From the appearances of things here on RaisingKaine, it may not be exceptionally apparent that several of our writers are waiting to discover the stances of the two potential Democratic candidates for the 2006 Senate race before deciding whom to support. Admittedly, those who have pledged support to James Webb have taken pains to signify that their opinions are reflective of their own viewpoints and not the website as a whole. However, I get the feeling that for reasons of balance, there is value in sharing just why I am withholding judgment.Personally, I have not found enough information about the candidates to formulate a complete opinion. My feelings on the emerging race, in many respects hearkens to the wisdom my grandfather used to teach me by repeating catchy little expressions about politics when he?d take me canvassing as he ran for local office in my childhood. As I have grown older, I have found that I've become a firm believer in one of his favorite old political sayings: "Dance with the one who brought ya."
Webb's ongoing relationship with the Republican Party is a critical concern to many Democrats. Ultimately, party activists need to understand why, even in the period of contemplating a run, Webb has not taken positive efforts to support and back either the Democratic Party or its other candidates. The longer this drags on, the greater degree that concerns of loyalty and opportunism will dog Webb's potential candidacy.
Soon-to-announce candidate Harris Miller also faces the challenge of addressing his record of personal donations to Republican candidates. I understand that this may have been out as a component of in his role as an industry lobbyist-however, I want to understand the context for these donations.
Once these issues are cleared, domestic policy stances will be my biggest concern in this race. So far, neither potential candidate has come public with domestic policies. Ultimately-to quote another political truism, "politics stops at the water's edge." Certainly, I respect anyone who has risked their blood for our nation. However, history shows that military service is a fairly irrelevant indicator of skills in governing-or in dedication to Democratic Party principles. Many of the worst political leaders served as honorably decorated service veterans-like Richard Nixon. Ultimately, I consider this factor rather immaterial.
I have met Miller. I was impressed by his high enthusiasm for politics, community building and this race. I have not met Webb. However, Webb's supporters-like those who write on this blog-do have great passion for his candidacy. I only can hope that should Webb decide to run, that he will demonstrate equal eagerness.
Right now I wait to learn about these policies and how each candidate will address my specific concerns. I'm open-minded, although I will admit to retaining ongoing skepticism for any campaign that does not become based on issues. Maybe this defines me as a wonk, but ultimately, I believe a good race must be about policy, not chauvinism.
I challenge readers here also to spend time and learn before making conclusions or endorsing anyone before learning what potential candidates truly represent. To quote my last adage, "look before you leap." This is important, since we, as activists and citizens, are entitled to hold our candidates accountable to our interests before giving them our support.
Ultimately, I will probably end up supporting a candidate if the issue goes to caucus or primary. Regardless, I bring my support with a caveat-I will maintain huge respect for any Democratic candidate willing to assume such a challenging election. This respect comes not just for being willing to face the kind of dirty politics that we all expect from Allen to defend his seat-but also for assuming the many personal challenges that jumping into high stakes politics involves these days. A candidate willing to fully dedicate him or herself effectively to this kind of effort?and to the Democratic Party?deserves consideration.
the fact that is cross-posted may help people understand the otherwise confusing last paragraph
Now, this is not completely a repeat -- I think the recruiting of Miller is as much as anything for the money, to force Allen to spend money in his reelection, to dmamge him a bit before Allen start to run for president, and to make (more) connections for Warner to the high tech industry (He already has some from his own days as a cell phone entrepreneur).
Miller lacks charisma, but this is not per se a requirement for running for and winning political office. But I do not think Harris has any chance of connecting with average voters around the Old Dominion. Webb does. And if you look at those who have been most successful at winning statewide in Virginia, it has been those that have some appeal across normal partisan boundaries. For all f his other problems, one can clearly sy the Doug Wilder ha an ability to appeal somewhat to the libertarian streak among some in Virginia. That's where I think Webb has a huge advantage. He was willing to work in a Republican administration, but he opposed both Oliver North and this adminsitration's move towards war. He has the credibility, not only a a decorated Marine but as a former SecNav to make the criticism of the war. And remember that Virginia is a huge Navy and Marine Corp state (think Norfolk and Quantico, for starters). And while I can make no guarantees, given that John Warner and Jim Webb were on the same side in opposing Oliver North's bid for the US Senate, I wold not be suprised to see John Warner basically sit out such a race, which would be a tacit approval of Webb that would not go unnoticed.
There are things on which I disagree with Webb. I am on some issues far more progressive than he is, and I would grant that on a personal level Harris might be closer to me on some of those. For example, I do remember Webb being strongly opposed to admitting women to the service academies. But all of us can change our views over time. When we do, the question is why? If it is because of who is paying our salary (other than as a lawyer hired to advocate, which given our adversarial system is a somewhat unique situation), I am inclined to give far less beenfirt of the doubt than to someone who has grown and is willing to acknowledge that his/her previous position was incorrect.
I would have loved to see Don Beyer run for this seat. In his absence, and knowing that Mark Warner has no interest in the US Senate, I cannot imagine a stronger candidate that Jim Webb. I do not think he would have any trouble raising money -- and I still believe, and this is repetition, that Allen is a paper tiger. His big win over Mary Sue Terry was largely because of her imcompetence as a candidate for governor. He outspent Chuck Robb in 2000 10 mill to 6.6 mill, Robb did not really campaign seriously for most of the campaign (he really didn't want to run again), Allen did win by 4 points but that is while Bush was carrying the state by 8 points. With the right candidate, this seat can be had. I think Jim Webb, decorated Marine, former high ranking public servant, successful author, expert on how the Scots-Irish have often been misled into voting against their own interests (In a state with a substantial number of people from that background in the traditionally Republican areas of hte mountains and the Valley), can win this state. And I would love to have him actually ahve to win the seat in a primary competition against Miller, because that will give him lots of free ink -- the press coverage from a real primarycontest will raise his visibility.
Just my .02. Wish I had time to write in more detail and offer it over at RaisingKaine, but I am so overburdened with other responsibilities right now (astute readers will note my lack of diaries here the past few days) that this will be the extent of my remarks.
Dan, I really think it's important that we make our own decisions, not just accept other people word for it. That's part of what is a critical responsibility for all of us who participate in the Democratic process. Otherwise, it's like the jingoistic way folks would blindly follow their cliques in high school. Our politicians owe us more than to just ask us take their word for it. You know, I decided to write this when I attended this week's budget hearing, listened to the gut-wrenching stories made me realize that I really had to take a stand for accountibility. I expect this of everyone, and it's a priority to me.
Finally--Yes, No Republican, you do have a point about Dave Marsden. But back then, I was only blogging about restoring vintage trailers! And, honestly, I had to go through a process of soul searching to define this.
Now, on Harris Miller, we DO know a fair amount about his positions:
*Supports expanded use of H1-B visas
*Supports expanded outsourcing of federal jobs
*Opposes voter-verified paper trails
Obviously, none of these are exactly going to be popular positions with Democratic voters, high tech or Federal government workers in NOVA.
As far as Webb is concerned: according to the book, “The Nightingale’s Song†(page 256), he was a “lifelong if lukewarm Democrat†who was “adrift politically†in the mid-1970s and “washed ashore a Republican.†Another factor, according to the book, was that he didn’t like Jimmy Carter (note: neither did I at the time, when I was a teenage Republican).
The question, then, is not whether Webb is a Democrat. The question is whether or not he ever really was a Republican. I would settle this whole question by saying that Webb is an independent-minded and brilliant man, who goes where the facts lead him. He is a maverick, a bit eclectic in his views, but certainly not outside the Democratic mainstream by any stretch of the imagination. The question is, are we smart enough to welcome and encourage this man, who former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-NE) calls “a unique and powerful voice which could change the course of our nation’s future,†as our nominee against George Allen? I sure hope so.
It's interesting to see your impressions. You clearly have strong feelings for Webb's candidacy, however, that doesn't change the challenge ahead for his candidacy. However, maybe this can point to things you can try to remedy if you want to build his prospects.
Ultimately, it is erroneous to say that insiders control the process: our system of government assures all who are registered to vote the right to vote, even at primaries. Rest assured, even in the Democratic party, there is no way that the "big wigs" you mention can bar others from legal political participation.
That said, however, the reality of what happens in primary contest is that--outside of perhaps occasionally activated peripheral special interest groups--the only constituency that actually turns out to vote at primary elections is the group identified by political scientists as "core." Core voters are party faithful with high involvement--much has been written about them, they are the building block of any campaign. To quote political scientist Stanley Greenberg, "The starting point for both the Democrats and Republicans is to make sure they take into battle the core of loyalists."
To those voters, the issue of loyalty are incontrovertably critical. Try going up to your local Democratic committee--and ask them if they are willing to back a dark horse candidate that has never meaningfully participated in Democratic activities.
That may not be the way folks like you view Webb, but this is how core voters see him. Like it or not, they do not share your perspective and will view anyone with a significant Republican background with suspicion. It has nothing to do with Deanites, emotional feelings on particular ideas, or even that you perplexingly call me your sister (I'm not). Ultimately, anyone with a significant Republican background must work to gain confidence in the core.
Ultimately, it's not what Webb partisans define as loyalty that matters--call the factor of Democratic party participation anything you want to. But at the end of the day, this factor is a very real issue that matters not only to me, but to the rest of the core--who ultimately are the most important constituency in primary elections. Just saying you are Democratic doesn't work, a candidate changing party has got to show he walks the talk--and that comes from participating in Democratic party activities, like supporting other candidates, donating funds, participating in meetings.
That, in short, is Webb's biggest challenge.
But more to the context of my article--isn't what you say really a reason not to get annoyed, but to wait and learn what the candidates really represent? Look at your logic--and you should wait--since utterly no ideology ("the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture"--American Heritage Dictionary) is clear at this time from either Webb or Miller.
By insiders, I think he meant politixal big-wigs. From what I've read online, and heard from most other Democrats, Webb would crush Miller in a primary. What it really comes down to is Mark Warner. If Webb runs in the primary, I believe he'll get the nomination. Warner could, on the other hand, convince him not to run. I would, of course, never forgive the Governor for this. Still vote for him in 2008, but I'd hold a grudge.
"What I did say was that he has done nothing to show loyalty to the Democratic party."
What is loyalty to the Democratic party anyway? Loyaly to progressive ideas %100 of the time? Sorry, sister, but I wouldn't go if I were elected Senate. Hell, I supported the ABNP (Anybody but Nanci Pelosi) campaign. I'm a Moderate Democrat, and I really get...annoyed...when Democrats assume to be loyal to the party you must vote with the Deanites. I am very loyal to my party, though I have a few conservative views. My loyalty to the party can be summed up in this fashion: I will always do what I think is best for my party. That means I will support moderates and centrists. I believe that by doing this, I am helping the Virginia Democratic Party. I think this is the kind of Loyalty that Webb has. He's may not be loyal to the Liberal ideology, but I don't doubt his loyalty to the Democrats or America.
Just what points of Webb's known stances have I failed to address? If there is anything besides Webb being an author, a former Republican administration official, an author with decided opinions about Iraq, foreign policy and the Scots-Irish, and a veteran? That, in a nutshell, is all that is publicly known about Webb--and I think I have shown rather logically that none of these points speaks to the interests of core Democratic voters.
Nobody makes party "insiders" (really, active Democrats) decide primaries except the electorate who chooses not to vote.
It is highly likely that unless Webb dramatically redefines his appeal and reputation, his best hope for winning a primary is a large outpouring of Republican voters in the Democratic ticket (ie, a sabotage vote). However, if Republicans truly feel Webb is the stronger candidate--or an equivalent challenge to Miller, they will never do this.
Additionally, I did not say that Webb was a Republican. What I did say was that he has done nothing to show loyalty to the Democratic party.
Finally, I have to go back to you--what is the use of "off the record" stances? What kind of journalism is that? Unless a potential candidate is willing to go on the record, it means nothing.
I am holding off judgement, since I can see that actual declaration of policies may shift things--but from any logical perspective of analysis, Webb will face an uphill battle, since ultimately, appeal throughout Virginia, particularly to conservative voters in the Military and Appalachia will not win a Democratic primary.
All of which points more closely that Webb may be indeed entertaining a Republican nomination in 08. I would hate to imagine anyone capable of this kind of manipulation, but if you look at the idea dispationately, it's a tactic that makes better sense.
Also, I would point out that, having met both men, Miller's actually far more conservative on numerous issues. I can't go into details because my meetings were "off the record," but you are definitely not correct about Webb.
Finally, primaries can be very positive things, unless we just want to dispense with a minor little detail known as "democracy" and let the Party Insiders make all our decision for us. No thanks is all I have to say to that. I think we need MORE competition, not less. More choices, not fewer. And James Webb will be a great choice, with appeal throughout Virginia - and certainly NOT just on the internet!!
Interesting point about Miller, but I can't say I see anything more of substance to recommend Webb. Standing against North hardly meant anything at the time--about half the state's Republicans did, including, as you say, John Warner. Plus, feelings about Iraq have broken many party line divisions.
I find your remarks about John Warner deciding to sit out for Webb a rather disturbing testimony to an already dubious lack of loyalty to the Democratic Party. From what you say about John Warner, you make a rather convincing case that Webb may be using this notoriety to hold out for Republican support in '08.
The comparison to Wilder is not analogous. Wilder came in to his gubanatorial race with a long track record and constituency among Richmond Democrats and his election ended up turning into a challenge over abortion rights--an issue it is likely that both Webb and Miller will oppose (although among the two, it appears that Webb is probably the more likely to support anti-choice policies).
Similarly, the logic of drawing down Allen does not hold together, either. Allen is virtually assured unopposed nomination by the Republican party. The only battle will be between Miller--and Webb, if he enters the race. Ultimately, if this becomes a heated contest between Miller and Webb, this could transform a primary into pyrric victory for the Democratic party, with little advantage to Mark Warner, worsened circumstances for the suceeding Democratic candidate and no harm to Allen.
To be honest, outside of the virtual world of bloggers, Miller is drawing much more support among loyal Democrats (he got a huge standing ovation the other night). In the real world of politics, that is the constituency that has much more influence over the selection of the Party candidate. Webb will have to do much more to win over party loyalists to gain nomination. All those points cited as advantages (veteran, appeal to Republicans, etc.) do little to advance (actually, may worsen) Webb's cause with the most critical voters in Virginia's Democratic primaries: the core.
I believe this critical demographic issue may be why Webb is holding back from announcing, despite the heartfelt pleas of his Democratic supporters. Based on what you write, with so many odds against winning either the Democratic base or taking on a significant target like Allen (sorry, but I would never dismiss Allen as a paper tiger), Webb may be holding off in anticipation of taking on the mantle of John Warner as the Republican candidate in '08. The current draft effort could offer him buzz and legitimacy to moderate Republicans. It also could explain the very odd fact that Webb has not taken any steps to demonstrate conversion to the Democratic party.
Ultimately, Webb's prospects will probably be far brighter as a Republican in '08 than a Democrat in '06.