The New York Times has an editorial today called "Lobby Reform Light." It basically highlights why we need to get rid of people like Eric "Abramoff" Cantor, Thelma "Dick Cheney's Female Mini-me" Drake, Jo Ann "Candy Cane" Davis, Virgil "MZM" Goode, Tom "Part of the House Republican Leadership" Davis, and George "Thousands from Abramoff and Bored with the Senate" Allen. As the New York Times writes, the Senate is "spineless," voting for "a halfhearted package of reforms that would come nowhere near curing the easy money, quid pro quo culture that now bedevils the Capitol." Meanwhile, the House of Representatives is even worse, with "reform proposals [having] been parceled out to committees for indefinite marination as Republican leaders face rebellious members who want no part of real reform."
The point here is simple. If we Americans want to end the Culture of Corruption in Washington DC, we're going to have to throw the bums out. And the "bums" in this case are mostly - but not all - Republicans, since they're the ones who control Congress and the White House, and they're the only ones who have received money directly from Jack "Convicted Felon" Abramoff and his "team."
Unfortunately, this November, we won't have the opportunity to dump Bush and Cheney. However, we WILL have the chance to put in new leadership like Andy Hurst and Jim Webb, people committed to a different kind of politics and to ending the sleaze of Allen, Cantor, Drake, Davis, and Davis (sounds like the lobbying firm from Hell!). Under those folks, Congress is simply incapable of reforming itself. Instead, "the pervasive role of lobbyists as campaign finance brokers and money bundlers for incumbent politicians" will continue, with the "moneyed back-scratching...the seedbed for scandal." We must put a stop to this, before our Democracy itself is auctioned off to the highest bidder.
Most of us realize that lobbying houses typically employ both Democratic and Republican lobbyists. Thus, for instance, former Moran chief-of-staff Melissa Koloszar works at the PMA Group lobbying firm.
Now, PMA Group is Jim Moran's number two donor, accorder to FEC data collated at OpenSecrets.org. Now who is Jim Moran's number one donor? It is the defense contractor ProLogic.
And who is ProLogic's lobbying firm? PMA Group.
If you look at congresspeople who get sent to jail for being crooks, about half are Dems. For every Duke Cunningham (R) there is a Jim Traficant (D). Dan Rostenkowski was a Dem.
It's a bipartisan lobbying culture, and Jim Moran is in it up to his elbows.
I have always said that we'll have to join the party apparatus and sneakily work our way up, mainly by doing the grunt work the oldtimers are bored with. And then, there we are in the driver's seat. That's how the Bolsheviks took over the Social Revolutionary Party in Russia. And you know what happened thereafter.
I don't agree with Kos on ideology, per se, but the analysis is totally on-point.
Thanks.
Teddy, how do you think the idealogues took over the Gerrymandered Old Party?
PS In my opinion, any Democrat who says, "we just need to sit back and let the Republicans implode; we don't have to stand for anything" isn't worth his or her salt and should be fired/defeated ASAP.
How do you find time to attend stuff like this AND work!?
1. Clearly define and state the Values that make us Progressives and Democrats.
2. Build the infrastructure to support every aspect of political effort from City Hall to the White House.
Mo Elleithe is a political consultant who works for numerous clients/candidates at one time, including Gov. Kaine's Moving Virginia Forward PAC.
Please stop treating your readers like they are stupid, Lowell. That's what the Repugs do.
Well, that is probably because he has you guys going negative on Miller! You're like Webb's hit squad and do all the dirty work for him... If he Webb is so tied into the "netroots" then he could easily reign in the recent hit pieces but he chooses not to.
I have to say as a Republican it is refreshing to see liberals attack each other… I assume y’all find the same satisfaction when we have our inter-party battles (which is all too often these days).
I find this REALLY unsettling. The Miller team needs to realize that if they go too negative, and then lose the primary, they've hurt Webb and helped ol' Dumb as a Post.
Hey, let me be serious for a moment. Can somebody find a response to a Miller Endorsement to which Webb and his team have reacted negatively? I'm serious. Because if Webb has been this blatantly negative as well, I'll take it back.
Moran was an endorsement for Miller that was easy to criticize, Adam. As a matter of fact, a lot of people did.
Adam, I still believe that Miller himself going negative is bad for party unity. It's far worse than a couple of bloggers. We have no authority, and what we say doesn't always represent the campaigns point of view. Actually, I'd say most of the time we don't. The Miller Campaign has brought up Webb's views on Women in the Military and his views on Clinton. Has Webb brought out Miller's history on outsourcing? Or Miller's history in lobbying. No, he hasn't. Maybe the bloggers have, but Miller bloggers have been pointing out Webb's problems as well. Webb's campaign has been careful not to point out Miller's problems. Miller hasn't shown the same courtesy so far.
Miller is attacking Webb negatively in a tight campaign where neither candidate should be giving ammo to George Allen, and for the second time he's doing this through his surrogates. Its a shame he can't focus his campaign on Allen. Webb has been positive throughout, and for that alone he gets my vote.
And abo
OK, can anyone explain to me why we can't switch "Miller" and "Webb" and still have a true statement?
"Hey, it’s rough and tumble in the blogosphere, but it’s even rougher in the political campaigns themselves, I’d argue. Anyway, these intra-party battles happen all the time, but Miller seems to be going really negative really early."
Early? It's 2 1/2 months! I was hearing attacks on Chap! regarding HB751 in Sept 2004! And how does the first sentence not make the second sentence look ridiculous?
And of Miller's endorsements, who are you going to attack, since they're all from Virginia? Really, who? Miller did himself no harm here, since Clark isn't from Virginia.
Webb can't attack Mller's endorsements without getting himself in trouble.
Lenny and "anon factor": Actually, several of us INSIDE Raising Kaine were talking about Mo and wondering what that meant. So I guess that means WE are stupid, not our readers! :)
Sophrosyne: "Hit pieces?" "Hit squad?" What's with all the Tony Soprano talk? Hey, it's rough and tumble in the blogosphere, but it's even rougher in the political campaigns themselves, I'd argue. Anyway, these intra-party battles happen all the time, but Miller seems to be going really negative really early.
Also, I'd point out that if Miller HAD a netroots following besides Alice Marshall, it would be fascinating to see what they'd be doing. As it is, Alice has been pretty much all negative, all the time on Webb since late 2005. Why is that? Can't sell the guy on his own merits, so they have to tear down a great man?
This guy seemed decent. We both agreed that either of the democratic candidate would be a lot better than Allen. Don't you agree?
I would recommend keeping it civil. We are on the same team. Remember...
Allen is the target!
Allen is the target!
Allen is the target!
Allen is the target!
$1,000 to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), $2,000 to former Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI),
$1,000 to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), and
$500 to Senator John E. Sununu (R-NH).
I'm so surprised that Miller himself is going negative already. I hope Webb continues with the high ground. We all know you can't control supporter comments.
Who's attacking whom, anyway? Frankly, I don't see "attacks" from either side. I see criticisms. I see questions. I don't see any unfair "attacks" at all.
Why shouldn't Webb or his supporters criticize Miller for his positions on the Iraq war and other issues? Why shouldn't Miller and his supporters criticize Webb for statements he has made in the past?
It seems to me that the most unhealthy part of this primary right now is the extent to which both sides are crying "unfair attack!" I think it feeds into the Republican meme that we're all "angry" Democrats, as if anger at injustice and incompetence is somehow bad. Unfortunately, in the media, it's a small step from "angry" to "irrational" and "shrill", and sadly that's how many nonpartisan folks view us.
I'd kindly suggest to both camps of the same side against George Allen that we all dial down the "attack" rhetoric a small bit. Primaries are tough business, and if handled well they can help to publicize the importance of the race against Allen and can raise the profile of the winning candidate. But it's also easy to burn bridges and create wounds that will take a LONG time to heal.
You of all people. Any civilized discussion with you in regard to this Senatorial campaign was lost a long time ago.
You already made up your mind about Webb a long time ago. You were one of the leaders of the draft Webb movement. You first spoke with Harris Miller in private, then you did all you could to discredit him in the blogs while many of us did not know that you were active in drafting Webb.
Not that you are not entitled to your own opinion, but you are really going for broke with the comments and rumors, and your behavior in general. Your rant on the Richmond incident, which turned out to be baseless--an accident that was immediately corrected, would have been legitimized if you put a third update at the top of the post to explain that the incident was an accident, that it was an over-reaction, etc.
So now you attack Alice for one comment she made in November? You attack instead of answering questions from critics. When confronted with your own bias, you claim ignorance and attack with a "go and prove it" defense. You write that you can be objective, but you never disclosed that you were part of the draft when you were attacking Miller.
Luckily, this primary will be over in a couple of months. But your tone, and the way you often distort the truth, will remain.
I read where you wrote glowingly about Markos and Jerome's recent speaking engagement. I have personally attempted to write you on this blog to suggest that you live up to Jerome's blogging standards because (by doing so) you will regain your reputation.
Instead you keep falling into the same trap of attack instead of reflect, dismiss instead of discuss. I do not believe you are truly aware of what you are preaching, and how much negativity you bring to our Party.
What's next? Attack me? Dodge the issue by dismissing my concern and return to attacking Miller? Or sit back and let your friends attack me?
You should really sit back and take a long look at what you have been writing over the past six months.
The fact is, Webb has said many asinine things in the past, and it's a good to ask any of his supporters if they stand by his comments.
Ugh, on the few occassions I read this blog, I feel like I need to take a shower to get all the dirt off.
So good, it had to be repeated.
Webb supporters were sliming Miller before Webb had even announced, so give it a rest.
*Iraq
*Bush's tax cuts
*National health care
*The PATRIOT Act
*Voter verified audit trails
*Outsourcing
*Expanded H-1B Visas
*Bush's Supreme Court nomminees
*The Arab-Israeli conflict
*No Child Left Behind
*Dealing with global warming
*Civil unions
*Etc., etc.
I'd also be curious to hear how you think Miller is better on these issues than Webb. Personally, I believe Webb is more Progressive than Miller on most of these. How about a debate between you and me on the issues?
Let me know.
Thanks.
Lowell
What happened to the guy that posted this on Virginia Centrist less than a month ago?
"Hooray! A positive primary, except in one area: down with Allen!"
That was a great philosophy, dude. One I still think our guys should stick to.
I don't differentiate between a campaign's supporters going negative and a campaign going negative. The candidate, or at least the candidate's manager, should know it's going on. By not stepping in and stopping it, the candidate and management condone and approve of it.
Also, I think it's preferable for a candidate to handle his own dirty work. It keeps the accountability where it belongs (see above).
Webb's problem at this point is living up to the hype.
P.S. I'll make the smae offer I made to Adam Sharp and any other Miller supporters: please make your case for Miller as a Democrat and as a Progressive on the issues, and I'll make mine for Webb. Let the best man win!
I think all the issues you raised about Miller in the paragraph about the WTOP interview are totally valid concerns, and I don't think you're "attacking" Miller by raising them, repeating them, and drawing attention to them. They certainly bother me, and I'd never have known much about Miller were it not for you and other RK folks.
I likewise don't think it is "attacking" Webb to question direct quotes that he's made. I'd really like to hear an explanation of the Clinton quote rather than just saying that someone is "attacking" Webb by mentioning it. Sometimes quotes may be taken out of context, sure, but then it's up to Webb to contextualize them so voters will understand where he was coming from and decide for themselves. I also don't think it is "attacking" Clark to question whether he stands by a statement made by a candidate he just endorsed. That's just standard everyday practice in politics, isn't it? From what you describe here, it doesn't come even close to sounding like an "attack".
It's kind of interesting that it is Alice's frequent criticisms of Webb that have turned you off to Miller more than the Miller campaign itself. She's pretty much taken the role of lead Miller blogosphere surrogate, and your tireless work for Webb has resulted in you being seen as the lead Webb blogosphere surrogate.
That's why it occurred to me to write that I think there's a real danger in overusing the term "attack" when Webb's opponent, campaign, or surrogates criticize him. There's a danger that -- even though you're not a staffer on the campaign -- your reactions and cries of "attack" may make the Webb campaign seem thin-skinned.
Expect criticisms. Prepare for them. Even expect attacks - especially if Webb wins and he goes up against Allen. But if the best that Webb can do is cry, "He's attacking me!", that's not going to be enough to beat Allen, right?
IMO, though it can ratchet up the loyalty factor among die-hard supporters, raising attention to your perception that your campaign is being attacked doesn't make you look stronger among undecideds. In internal communications to supporters, it can drive up donations and enthusiasm, but to the wider undecided public, it's not the best strategy.
Just my 2 pennies, of course, for what they're worth. ;-)
P.S. Seriously, I probably take your advice more seriously than just about anyone else's in the Virginia blogosphere. I can't wait until you're back and blogging full time...we NEED you!
Overall, I agree that we should all strive to "dial down the attack," as you suggest. It's tough, however, when one side has been at it relentlessly since November 2005.
By the way, I was NOT anti-Miller as of late December 2005. I was pro-Webb, and I told Miller that before we had dinner together in late December. What bothered me, and ultimately alienated me, was the constant criticisms by people like Alice. Also, I simply don't agree, as a Progressive, with many of Miller's positions on the issues. His WTOP interview with Mark Plotkin really, honestly turned me off. Bush's tax cuts were a great idea? Ack! He's an "Old Testament kind of guy" who would "pull the switch myself?" No thanks. A lobbyist who opposed voter verified audit trails? Again, no thanks. Frankly, I'm surprised that any of my fellow Democrats see these as appealing in any way.
One more question: what "dirt" are you guys talking about? I believe if you look back on the articles written here by Josh, Greg, myself, and others the past few months, you will see that they have discussed Miller's positions on the issues, his past campaign contributions to Republicans, and his supporters' (mis)statements about Webb. Obviously, we Webb supporters are not just going to sit back and take that. But when we defend our candidate, it's "dirt?" I guess I simply don't get it. Sorry.
As for me, I am disappointed that this religious overlay has intruded at this time: that is a Republican trick., in my estimation, clouding the issues under discussion.
Insofar as the comments about Miller having a vision and having heard nothing about the future from Webb, I must say I do not have that impression at all. In fact, the very reason I am supporting Webb is because from him I have heard the vision, not the least of which is the necessity to change the terms of debate, stop being mired in the Republican framing and get into talking about what really matters, and what is really going on. From Mr. Miller I have heard mostly same ol' same ol' politics as usual.
Sorry to come so late to this interesting discussion, but I do have a day job, and I go to be earlier than some of you night owls.
By the way, it impresses you that Miller started earlier than Webb and called a bunch of Party committee chairs back in December and January? And "it's not about the issues" for you? Well, all I can say is, "to each his own." Webb will win the primary in June - probably by a margin like we saw at the Gerry Connolly Saint Patrick's Day party (58%-42%), and then go on to defeat George Allen this November. I hope to see you at the victory party for Senator Webb, where I'm sure I'll be "over-the-top and breathless" with happiness. Hope that doesn't bother you too much. Ha ha.
First of all, it's only negative if you let it be. I know, I should heed my own advice. Let's work on that, shall we?
As for your Centrist vs. Progressive, I'm about as Centrist as they come, dude. Hell, I'm registered with the Blue Dog Democrats as a "Citizen Blue Dog." I have plenty of conservative leanings. So you can't say Miller is the centrist candidate.
I'm a VERY religious guy, Adam. Especially since coming up here. I don't know everything that Lowell's been saying, but I'm sure he's never seriously offended anyone's religious beliefs, and neither has Webb. I'm sure you are referring to the "Old Testament Democrat" statement we keep laughing about? The problem I have with it is that it sounds like a cheap soundbite made to try to fit in the Tim Kaine "I'm a Catholic Democrat" mold. Nothing against Harris' beliefs, but it sounds SO bad.
Now, you say that a Centrist can win in VA, but not a Progressive? Webb has a lot of qualities that would put him above Miller for attracting those votes only a "Centrist" could grab. First, he's a former Republican, under Reagan none the less. Already makes things easier for Moderate Republicans looking to cross-over.
I understand your "emotional" thing, Adam. That's what it is for me, too. I'm connected to Webb. He's fresh, he's honest, and he hasn't been corrupted by years in the political process. Miller, to me, FEELS like just another political slime. That's not what I think of him, but that's my gut reaction. Webb feels refreshing, and I'm already emotionally there.
Adam, Webb is going to win this primary. I can feel it in my bones. And when he does, I hope we can count on your support.
Harris Miller is a Mark Warner Democrat, which means he's a centrist Democrat. He's not a progressive. OK, that's not a deal-breaker for me. Mark Warner has won this state.
What impressed me about Miller and caused me to make my decision was that while Webb was considering, declining, then considering again, Miller was calling local committee chairs. He was connecting with the grassroots of the party, especially in the valley.
Frankly, Lowell, Webb's promotion on this blog and others raised the b.s. alert inside my head. You've been over-the-top and breathless for months now. There are great candidates, yeah, but they're still human. Whenever I read about Webb, it seemed "too good to be true."
Miller's bio, while "incomplete" as J.C. frequently alleges, made sense. It personalized and humanized Miller and made him real. Webb's bio is great, but it didn't humanize him.
I don't know what progressive means to you, Lowell, but it doesn't mean that religion has to stop at the door. We both agree that Tim Kaine is an incredible guy with great talent, but what sold me on Kaine wasn't just his platform, but his testimony and the understanding that he came to politics with a religious background. I see that in Miller, though not to the same extent as Kaine. I don't see that with Webb. It matters.
Finally, Miller's been talking about the future (when he's not talking about Webb), which is exactly the conversation Democrats need to be having with the public. If we focus on the present, or worse the past, we play the Republicans' game. They want to dispute who did what when (Kerry, Clinton) or pander to the hot-button issues of the day (gay marriage, estate tax repeal, etc.).
Where Republicans can never match us is the future. They have no vision for the future, for the entire conservative ideology is based on the premise that things probably won't get too much better, so we better hunker down and defend what we've got. Change is to be feared, since how do we know it won't be for bad? Progress only occurs in technology, and some conservatives even consider technological advances in communications to be a reason why morality is declining.
We are not like that. The future can be better because we can make it better. There are things to accomplish in the future, like combatting tyranny, poverty, terrorism, injustice and disease. There are projects to build, nature to protect, places to explore, knowledge to learn, challenges to defeat.
When Miller began talking about the future, he had my support.
So it's not about the issues for me, Lowell, it's about the vision, the leadership, the person. I've always seen politics as an emotional process. People don't passively consider their self-interest - that's a load of crap. This is about being an American, deciding who to trust, planning for where we will go as a nation and working to make our communities better places.
It's personal and emotional, the way we all, if we're honest, know we make our voting decisions.
Issues come into play if voters cannot make an emotional choice, they help push a voter one way or another. There are some issues that affect people very deeply, but at the moment the issue touches the psyche, it's emotional.
This sort of attachment to a candidate is also not likely to be shaken by attacks on positions, but character. And if you attack the character and fall short, the supporter becomes angered.
Now, this should both explain my support and defense of Miller and the conundrum that is Bush supporters.
So go ahead and tell me why I'm ruining the Democratic Party, but get ready to be supporting Miller June 14, because he's going to win. Count on it.
Please.
Both James Webb and Wes Clark are exactly the kind of leaders/Democrats that we have lost in the last 30 years and now that they have begun to return our party will be all the stronger for it.
That is why I am petitioning for both of them even though Webb is my man. If we all did this, the petitioning would be completed sooner....and we might not bicker as much.
No doubt the Clark endorsement was a big pick-up for the Webb campaign, but as both men have somewhat substantial past ties to the Republicans, I don't think its out of bounds to get clarity on their current thinking in this regard.
If Webb is going to be our standard-bearer this fall, I think we could all use reassurances that he shares common Democratic values. Not saying that he doesn't, but it actually helps Webb when he reiterates his commitment to core values.
It stopped being positive a long time ago.
Here's an example:
"He shows up to defend Harris Miller occasionally. He has a strange fixation with him. He must know his family or something, because I can't think of any other reason to support him."
Link
Now I can think of reasons to support Webb, he seems like an OK guy. But the Webb supporters have been ravaging Miller for months, and I have a hard time allowing any Democrat to be jumped on without defending him.
Let's look at how the "allegations" (since Maura doesn't like the word "attacks") pair up:
Miller: lobbyist / Webb: Republican
Miller: donated to Republicans / Webb: endorsed Allen
Miller: pro-death penalty / Webb: questionable actions concerning women in military
OK, tit-for-tat. But find any Miller supporter saying this about Webb: "The bottom line for me on Miller is, other than the fact that I disagree with most of his views, the guy really has no class."
C'mon, people, this is unnecessary. He's a fellow Democrat. Must I remind you that there are lobbyists for the environment, for the poor, for women's rights, for teachers, for students, for gays and lesbians? Being a lobbyist per se is not a black mark.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/March%202006/Virginia%20Senate%20March.htm
The link was at Atrios', so will get seen by a lot of people.
May he rest in peace and watch over us.
Although this is a sad day, I hope we can all use the next days and weeks to celebrate the life of a great Virginian.
Here are some thoughts:
1. Highlight Webb's strong opposition to gays openly serving in the military;
2. Webb's support of strong reforms in immigration;
3. Opposition to gay marriage.
In order to run an effective campaign in the 5th, 6th, and 9th Congressional districts, these stances must become common knowledge with the electorate.
This official, by the way, is a movement conservative -- and gives his wholehearted endorsement to Mr. Webb because he feels that he will be a different kind of Democrat -- one who won't be afraid to speak out against the likes of Ted Kennedy.
(Also, it was good to meet a couple of fellow dKos folks there, too.)
Webb really needs to have a good smile picture taken of high quality.
Somehow, the cost benefits of linking trtansportation AND infrastructure with development must be made apparent to the business interests itself. Here, again, in this struggle, we see the typical Republican short-sighted short term focus of grab-the-money-and-run-make-a-bottom-line-profit today and leave the future social and economic costs for some one else to pay for in the future.
Catch some audio of the endorsement here:
http://www.webbforsenate.com/press/actualities.php
Far be it from me to only criticize and not praise when necessary.
This is a good post. You do your candidate proud here.
It's all those other ones ...
Imagine my shock and awe.
ha ha haaaaaa
