What's going on here? I'm not sure exactly, but it's almost certain at this point that these numbers are not a fluke. The fact is, Webb has been consistently trailing Warner in the approval ratings since he took office 9 months ago. About the only conclusion one can reach is that Virginians are happier with John Warner's job performance than they are with Jim Webb's.
Given that Webb's numbers have not been changing significantly, it's hard to blame his relatively poor approval ratings on this vote (FISA) or that one (MoveOn). Back in February, before the FISA or MoveOn controversies, Webb was +5 points (47%-42%). In June, Webb was +3 points (44%-41%). Today, he's +4 points (46%-42%). That's essentially no change in approval for Webb despite all the ups and downs in Congress. The bottom line is that Virginians are fundamentally split on Jim Webb, while they overwhelmingly approve of John Warner's performance in office.
It's important to point out that this isn't a Democratic problem more broadly. Tim Kaine is +20 points, while Mark Warner is viewed favorably by a 3:1 margin (50%-14%) in our state. For whatever reason, this appears to be about Webb specifically, not about the Democratic "brand" more broadly.
The bottom line is that Virginians are still not completely comfortable with Jim Webb as their Senator, almost 11 months after his 9,000-vote victory over George Allen and nearly 9 months since he took office. But no matter what he does, they love John Warner.
What accounts for the difference in approval ratings? Is it the continuing aftermath of the rough campaign against George Allen (could that help explain the intense Republican opposition to Webb)? Is it personality (Webb perceived as a gruff, introverted Marine? Warner seen as a moderate senior statesmen and a good guy?) Is it ideology (not sure what the issue would be here, though...Warner's support for the Iraq war and Webb's opposition would tend to push in the opposite direction)? Is it constituent services (but then why haven't Webb's numbers changed since he took office)? I don't get it, unless it's almost purely personality. I'm stumped, what do you think?
Maybe we can find out more about his life and share it here and spread the word. He's a good guy with the right instincts and I want him to succeed.
Warner at times talks the talk but he votes his vote. Even though I consider it the wrong vote he is consistant with his R principles.
I have Jim's vote out of step about 4 or 5 times, though I cannot name them.
Of course Virginian's do hold grudges and when it is looked at that Webb did not defeat Allen, but Allen defeated Allen, then many people can hold grudges against the winner, even though many people love only winners.
I like Warner, and I respect him, even though I don't agree with him much of the time. He's probably running high because he's a likable guy and is retiring, so he's getting a *golf clap* out of respect.
As for Webb, I respect him too and I don't necessarily fault him for voting all over the place, since we pretty much knew going in we weren't getting an unwavering *democrat*, and frankly that's OK with me. If more people from both sides would vote their heart and not their party then we'd be in a much better place right now.
Congress' approval rating as a whole is horrible, so Senators have farther to climb. J. Warner has had decades to carefully nurture his maverick, statesmanlike image. I would imagine his baseline support is much higher than most any young (or old) Senator in the country.
Kaine needs much more time to prove himself - both in terms of voting record and in terms of his image. It, of course, would be better if there were a few more legislative victories under his belt. As for his image, I like it. I don't know what more he could do, other than be himself. Over time I think he'll gain more respect.
The bottom line is this, however: more people voted against Jim Webb last year than voted for him. If he has any interest in pursuing re-election in 2012, he needs to be proactive about meeting his constituents around the Commonwealth on weekends and whenever Congress isn't in session.
If that were true, he wouldn't have won. Did you mean "more people voted against George Allen last year than voted for Webb"?
With Warner's impending retirement it will fall to Webb's office to take care of things like this. One can only hope that they are putting the infrastructure in place and collaborating with Warner's highly effective staff to make it happen. By the way, effectiveness in this area is a factor in how Virgil Goode stays in office. Political ideology and the drama of electoral politics become irrelevant during a time of personal crisis.
At this moment I would like to propose that This blog and all blogs in Virginia start a campaign to announce our support to nominate Senator Jim Webb for the "Citizen of the Year" award.
His actions on the floor of the senate compare to Stanislav Petrov actions in 1983 that prevent a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the United States due to a computer error.
Yesterday on the floor of the Senate Jim Webb warned his collegues about a resolution that was laying the ground work for an attack on Iran. The same type of resolution that laid the ground work for the invasion of Iraq.
From another source, Yesterday on the floor of the Senate Jim said;
On the Senate floor today, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) made an impassioned appeal to his fellow senators, declaring that the Lieberman-Kyl amendment on Iran should be "withdrawn" because the "proposal is Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream." Webb cautioned that the "cleverly-worded sense of the Congress" could be "interpreted" to "declare war" on Iran. He continued:
Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.
"At best, it's a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy," said Webb. "At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate."
Webb said that amendment's attempt to categorize the Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as "a foreign terrorist organization" would, for all practical purposes, "mandate" the military option against Iran. "It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war. What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them."
He also slammed the lack of debate and examination that was accompanying the amendment, saying "this is not the way to make foreign policy":
We haven't had one hearing on this. I'm on the Foreign Relations Committee, I'm on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military and we haven't had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It's not the way to declare war.
From what I have been able to find out, at least Webb voted against the doctored version, but Hillary and Obama took the heat in last nights debate for their vote.
Shame on Hillary for positioning herself for the General Election. Edwards is looking better every day.
To write a diary about stupidity would be dumb on my part.
But Webb angers his base almost as much as he anger the conservatives. Webb's 59% amongst liberals is lower than it has been in the past, and conservatives, while probably appreciating his stances on immigration, are still furious about how he talks about the war. He angers both liberals and conservatives. Notice how a LOT of liberals and Moderates take no opinion on him (over 10% in each). I think this is there way of saying that Webb sometimes frustrates them. But push come to shove, those people will be voting for Webb in 2012, make no mistake.
Not a few Democrats, too, are disappointed in his slow uptake on ending Iraq. He is strong on opposing war with Iran though, but this is below the radar of most voters.
As for Iran not being on the radar of most voters, I'd hope that everyone of us is shouting from the rooftops that it should be on the radar. This is exactly how the administration pulled Iraq over our eyes. Wake up people, and watch the radar screen, cause its coming. Jim Webb is one of the FEW leaders we have even trying to put the issue before the rest of the sheep in the Senate.
As I reminded someone last night who was crying about Webb not voting with him every step of the way on stopping the war, "I guess you'd rather have let George Allen take the seat back unopposed." We should be darned grateful that we have Jim Webb in the Senate.
Second, nobody's talking about an invasion of Iran, as they were about Iraq. The talk this time is much more narrow, of air attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities and maybe some military installations. Totally different than Iraq.
Third, in this case you've got pretty much all our allies, including France and Germany (and, again, almost all major Democratic candidates and most Senators) in agreement that Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons.
Fourth, unlike in Iraq, the president of Iran is not an absolute dictator, so fortunately there are others in Iran with whom we can negotiate. And we should do that, ASAP. Moderate clerics, the supreme leader (Ayotallah Khamenei), Rafsanjani, Khatami - let's talk to all of them, especially given that Ahmadinejad is increasingly marginalized within Iran. Why not a Bush-Khamenei summit right away? It's long past time...
Air attacks are being planned for, certainly. But do you think for a moment that no ground troops will be needed, eventually? Iran will retaliate to any strikes, and there you go...deja vu all over again. Read Daniel Ellsberg's very stark and no nonsense article. Impending War with Iran http://securingameri... It was rather chilling to me.
I agree with you on point 4. A few smart people have been calling for awhile for diplomacy in the region, at a very high level.
1. Allow Iran to join the nuclear weapons club.
2. Take military action to prevent that from happening.
Again, I'd advocate an emergency summit between George W. Bush and Ali Khamenei.
With regard to the military options, here's Wes Clark's description of how that would play out:
The next war would begin with an intense air and naval campaign. Let's say you're planning the conflict as part of the staff of the Joint Chiefs. Your list of targets isn't that long -- only a few dozen nuclear sites -- but you can't risk retaliation from Tehran. So you allow 21 days for the bombardment, to be safe; you'd aim to strike every command-and-control facility, radar site, missile site, storage site, airfield, ship and base in Iran. To prevent world oil prices from soaring, you'd have to try to protect every oil and gas rig, and the big ports and load points. You'd need to use B-2s and lots of missiles up front, plus many small amphibious task forces to take out particularly tough targets along the coast, with manned and unmanned air reconnaissance. And don't forget the Special Forces, to penetrate deep inside Iran, call in airstrikes and drag the evidence of Tehran's nuclear ambitions out into the open for a world that's understandably skeptical of U.S. assertions that yet another Gulf rogue is on the brink of getting the bomb.But if it's clear how a war with Iran would start, it's far less clear how it would end. How might Iran strike back? Would it unleash Hezbollah cells across Europe and the Middle East, or perhaps even inside the United States? Would Tehran goad Iraq's Shiites to rise up against their U.S. occupiers? And what would we do with Iran after the bombs stopped falling? We certainly could not occupy the nation with the limited ground forces we have left. So what would it be: Iran as a chastened, more tractable government? As a chaotic failed state? Or as a hardened and embittered foe?
Clark says "special forces," not regular troops. That's almost certainly correct, as we don't have sufficient ground forces even if Bush/Cheney wanted to use them in Iran.