The Roanoke Times reports today that Harris Miller has now resorted to outright lying about Jim Webb. Oh, wait a minute, Miller already resorted to outright lying by implying that Webb was a racist (because Webb wants changes to Affirmative Action that incoporate aspects of economic class and do not exclude, for example, poor, Appalachian whites). And Miller resorted to outright lying by wildly distorting Webb's views on women in the military, implying that Webb was some sort of misogynist. Right, the guy who opened up more billets for women than any other Navy Secretary is a misogynist. What. Ever. Harris.Now, Miller continues his lies, saying, "Clearly Mr. Webb has been a Republican all his life, so he has a different view of the world than I do." Well yeay, Webb has a different view of the world from your "Old-Testament-kind-of-guy" (whatever THAT means!), outsourcing-to-India-is-wonderful, "Bush-tax-cuts-for-rich-people-are-a-great-idea," screw-the-worker views. So, that part's true at least. But Webb "been a Republican all his life?" Now, that's just an outright lie, and you should apologize immediately.
As you know, Harris - or as you SHOULD know by now, self-described "genius" and "visionary" that you are - Webb was a Democrat until the late 1970s, when he felt disrespected by the Democrats and drifted towards the Republicans. During the 1980s, Webb is best described as a "Reagan Democrat," but for argument's sake, let's just say he was a Republican. During the 1990s, Webb was basically an independent, before coming home to the Democratic Party since the Iraq War. All the while, though, Webb was a "Jacksonian Democrat" at heart, an independent in spirit, and an reality-based empiricist in his mind. But a "Republican all his life?" That's complete crap and a total lie. Apologize, Harris!
By the way, using the same line of reasoning, were you, Mr. Miller, a Republican when you gave money to Dennis Hastert, Spencer Abraham, and John Sununu? Were you, Mr. Miller, a Republican when you urged the re-election of Abraham to the U.S. Senate? Were you a Democrat when you worked your whole career against the interests of U.S. workers? Is this why Dave "Mudcat" Saunders calls you "the most hated man in the country by the AFL-CIO?"
Just curious.
Surely Allen, Hastert, Abraham and Sununu have done more behind the scenes damage. You know George Bush has. But Miller is so bloody obvious in what he's done. He's the man who broke Caesar Chavez' growers union in California, after all by flooding the market with immigrants.
Allen's worse in a lot of areas, but on this one case, maybe not by much.
Miller's opponent, Jim Webb, is a populist with plenty of grass roots support. Choosing Miller over Webb means turning our back on the union workers and even non-union labor that the Democratic has claimed to speak for in the past.
Vote for Jim Webb on June 13th!
Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, a liberal Republican (yes, there were once such things) changed his party to Democrat after 1952 in protest on Nixon's placement on the GOP ticket and in protest of Joseph McCarthy's tactics. Not only did the Democrats trust, him, they gave him a committee chairmanship.
Congressman Donald Reigle of Michigan, another liberal Republican, changed his party to Democrat in 1973 after realizing that he didn't fit in with the rest of his caucus. Not only was he re-elected anyway, he later became a Senator.
Or hell, how about the case of James Eastland of Mississippi, who never changed his affiliation from Democrat even though he was chummy with Joe McCarthy, had numerous fights with presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and endorsed Republicans for president for the whole latter half of his career. Even Eastland's fellow Mississippi Democrat John Stennis, hardly a leading liberal voice, had few kids words for Eastland.
My point is, the length of time you're in a party doesn't mean much. It's what you do in the time you've been in that counts.
Webb is a threat to the status quo so he has to fight off the faux Dems before he can get to the Republicans. I like the fact that he is a fighter. Miller is running scared because the truth about him is much worse than his lies about Webb.
[miller is an] anti-worker hired gun
As the state AFL-CIO and the labor councils throughout the state embark on their candidate assessment process, I hope they will take into consideration Miller’s anti-labor, anti-worker activities and find him unfit for any kind of labor support.
Needless to say Miller is truly one of the bad guys. Over and over again on core issues like trade, immigration, overtime protections and privatization of federal jobs, he’s not only been on the wrong side, he’s been galvanizing corporate efforts against us.
If he isn't the most hated man in the country by the AFL-CIO, he's certinaly in the running.
It's an interesting strategy borne out of desperation for Harris Miller to attack James Webb as a life-long "Republican".
In fact, as anyone who has read James Webb's many public articles and books will attest and reviewed Mr. Webb's commendable and honorable service to our nation (which has recognised his heroic conduct on the battlefield,) James Webb is one of the most sincere and honest democrats we now have in public life.
Mr. Webb's announcement of affiliation with the broader Democratic Party rather than being the stuff of mere formality, is clearly underpinned by his body of writing. It is underpinned by his public actions. It is underpinned by Mr. Webb's willingness to explain himself on blogs and in interviews. We know where Jim Webb stands -- with the working people -- with the middle class -- with the ideals of a democratic society.
Insulting the intelligence of the electorate with unfounded claims that James Webb is a "Republican" does nothing but underscore the emptiness of Harris Miller's claim to be a "Democrat".
Of course, Harris Miller has have a long history of working against the interests of middle class blue collar and white collar Americans, it's to be expected that Miller will attempt to muddy the waters and avoid a real discussion of his political philosophy (or lack thereof).
As Mr. Miller is a long-time student of political philosophy and practitioner of politics as an effective pro-outsourcing business lobbyist, he is quite aware of Machiavelli's admonitions regarding the efficacy of the lie.
And lie Mr. Miller does and has done for years extending unto decades. He has lied about labor shortages. He has lied about inadequacies of skill and education in American workers. He has lied about the utter failure of American educators -- American teachers -- to prepare children for the jobs of the 21st century. He has lied about the use of imported foreign workers to facilitate offshore outsourcing of American jobs. He has lied about the presence of foreign workers in the U.S. imported by corporations to perform work that Americans (can and should perform).
In sum, it's quite reasonable to say that Harris Miller's wealth and success has been based on his mastery of the lie coupled to his unprincipled subservience to business interests single-mindedly engaged in maximising profits without regard to the adverse consequences to our fellow citizens, out society, our communities, and our country.
To which party then does Harris Miller pledge his loyalty? Clearly not the Democratic Party of real democrats. I suggest that Miller is an ally of the "Party of Davos" -- the international group of intellectuals and business leaders who care more for a world built around business efficiency, maximising transnational profits and the enrichment of international elites of investors.
Miller is clearly not concerned about the impact of such policies on the American people. Harris Miller is not a "good Democrat".
Harris Miller's acquisition of wealth, power, and political influence which he calls the realisation of the "American Dream" came at the cost of ruining the dreams of millions of hard-working Americans whose jobs he helped destroy.
Is Harris Miller the sort of candidate that Democrats can reasonably support? I think not.
Anybody want to write to the paper?