James Webb's press conference this morning lasted about 35 minutes. Some of the themes that I walked away with which should resonate with the primary voters and the general electorate are:
On Career politicians:
"There are too many career politicians."
"We need people who are not career politicians."
"I am not a career politician."
On Courageous Leadership:
"We need leadership with backbone."
"I'm willing to make the tough calls on issues."
"We need leaders who know when to say enough is enough."
On why he is a Democrat:
The Democratic Party has always been the party of the "average person." It was "born of the populist politics of Andrew Jackson." I am defined by "the ideals of Jacksonian Democracy." [It was and should be the party that answers the question] "Who speaks for those without a voice?" "Andrew Jackson is the paradigm" [for what the Democratic Party should be].
On Lobbying:
"I have never taken a penny for lobbying."
"There are 33,000 lobbyists, there are 535 [persons in Congress]."
On the primary and the process:
"I will focus on the issues that concern me." "Hopefully people will support me." "I am not a career politician." "[I intend to] speak honestly and I have a strong feeling that activists will react [positively to that message.]
On Allen's presidential ambitions:
"It is irrelevant."
On Allen:
"As [most of you know] I supported him in 2000." [When he got to Washington] he became part of the machine."
On the present state of the Republican Party:
"The party of George W. Bush is not the party of Ronald Reagan." [Many have] become extremists on social issues." "On economic issues, they are not conservatives." On foreign policy, they have "attempted something never attempted before, they have attempted to impose democracy at the end of a gun." "I don't think Ronald Reagan would have done that."
On Iraq:
"We should never have been there" [in the first place]. We need to "get out of Iraq"?" in a responsible way." The first thing we must do is to "bring the other countries in the region to the table." "We will have to do this eventually, anyway." But first this administration must "acknowledge there are no long term aspirations in Iraq." "They have yet to do that." "Do we want to spend 50 years in Iraq?
That said, I can guarantee that Webb does not want us in that hell-hole forever, and out of there the sooner the better, in as much as, he pointedly raised the question of why this administration refuses to simply say "we have no long term aspirations in [designs on] Iraq." Perhaps that is the distinction you so desperately seek.
Feel free to pick apart the reporting and the substance of the statements as you wish. At the end of the day, the simple truth is this, there is only one Democratic candidate in the race capable of beating Allen and that is Jim Webb. Make no mistake, us Webb supporters are in this to win, not run a reasonably close campaign and make Allen spend money to no avail.
As for Allen he should be afraid, very afraid, of Jim Webb. When the boys over at the National Review start fretting, you can bet they are, or should be at Allen's office. See, "Webb Loss" http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200602130816.asp
Is Webb willing to stay in Iraq for three more years, if that is what it takes in order to leave Iraq in a responsible manner? If so then his position is not so different from Bush's after all.
Now, it's stay until we're out of office - or until Iraq isn't a story anymore. If Iraq is still a story after we pull out, then Bush bears all the blame. If there's violence against the Iraqi government, agains the oil industry, if there's civil war, then the Republicans lose the only "war supporters" they really still have left - those who are starting to second-guess the war itself, but think we need to stay "until the job is done."
I agree with Mr. Webb - currently, for violence in Iraq to not be a front page story on Day 1 after the last US troop leaves country, it will take an onerous, 50-year type occupation. We simply can't afford that, but the White House can't afford anything less. Anything less is them making a mess they didn't clean up.
If a future president pulls out and things are messy afterwards (which they will be), Bush can comment "I gave him my best advice" if he's GOP, "I told him not to do it" if he's a Democrat.
I'm for a firm date on the calendar, thoroughly vetted by both current military commanders and high-level security consultants, because I think that's the only thing that will make Iraqis serious about their own security. They'll let us do the hard jobs if we don't get serious about leaving.
My experience in Iraq is now very dated - I've been home longer than I was there (which was quite a while) and the challenges are different.
Everyone falls down a couple of times after the training wheels come off.
That would be great.
If Bush thinks it'll take fifty years to secure Iraq, he will. James Webb thinks that we leave as soon as we can, but we can't leave them in horrible condition. I'm sure we'll hear more on it soon.
What does that mean? How does Mr. Webb distinguish between responsible and irresponsible ways of getting out of Iraq?
And how does Mr. Webb distinguish between his position and that of the Administration, which also wishes to get out of Iraq in a responsible way?
What is "responsible?"