No Contest: Why I'll vote for James Webb

By: KathyinBlacksburg
Published On: 5/6/2006 6:12:18 PM

It isn't that I am just now thinking about a James Webb candidacy. In fact, at first, I admit was skeptical. Months ago (perhaps back in Dec.), I expressed some misguided reservations about his candidacy, mostly in light of some disinformation spewed by a pro-Miller blogger and by Miller's supporters. So, I too raised a couple of questions about James Webb. BUT I was in a word -- WRONG about all my major concerns. And the remaining minor one (about the what I considered a needless dichotomy of the 60s generation) is pretty trivial. So, despite my early misgivings about whether Webb was a "real Democrat," for about these past two months, I have believed James Webb is not just the right candidate, but also a stronger protector of Democratic values than his opponent.
It should also be noted, that I am not either a paid staff member or volunteer for the Webb campaign. I obviously don't speak for James Webb or anyone else but myself. But the Webb race is just about the only thing giving me political hope and keeping me active in the Democratic party at this point. And that's the beauty of his campaign, really. He can bridge differences and bring back disaffected folks like me and also so-called Reagan Democrats on the other side of the Democratic spectrum. While mythology suggests that only Reagan Dems have been sitting out the Democratic Party table, the truth is that there are many, many Democrats, former Democrats, and independents, who have been sitting out. We have here a unique opportunity to bring them back.

James Webb

James Webb, former Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, has nontheless been a Democrat most of his life. He's also been a Marine, war hero, consultant, writer, speaker, and statesman.

What Webb Stands For
James Webb runs because "our ideals have been placed at risk...too many wrong choices have been made, too much is at stake, and the time has come to change course," (James Webb, Roanoke VA 4/26/06). James Webb believes in the Marine creed "to take care of your people," an idea, he says, applies to all Americans. He was an early and outspoken critic of Bush's plan to wage war in Iraq. He had the courage to express this view when precious few Democrats had the spine to do so. As important as that issue is, however, there is much more for Democrats to appreciate in the candidate. Here's a sampler of what he said last week:

--"Never send them (troops) into harm's way unless you can justify their risk, and are willing to share that risk. Believe in them. Support them, and never waste a life. Any Marine will tell you this cuts across political boundaries, racial boundaries, and class boundaries. It holds us together and gets us through."

--"Our economy is in trouble. Our tax policies make no sense. Our country is breaking into three pieces, with people in the top half living in a luxury never before dreamed of, even as our middle class sees its jobs being outsourced overseas, their health care slipping away, our public education systems declining, and the people at the bottom are becoming a permanent underclass."

--"This administration's inability to lead fairly and creatively was revealed in the humiliating wake of Hurricane Katrina. Our trust in political leaders is at an all-time low. Why? Because we are in the hands of people who follow no creed; they speak to you of values, but they know nothing other than political expedience and blind loyalty to a money-drenched machine."

--This administration, which mouths the words of limited government has ballooned the national debt, launched a program of unauthorized domestic spying, and sent us into a war wholly unrelated to our national interest. This is not limited government." Now they want to tell you how to live your private life."

--The other party has enriched itself at the public's expense. It has grown corrupt." The Republican Senate has rubber-stamped this administration's bad ideas for six years. They misled us into war and the Senate rolled over...and keeps rolling over--when Dick Cheney picks up the phone and twists a few arms on Capitol Hill. And it's not just Iraq."

--"They've busted the budget so badly that the Republican-controlled Senate, including my opponent (George Allen)--has to keep voting to raise the debt limit so they can spend, spend, spend."

--"They've let drug company lobbyists write a prescription drug plan for our seniors--and the drug companies are going to make billions from this law."

--They've talked endlessly about a dream-world of "free trade" while year after year their policies continue costing American jobs.
"The actions by greedy international corporations that claimed on paper to be American are amoral, if not immoral."

--"We have let down our soldiers, indeed all Americans, by the unjustified war against Iraq."

Webb believes that solutions will be found using a progressive approach to policy that prioritizes fairness and justice, focused on four major themes (the following are from his website (www.webbforsenate.com):

--Refocusing America's foreign and defense policies in a way that truly protects our national interests and seeks harmony where they are not threatened.

--Repairing the country's basic infrastructure, which has eroded badly over the past decade, and developing more creative ways to assist disaster-stricken areas such as those in New Orleans and along the Gulf coast.

--Reinstituting notions of true fairness in American society, including issues of race, class, and economic advantage; and
Restoring the Constitutional role of the Congress as an equal partner, reining in the unbridled power of the Presidency.

Correcting the Disinformation

The smears have gone on too long. Push-polls, supporters of another candidate, and the GOP have all misrepresented Webb's viewpoints. It's time not only to set the record straight, but for Virginians to rally with James Webb, an outstanding American, Virginian, and -- yes--Democrat. He is pro-choice, against the so-called Marriage Amendment, but for civil unions. And he rejects the federal government micro-managing our personal lives. He's for equal opportunity for all. However, there's a contrived (by others) controversy brewing about his stance on affirmative action. But according to the Roanoke Times,

"Webb said he believes affirmative action is rooted in the 13th Amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1866, and as such it should be reserved for blacks. However, he said, in recent years it's been diversified to include other disadvantaged minority groups. If that's the case, Webb said, it should also include "white cultures that have had disadvantages as well."

I can see no reason why the disadvantaged from Appalachia shouldn't also be a priority. But most notably, Webb also wants to have the discussion about how pols are wedging the two groups (southern whites and African Americans) and bring both groups together to work toward greater fairness for all. When folks start using divisiveness and litmus tests for who's a Democrat and who isn't, it's time to look deeper. Webb's primary opponent would have you believe James Webb's credentials as a Democrat are dubious, all the while hoping we don't know the following. Harris Miller:

--supported the war against Iraq. His position today is barely distinguishable from George W. Bush's. He supports no timetable and considers those who do "cutting and running." We've heard such White House spin before.
--supports extending the Bush tax cuts .
--actively promoted offshoring of US jobs (called that good for us).
--opposes an auditable paper trail (he represented Diebold among other high-tech companies).
--would "pull the switch myself" on the electric chair.
--would "treat criminals like criminals," which he faslely claims the Democratic Party doesn't do.
would confirm Bush's Supreme Court nominees.
would support the renewal the PATRIOT Act.
--privatize federal jobs.
--opposes a "national, single payer system" for health care.
--gave money to Dennis Hastert and other right-wingers.

So, it's not a good idea for Miller folks to instigate a litmus test. They just might lose. Quite simply, there is only one person who can beat George Allen and that person is James Webb. The beauty is, however, that in choosing Webb, we are NOT settling. We are getting the most qualified, best candidate of the three (in the primary and general election), and the stronger Democrat.

His op-eds, articles and speeches indicate that in him we have a statesman. His views on war and peace, foreign policy, economic policy, and civil liberties are worth every Virginians serious consideration. His review of the book, The New American Militarism, should be a must-read for Senatorial Democrats, who've lost their way. Is it any wonder that statesmen and war critics such as Commander-in-Chief of US Central Command, General Anthony Zinni; US Rep. John Murtha; four Star General Joseph Hoar, also a former Commander in Chief of the US Central Command, have endorsed James WEbb? Already, broad ranging additional endorsements have made their way into the media: Former Gov. and Senator Bob Kerrey; Gen. Wesley Clark; Chap Peterson; former Congresswoman and State Senator, Leslie Byrne (does anyone believe Byrne would support anyone who doesn't advocate for the equality for women and fair treatment for minorities and labor?. Additionally, Public officials across Virginia, at every level of local government have weighed in as well. A clue about the excitement he has evoked in Democratic circles is that now the national Democratic party leaders are beginning to consider Virginia in play.

Webb stands for honesty in government, Constitutional and lawful governing, service to country, care for those you represent. Call me also "Born Fighting." Personally, I don't want to vote for any more Dems who cave in on every Bush excess or rubber stamp Bush's many misdeeds and abuses. And thus, I can't support one who lacked the the courage to stand up, speak out, and tell the truth about Iraq and everything else going on in this country. Timeliness is everything. James Webb was there when we needed him. And he'll be there for us when we need him in the future. James Webb is the candidate for US Senate from Virginia.
Kathy Welch

www.democracyupsidedown.blogspot.com

 


Comments



This is really fantastic. (Susan Mariner - 5/6/2006 7:28:53 PM)
I'll have to check out your blog Kathy.


I like your blog, Kathy (Susan Mariner - 5/6/2006 9:38:44 PM)
Sorry to read about your father's passing away.


Hi KathyinBlacksburg (Kathy Gerber - 5/6/2006 9:42:01 PM)
Thanks for such a nice summary.

This sentence really sums it up for me, too. "Personally, I don't want to vote for any more Dems who cave in on every Bush excess or rubber stamp Bush's many misdeeds and abuses. And thus, I can't support one who lacked the the courage to stand up, speak out, and tell the truth about Iraq and everything else going on in this country."

It really is a new "litmus" test so to speak.



Incredible (Alicia - 5/6/2006 10:09:02 PM)
This is so well stated - great post!
We do indeed have a Statesman in Webb and will be better off with him fighting for us and our country in Congress.


Make this a mantra! (thegools - 5/6/2006 10:27:51 PM)
THis thing should be a mantra.  Many people who will vote haven't yet paid attention.  Thus this sort of post should be replayed over and over until November.

Good Job



A good reason not to be taken (Rebecca - 5/7/2006 12:07:02 AM)
-by the "Party".

As amazing as it seems there are still some well know Democratic Representatives who are still "loyal" to Miller although confidentailly saying they prefer Webb. The reasoning seems to have something to do with loyality.

These things make me think a lot of elected officials think everything is about them and their friends and nothing is about the people who they represent. Maybe we should just through all of them out every two years. This really bothers me.



Loyalty and Taking Sides (KathyinBlacksburg - 5/7/2006 9:53:37 AM)
I think you are right, Rebecca.  I think in many instances loyalty trumps everything.  Loyalty certainly is important.  I also agree with the rest of your statement, except, perhaps throwing them out every couple of years -- though I do understand why you'd think that.)  I'd giove them a bit longer than two years.  But there should be no entitlements in state or national leadership.  When someone we know has taken misguided positions and we fear that person would be the wrong leader for us, I think that's where loyalty to our values, our state and country should be paramount.  Politics is all so interconnected and ticking off the wrong person could affect donations later.  But this is no excuse to select one who will assure our party and country continue down the wrong path.  It's the sign of a leader that he or she is willing to do the right thing even when others are afraid to do so.  After all that's gone down in the past five-plus years of Bushism, how can anyone think that time hasn't come to stand up,speak out, and vote accordingly?


I think we need to be fair on loyalty (teacherken - 5/7/2006 10:46:57 AM)
many of those statements come from a period of time when Webb would not commit to getting into the race.  The party knew that it needed someone who could run a decently funded and semi-credible campaign to keep people down ballot (house) from being swamped, and to forcde Allen to spend some time and money here in Virginia and not constantly being out building hnis cred and support for his presidential run.  A lot of people made it clear they would not run  --  Mark Warner, Don Beyer, Lew Payne.  Webb had said that he would make up his mind by the end of December but did not, at which point some people started jumping on board with Miller.  In at least one case, that of Jim Moran, Miller had strongly supported him in his own primary challenge (by Andy Rosenberg) in the last cycle.  Having made public endorsements, it becomes exceedingly difficult to withdraw that endorsement -- after all, politicians constantly have to make commitments to get things done, both while campaigning and while in legislative bodies  - and if their word is to have any value they cannot easily walk away from their public commitments. 

Rather than criticize them for their public loyalty, if as expected we see in the next week or so multiple endorsements of Webb by sitting senators, beginning with Harry Reid, those people who have shown loyalty will be the ones able to best influence Miller not to try to stay alive with a slash and burn campaign.  If Miller cannot at this point withdraw (and I do not know the legal situation), he may well let his campaign go dormant and announce that he supports a unified party and intends to vote himself for Webb, and/or he releases those who have stayed committed to him to endorse Webb. 

I'm sorry if this is coming across garbled.  My sinuses are full of fluid and I cannot think straight.  In fact, i can't even see straight.  But then, some people here probably think much of what I post is incoherent,and hence see no difference in this comment.



You're not garbled. (Kathy Gerber - 5/7/2006 1:59:58 PM)
And you are right, we need to remember the awkward situation that those early endorsers are in.

On the other hand, I was chasing campaign contributions around this morning so it's nice to get back to a more high-minded space.  Thanks :)

And I hope you feel better soon!



Loyalty (KathyinBlacksburg - 5/7/2006 4:59:46 PM)
You make some good points.  However, what I meant to suggest is really about what pols ultimately do, not where they all stand today, or stood in December.  I believe loyalty and constancy are very essential virtues.  And those who value those above all else will find themselves  in a bind.  But I believe doing what's best for our country is more important. 

Because relationships (along with money) are the lifeblood of politics, different leaders will come out diffrently on this matter of whether one can change allegiance.  I do know first hand that people change their minds all over the place about political choices.  It's what makes primaries, and even general elections sometimes unpredictable.  I am not arguing with or blaming those who went with Miller early on.  Rather I suggest some of them may want to rethink thier position and that in the long run, we have to be comfortable with ourselves that the person we choose best reflects those things we care about.  Finally, voting for such a candidate should never be dictated by friendship alone.  Voting must come from the deepest, truest part of ourselves.
 



AWESOME DIARY!!!! (phriendlyjaime - 5/7/2006 10:37:51 AM)
I am clapping for you here at home, Kathy!  Try to post this everywhere you can; truly wonderful!