn't take the, as you say, "pound him for his sudden conversion to numerous liberal orthodoxies."
One big marker for which path he may take will come when/if the Dems try to push some gun control legislation. He has long been very firm on that issue, and we will then see if he is prepared to abandon principles.
__________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Of the kind all politicians endulge in.
The key point is... there'll be no new anti-gun legislation from the Dems.
Do you suspect otherwise? Heck, I'll bet the farm on it.
The national Democrats may be stupid but they are not entirely unteachable. After 1992 they abandoned the crusade against the death penalty on the national level. After the successive failures of 2000, 2002 and 2004 they have learned the same lesson on guns - they will continue to run on gun control in CA & NJ & IL and a few other jurisdictions where it remains popular.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
As a Dem, I don't quite get why Republicans are still railing against attempts at gun-control, when there don't seem to be any such attempts coming from our side of the aisle. I think you hit the nail on the head: gun-control these days seems to have morphed into a regional issue, perhaps still relevant in major urban centers, but a general non-issue for the nation at-large.
I can't even remember any Dems running on gun-control issues in this century, and only one(Carolyn McCarthy) in the past decade.
This was LAST year in the senate as well as the year before. 12 democrats defected on this and the rest did not - including 'pro-gun' Russ Feingold and so called "moderate" Evan Bayh.
The democrats - DLC ones especialy -still want gun control. Mark Mellman (DLC) is the biggest pushers of it. They just play word games on it.
They are the ones behind the "I'm pro-hunting but we don't need 'assault weapons'" talk, and then they define assault weapon as any firearm they don't like. They call all centerfire rifle ammo "cop killer bullets".
The dems are starting to talk a good game on guns, but talk is all it is. With gun grabbers like George Soros and Andrew McKelvey pushing their gazillions, the democrats are going to try again.
While many rank and file democrat voters are not gun grabbers, their politicians are a different story.
Gun laws are probably low on their checklist. My primary interest was in correcting your misrepresentation of Dean as being jake with the NRA. He ain't.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I doubt it.
When Senator-elect Webb finds himself in the same room with Dick Durbin (who compared our soldiers to Nazis), Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Patty Murray (who once credited Osama bin Laden with building schools), Barbara Boxer, and John Fonda Kerry, he might wonder why he ever became a Democrat.
Unless he becomes the next Zell Miller. It will be interesting to see how he votes, and with whom he aligns in the new Senate. He has already changed parties twice--maybe three's a charm?
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
...are typically conservative in terms of being against gun control, want to make low abortion rates a priority, hawkish in military terms, etc.
(This is nothing new for Dems - even Howard Dean got a perfect score from the NRA.)
The reason they are Dems is they favour economics as a tool for social engineering, and a redistributive tax policy.
So whether you consider them conservative or not depends on whether you think social issues or economic issues define what a conservative is.
It is increasingly clear that the tie that binds together the modern Democatic party is its economic philosophy, and as such Webb is a mainstream Democrat.
As long as we continue to assume that liberal social views are fundamental to the Democrats, we'll be perplexed by people like Webb, and unable to peel them away.
been fundamentally about economics. It is, in fact, a core principle of Liberalism, and an even more central principle of Leftism, that economics -- an essentially materialistic science -- lies at the root of human understanding.
Ever has Conservatism stood against this. It is no answer to the socialism of the Liberal to agree with his basic contention that man lives by bread alone -- and only dispute how bread ought to be distributed.
___________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
As to why Webb is a Dem. It's his belief in using the economy to give targeted support to working families. I don't think you can use the economy in that way, but Webb does, hence he's a Dem.
We will have a tough time against Dems if we fundamentally misunderstand what the Dem party is about.
Anyway, all my blather is extraneous. If people are genuinely confused as to why Webb is a Dem, here he is, explaining, in his own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqQauk5WwBY
Worth a look, as it tells you something about the new political landscape.
as to why he is a Dem. He dislikes Bush and opposes the Iraq war. He is hostile toward globalization and worries about the plight of working families. Which is more important, and which reliably distinguishes Liberal from Conservative, is a difficult question.
Both of these positions have been taken by bona fide Conservatives; in short, neither discredits a man's Conservatism. The question of globalization is still an open one on the Right, and indeed, even in the Republican Party.
__________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Due to his social views, he passes any number of Republican 'litmus tests'.
Due to his socio-economic views, he passes any number of Democratic 'litmus tests'.
So he could be welcomed into either party.
But for him, the socio-economic issue is a top priority. Do you really think he'll make any progress pushing a redistributive tax policy within the Republican party? Of course not.
I think its laughable that Republicans are starting to pin their hopes on "blue dog Democrats" This is still going to be a Pelosi, Reed house and senate. I think we should just focus on conservative candidates for the next election cycle and allow the Democrats to implode on themselves. I hope that all the energy that is expended until the next cycle is pro-conservative without fail. I am not of the mind of "moderation" I am fiscally conservative and no longer wish to support a party that thought Chaffee was worth it to keep power or Arlen Specter who is a joke as a Republican. The conservative agenda can stand on its own without the wannabe's.
Peace through superior fire power:)
according to preliminary release from Reid, are both Armed Services and Foreign Relations as well as Veterans Affairs. This suggests he will be focused on Iraq, WOT, etc. Preety good assignments for a freshman.
By the way, Sen. John Kerry has been in the Senate for 22 years. The committee he chairs is....Small Business.
Now that is funny.
play maverick until after '08.
By then we will see if he has been totally brought into the fold, or if he will play the blue dog maverick.
In general I think the senate has a liberalizing affect with regard to the dems, so I won't pin my hopes on it, but with the dems in power, there may be more of a desire to play maverick rather than toe the line-Webb probably is a bit of a loose canon for the dems, but probably not a loose enough one to make a huge difference.
I don't see the blue dogs making a huge difference in the senate, I do think they may cause headaches for Pelosi, since she has to herd a lot more of them, and they all know they will be up for reelection in two years-they can't totally shaft their constituents-especially those in the districts that were won due to scandal-they have to prove themselves or go home in two years.
I've respected him since he was Navy Secretary, and agree for the most part with his objections to women in combat and PC in the military. That said, I'm troubled by how easily he seems to have adopted liberal positions. I fear that he doesn't really have many views beyond a certain (not necessarily objectionable) militarism. But, in the end, if he leaves my guns alone and does something to cut immigration, I will quite possibly vote for him.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth
The question is whether they have the stomach to allow Jim Webb to force upon them the path there. That remains to be seen.