In this week's Time Magazine, Joe Klein writes a column that could be destined for the history books. Entitled, "Can the Democrats Handle a Heretic?", Klein boils the Webb vs. Miller race down to its eseentials, explaining its critical importance to the Democratic Party and to the country as a whole. Klein's sub-header - "Senate candidate Jim Webb's campaign will help determine whether Democrats can become a majority party once more" - says it all. The question, according to Klein, is whether Democrats will seize the historic opportunity represented by a Jim Webb candidacy to reshape our party and our nation. Or, instead, will the once-great Democratic Party - a "party that mistrusts converts" and that "loves litmus tests" - look destiny in the eye...and blink?
The following paragraph bears reading and re-reading by all Virginia Democrats. It is what we have been trying to say here on Raising Kaine for months now, although Klein proves why HE is the one writing for Time Magazine and we're not! (bolding added for emphasis):
Webb may turn out to be a crucial figure in the recent history of the Democratic Party. For the past 25 years, the tide of political conversions has been running in the opposite direction, from Democrat to Republican, and most of the converts were people like Webb: white, Southern, middle class or poorer, patriotic and, often, with a strong family tradition of military service +óGé¼GÇ¥in fact, Webb's son Jim Jr. is a Marine lance corporal headed to Ramadi. Webb's conversion may be a sign that those sorts of people may now be willing to give the Democrats a second look. A standard-issue Democrat like Miller would probably be cannon fodder for a Republican incumbent like Allen, a party star and probable presidential candidate. It wouldn't be an easy race for Webb either, but his candidacy might begin to redden the Democrats' necks in the South. And with his pugilistic history+óGé¼GÇ¥he fought a famous bout against Oliver North at Annapolis+óGé¼GÇ¥Webb would surely give Allen a tussle.
Looks like a clear choice, doesn't it? Sure does. But wait a minute, let's also look at the forces we're dealing with here. As Markos Moulitsas and Jerome Armstrong discuss in their recent book, "Crashing the Gate," the Democratic Party today is largely a collection of special interest groups, each with its own set of "litmus tests" and not necessarily working together for the broader Progressive or Democratic good. As Joe Klein writes:
...it isn't easy running as a Democrat. There are litmus-test land mines in every audience...drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, abortion, gay marriage.
I am fairly certain, by the way, that the point that Joe Klein is making is NOT that these issues aren't important. Personally, I feel very strongly about many of them, as I'm sure you do. However, what I believe - and I hope what most Virginia Democrats believe when they go to the polls June 13 - is that we need to look out for the broadest possible good, and not get caught up in one specific issue to the detriment of all others.
Let me give you a personal example, one that's near and dear to my heart. I am a very strong environmentalist. I do NOT believe that we should drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). But here's my deal: if a Democrat is running for office and agrees with me on 90% of the issues EXCEPT for ANWR, against a Republican who DISAGREES with me on 90% of the issues but happens to be a strong opponent of ANWR drilling, I'll strongly support the Democrat. Any day of the week.
Hell, even if the Democrat agrees with me on 50% of the issues, it's STILL better than the today's far-right-wing Republican Party, a party that opposes pretty much EVERYTHING I believe in.
And make no mistake, today's Republican Party is a menace to everything we care about. Currently, I am reading Kevin Phillips' frightening book, "American Theocracy," in which this lifelong Republican decries the band of theocratic and crusading "neoconservative" zealots who have seized control of his party.
By the way, those "theocratic zealots" are not hard to find. I'm sure you know several. I personally encountered a few of them yesterday at the Herndon Festival while canvassing for Jim Webb. One guy cut right to the chase, asking me where Webb stood on the marriage amendment. When I told him Webb opposed it because he didn't believe the government should be interfering in our private lives like that, he got a look on his face that could have curdled blood. The discussion went downhill from there, as the guy tried to convince me that, against all scientific evidence, people are turned gay and NOT born that way. How are they "turned" gay? According to this man, by the same force (Satan, I presume, although he didn't use the name) that brings other "sin" into this world. End of story. Chalk up another George Allen voter. Ack.
Back to the Democratic Party and interest group politics, consider the endorsement by former NARAL leader Kate Michelman the other day of Harris Miller as a case study. Essentially, Michelman's endorsement of Miller summed up everything that Markos and Jerome write about in "Crashing the Gate," and everything that's wrong with the Democratic Party today.
To wit: Michelman is a single-issue litmus test leader (abortion rights, in her case), who actually threatened to run as an Independent against Bob Casey, the Democratic nominee in Pennsylvania with the best shot at beating Senator Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum. Then, the other day, Michelman traveled to Virginia in order to endorse Harris Miller over Jim Webb, even though Webb is the Democrat with the best and ONLY shot at beating George "97% Bush Rubber Stamp" Allen this November.
In other words, Michelman is committing the classic mistake that "interest group Democrats" make: looking out for her own particular special interest over the broader interests of the Democratic Party as a whole. That is extremely unfortunate, yet typical of the behavior you see from many Democrats. As Klein writes:
Miller has been working his way through the traditional Democratic constituencies--abortion-rights activists, teachers' unions and minorities--like a threshing machine...[Webb vs. Miller is] a campaign that will help determine whether Democrats have the expansive soul to become a majority party once more. Liberals hunt down heretics, Michael Kinsley once wrote, while conservatives happily chase converts. Webb is a convert in a party that mistrusts converts. His candidacy is a litmus test for a party that loves litmus tests.
Indeed, on June 13, we Virginia Democrats will have a crucial "litmus test" to pass or fail. Will we nominate Jim Webb, a man who can win back "white, Southern, middle class or poorer, patriotic" voters and thereby turn the Democratic Party into a "majority party once more?" A man who has taken a "spiritual journey" to rediscover his core as a "Jacksonian populist Democrat," fighting for the common man? A fiercely independent thinker who follows his own orthodoxy and litmus tests? A man who sees the Democratic Party as the best hope for positive change in America moving forward? A man who is "George Allen's worst nightmare?" A man about whom former Senator Bob Kerrey wrote me, back in early January 2006:
Thanks for the note and your encouragement of Secretary Webb. I do not know Virginia well enough to speak with your confidence, but I am confident that Jim Webb is needed in the U.S. Senate today. I have been
encouraging him to run and will do everything I can to help him if he decides to go for it. He is a unique and powerful voice which could change the course of our nation's future.Unfortunately, I cannot advise what you (or I) should do to get him to do this. That's a work assignment for his remarkable heart.
Or, will we nominate a Democratic Party "apparatchik," as the Washington Post (affectionately?) called Harris Miller the other day? A man who is "disciplined and unappealing," as "a prominent Democrat" told Joe Klein? A man who "would probably be cannon fodder for a Republican incumbent like Allen?" A man who Larry Sabato called the worst candidate he had ever seen? A man who, in many ways, represents everything wrong with the Democratic Party - and American politics - today?
No. I am confident that on June 13, we Virginia Democrats will not make a mistake of such historic magnitude. I am confident that we will not pass up this opportunity of a lifetime, as offered by the American Hero named Jim Webb. Instead, we will lead the nation, as Virginia has so many times in the past, in renewing our Party, our Democracy, and our nation.
This is deadly serious. Men like Jim Webb don't come along very often. But sometimes, the urgency of a nation's plight calls forth leaders of such courage and such integrity as Jim Webb. Today, in the post-9/11 world we inhabit, in a time of "constitutional crisis," as Al Gore desribed so powerfully back on Martin Luther King Day, we face such a time and we have found such a leader. Let us not miss this historic opportunity, for it may not come again anytime soon. On June 13, the choice is clear. Jim Webb. For our freedom. For our constitution. For our country!
I'm not thinking ahead. We have not yet won a primary (and I apologize for the limits of my own endearvors, but with yearlykos, end of school and being quite sick recnetly I hav been largely limitedmto electronic lobbying, although I will put out a batch of highway signs tongiht). I am merely describing how one very perceptive person reacted.
As to Klein's article, quite frankly, I think he ripped off the ideas of Crashing the Gate. I'm not sure the last time Joe Klein had an original idea of his own. Even being "Anonymous" for "Primary Colors" was not his idea, but that of hisliterary agent, my highs chool classmate (and very first date in 7th grade) Kathy Robbins. He might have some clever phraseology in that piece, but show me a single idea he could not have ripped off from material already readily available.
I have been very skeptical of Jim Webb and the Virginia Senate race in the past.
My initial judgement of Miller was clouded by the fact that he was a personal friend of Gov. Warner and has been a lifelong Democrat. Harris Miller is no Mark Warner. Not even close. If Mr. Miller was truly conflicted with supporting the outsorcing of jobs he would have resigned his position in the High Tech board.
I see the same fire in Jim Webb that I see in Paul Hackett. We preach big tent then close the door as soon as someone turns the question on us as to why we support one position or another.
I see qualities of Harry Truman and Bobby Kennedy in Jim Webb. He is blunt, confident and wants to do what is best for Virginia and the country. He understands the rural voters yet can still connect with urban and suburbanites as well. His foreign policy stance is more realistic and in-line with traditional democratic values.
I have questioned Webb's voting record in the past and I still have some concerns. If only Chuck Robb would become engaged and let his die-hard supports know that he has moved past the 2000 vote of Allen by Webb I would be more comfortable, as would many other Democrats. Loyalties die hard.
If I were still a registered voter in Virginia, I would vote for Jim Webb. Last spring I moved to Georgia from Loudoun County Virginia where I was the county chair.
Steve Deak
For those of you who do not know Steve, he is the Moses that led the Loudoun County Dems out of the wilderness and turned Loudoun County blue. His tireless work paved the way for Dave Poisson, Mark Herring, and hopefully Judy Feder to dominate their elections.
I was very glad to find your diary today (here and on dailykos), as a long-time computer programmer I was worried that candidates like Miller would 'throw me under the bus' for their own political expediency. I feel that it is time that the Democratic party return to its populists roots and therefore Jim Webb is an obvious choice for me.
Because I so very much respect your views I am glad to have you on our side.
The scientific jury is still very much out on that question. Not all evidence is leaning toward a genetic determination of homosexuality. The studies purporting a "gay gene" in the 1990s are of dubious validity. [ If someone has other evidence, I'd be glad to see/hear about it. ]. Be careful about saying "People are born gay"; that might not be true. We just don't know for sure. The nature/nurture argument has not been settled definitively.
Don't waste your time arguing with people two weeks before the primary elections (I know, I know, sometimes you just gotta stick up to a jerk). But if you do, back your words with facts.
For abuse of proven bad science and cooked up policy papers, we can look to Mr. Miller's long lobbying career. For taking stuff out of context, we can look to Mr. Miller's political flyers.
The good thing about supporting Webb is that most of the time there is a very simple fact to explain something. On daily kos I just now kept cutting and pasting old stuff. I don't think someone understood the economic argument about abortion though. That does get a little difficult to understand.
At UVA Charlotte Patterson did a scientific study that was positive for GLBT parents. Well, the paper reported it and for "balance" they quoted a Christian leader. That is absolutely cuckoo. The domain of science and the domain of religion are not one and the same.
Anyway, I think that nature v. nurture is a false dichotomy and I don't know why people want to politicize someone else's private life. Half the universe thinks they have their own special gene to tell everyone else how they ought to live and think.
This story hit, count 'em, 92 newspapers and obviously that isn't that big of a story to be front page news in 92 newspapers. So, the "press kit" propaganda war is on full-throttle.
What they don't talk about is how the DOL refused to release jobs so Americans could apply that are reserved for H-1B Visa holders or the number of Americans who are underemployed, how long they had that particular job posted, the percentage of acceptance-hires or in other words, how many people they rejected (95% reject rate is obvious for no way are 95% of American engineers incompetent) or how many fires/layoffs.
Sun just announced 5,000 engineering layoffs.
What they don't talk about is how the DOL refused to release jobs so Americans could apply that are reserved for H-1B Visa holders or the number of Americans who are underemployed, how long they had that particular job posted, the percentage of acceptance-hires or in other words, how many people they rejected (95% reject rate is obvious for no way are 95% of American engineers incompetent) or how many fires/layoffs.
A repository of other statistics/articles and hopefully this latest barrage will be refuted soon.
"I supported Chuck Robb over Oliver North, when many other folks took the safe route and endorsed the third party candidate Marshall Coleman. I did it because it was the right thing to do."
I also spoke with Steve Cockran (Montgomery Co. Dem Chrmn)after the event and I know who he is going to vote for - the guy that can beat George Allen.
These might be good things to a lot of voters.