This is the sort of thing I was worried about in the beginning of RK's push for Webb as a Senatorial candidate. Webb has been in the public eye for too many years in too many different capacities not have a record which can be picked over and dissected in such fashion as to be used against him by any opponent on any topic for any purpose.
To be sure, Webb has since backed off from various comments he made in the past about Clinton, Allen, and Robb, and has even said that he made a mistake (imagine: a politician who admits to having made a m-i-s-t-a-k-e). Webb apparently has had lunch with Chuck and Linda Robb, and there are, ahem, no hard feelings. But I can understand why cousin Chuck will not make a formal endorsement of Webb, but released his staff people to do so. It also goes a long way to explain the deep well of bitterness and suspicion with which the Democratic regulars regard Webb now.
Nevertheless: To err is human, to forgive is divine (but Dems are demonstrably not divine, unlike, of course the Bushies). Are these antique clips being used by the Miller campaign--- or is there no need to, since Webb's former positions are so burned into the old-time Dem consciousness?
My recommendation: announce this is PAST HISTORY. Webb (like me) has seen the light. Is there no charity toward converts? No hosannahs in heaven over a reformed sinner?
Let's not forget that Harris Miller did NOT endorse Leslie Byrne, and apparently made a public affirmation that he was not endorsing her, even after she won the primary for Lieutenant Governor... so his sin is more recent than Webb's. If the old-line Dems are going to be vindictive about requiring Webb to have backed Democrats as far in the past as Clinton's day, they shouldn't overlook apostasy by Miller just a few months ago.
What we are looking toward is the future. Webb's positions are more progressive Democratic than Miller's. No real labor union has endorsed Miller, but they have endorsed Webb. In fact, labor unions are against Miller, and aren't they supposed to be a major Democratic constituency? Miller gave plenty of money personally to hard-right Repulicans, praised Allen himself on IT matters, and is the poster boy for CEO's who outsourced and downsized American jobs while paying themselves obscene bonuses. Webb NEVER gave money to Republicans, even when he supposedly worked for them, and is unalterably opposed to outsourcing. Webb is acknowledged by all analysts as the one candidate with any kind of a chance of beating Allen.
Our purpose is to elect a Democrat to replace George Allen as Virginia's Senator; Webb is the only viable candidate, and, mirabile dictu, he is also progressive. How lucky can you get? Miller's self-serving negative attacks on Webb damage the Democratic Party and weaken it for November combat. If Miller is such a good Democrat, he should see that, and cease and desist immediately.
I believe that anyone who votes for Miller is mired in an eternal minority party mindset, intent on commiting political suicide. Anyone who votes for Webb is future-oriented, believing that the Democrats can attract not only former Democrats but new voters to the party, and bring about a Democratic majority. The choice is clear. On June 13: Jim Webb for Senate.
It's deeply sad to me how many people don't recognize the historic opportunity we have with Webb. If we as a party fail to select Webb as our nominee, it will be a huge strategic blunder. I personally will be ashamed of our lack of vision.
Obviously, you have an extreme prejudice against anyone who was ever a member of the - GASP!!! - Republican Party. Well, in my opinion YOU are the one who needs to get over that attitude if we "long-time Democrats" are ever to take back this country. Either that, or resign yourself to the rule of people like George Bush and George Allen for the rest of your life. Personally, I will not accept that. I also will not accept rule by corporate shills and lobbyists like Harris Miller. In my mind, that guy represents everything wrong with U.S. politics - and with the Democratic Party - today. Thank God for Jim Webb.
Fact is Tom, there are a lots of ex-Republicans in your precious party. Michael Forbes, James Webb, and David Brock are only the famous ones. I assure you, there's plenty more where they came from.
Harris disqualifies himself from public office if he holds such strong anti-union grudges for a decade that he won't support our statewide candidates because of their previous support.
Frankly, I'll take the honest ex-Republican over the dishonest Republican-donating Democrat.
The Republicans have placed party over country over and over. And party loyalty taken to extremes has weakened the country. When party loyalty means shooting yourself in the foot, the hell with it.
Miller alienated Fairfax Democrats to the point that a third of its members voted to oust him. He tainted his local committee with publicly embarassing if not questionable loans and demonstrable deception. His behavior was a significant factor in indirectly furthering the careers of Republicans in Northern Virginia, including that of Tom Davis. He worked against Gore and Kerry and publicly complained about them. He has an extensive history of divisive politics and rudeness in ridiculing and criticizing local, state, national and international leaders.
If those are the Dem creds that are important to insiders, then the Democratic party as it exists in Virginia risks an exodus of the magnitude that took place with Massive Resistance, although for radically different reasons. A huge number of people associate with the Democratic party based upon social issues. Those who have a limited amount of time, energy and money, may not be inclined to waste them on an ineffective organization that is bent upon self-destruction. This is just not good enough given the problems we're facing right now.
To continue with Thomas Paine's Christian figures of speech, many folks have moved well beyond regurgitation of egalitarian principles that poll well as penance for ineffectiveness, predictably and cyclically regurgitated every campaign cycle. This is not good enough either.
Part of the excitement over Webb is simple relief. For example, relief at not having to defend an otherwise great president in his marital infidelity in the name of party loyalty.
And if I've seen it written once, I've seen it several hundred times on Democratic blogs - that so-and-so needs to "grow a pair." This isn't about testosterone, it's about basic courage and leadership. Because parties be damned, failure of leadership is why the U.S. is in a war over lies, it is why we have Abu Ghraib, why we are cited with human rights violations, it is why we are hated and growing weaker by the day. And it is why an indeterminate number of corpses were floating around unattended in a major U.S. city.
Webb has worked with folks on Capitol Hill, and they want to work with him. He understands beltway politics without being owned by it. Clearly the process TP mentions of coming up through the ranks as legislative staffer has failed to produce an effective candidate who can be trusted. I'm not willing to wait for a few more hurricane seasons in deference to an unwritten tradition. That tradition is not worth one single human life in my book.
As one of Chuck Robb's former staffers to whom you refer in your post, let me set the record straight by saying that Chuck Robb did not "release" me to support Jim Webb. Trust me when I say that it is really not necessary for me to get anyone's approval as to whom I choose support in any political campaign.
And yes, that does include Doug Wilder, another person with whom I have had a long-time political association.
Rhett Walker
Both candidates have been "tainted" by past support of sometimes unpalatable people. We should have had an early airing from both candidates to get us past this, soas to focus on Allen and the issues.
Webb early on admitted wrongs, Miller still skirts around them, first denying, then giving false excuses,....
Both candidates still have questions to answer even Webb, though he has been much more forthright at airing his past.
If we could get past this "Who is the better democrat," and accept them for who they are (past & present) we might actually get something positive done. Let's hope that June 13 provides the solution.
I'll vote Webb.
Virginia is a "Red" state, so by blasting Webb for seeing the light and who also issue by issue is the most progressive candidate by Democratic principles...I think that shoots Democrats in the foot and is a form of "friendly fire".
By blasting the "Republican" issue when the only way the Democrats can win is by having Republicans come into the party or return...it's a total turn off to the overall purpose that needs to happen.
It is political suicide to vote for Miller and the negative ad strategy itself is friendly fire.
I've been divided about this because Allen is such a dangerous candidate. But I believe that people teach us how they want us to behave towards them.
Miller, by choosing his anti-union beliefs and putting them above party loyalty, has certainly shown me that my beliefs, ideals and principles are surely more important than loyalty to the likes of him.
I sincerely hope Webb wins the primary so I don't have to put to the test whether I can in good conscience refuse to support a Democratic nominee. But I've criticized Republican moderates for betraying their scruples and voting for the two Supreme Court nominees who were so far out of the mainstream. I accused Senators like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter of putting party loyalty above loyalty to the country and their constitutents.
So how could I defend urging people to support a Miller candidacy when it would go against everything I believe to be right? Especially the more I learn about the man personally?
All his supporters seem to have is that he's been their friend for years. That's just not a good enough defense of their candidate. Not as I learn more and more about this man. I think it's a sad day that he decided to run and to divide the Democrats this way. If he were a real Democrat, he would indeed drop out.
methinks those are a bit more relevant than what someone did in 1976 or 1980.
So you tell me, who is the better man? If you think Miller, you've got a strange way of judging, that's all I can say.
And I note that Stabenow has endorsed Webb, as have 8 other current or former Dem US Senators, and NONE have endorsed Miller. Want to explain that one to me?
Someone should ask Harris if he remembers September 11, 2001. Within weeks after 9/11, the Republican Party had already begun taking this country (and with it, the world) in just about the worst possible direction. In other words, a misguided invasion of a Muslim country. What they were doing did not become clear to most people until many months later, but the documentation is now there for all to see.
Jim Webb was among the first to speak out against the Bush Administration's rush to an unwarranted war against Iraq.
Webb has always been an independent thinker, but after 9/11 he clearly realized that the time for action had come as the majority in the Republican Party busily screwed up the country and our foreign policy so destructively.
In any case, Webb is not a lobbyist. That is a good thing in 2006. He is generally more progressive on the issues than Miller. Miller is an astro-turf Democrat.
including supporting Spencer Abraham against Debby Stabenow in 2000
supporting Denny Hastert
supporting the Bush tax cuts
supporting the war in Iraq - he listened to Colin Powell
supporting outsourcing US jobs in TWO different organizations he headed
and oh by the way becoming a multimillionaire by doing so
Whatever he may have been in the past, those are NOT the actions of a committed Democrat.
Maybe that's why so many present and former office holders in N Virginia, who know him well, are supporting Jim Webb?
Maybe that's why not a single present or former US senator supports Miller and 9 support Webb?
Not in my book and that's Miller.
If anything I see him as well as others corrupting the Democratic party with the Corporate agenda.
But you know, David Brock used to be a Republican.
Just sayin.
The real reason I have started calling RK by the name "Pravda" is your latest action of eliminating a post referencing Charlottesville Progress Political Reporter and Blogger Bob Gibson's column on the ineffectiveness of the pro-Webb bloggers in convincing the rest of the Democrats in Virginia that Webb made a "mistake" in endorsing Allen and Bush and has had an "epiphany."
You chose to censor the post mentioning Gibson's column, not link to the article, nor even allow any posters to mention that the article exists. Why, because it would destroy the illusion on your site that Webb is leading.
Here is the link to the Gibson column entitled "Bloggers May Be All Too Certain": http://www.dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=CDP/MGArticle/CDP_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1137836365943&path=
Lowell, I have heard that you sometimes seek to attend events as a member of the "media," but you have proven yourself to be the king of the blogger propagandists. You have no objectivity or willingness to expose your readers to opposing views so you don't deserve press passes so you can freeload at events.
So, I expect, as you threatened, that Thomas Paine Patriot will be banned from your site because my truth does not jive with your "truth." I trust I will be banned because, like Communist China, the former Soviet Union, and other repressive regimes, you and Pravda (formerly RK) will not tolerate dissent or any information that might taint your delicately-woven spin.
Even though you're a paid staffer, you could still create one. Right?