In the letter, she wrote:
Jim and Senator Allen should have a rigorous discussion on the issues that are most important to the people of Virginia. To that end we would like to setup a series of debates on issues that matter +é-ˇ the need to reshape our national security policies, in Iraq and elsewhere; the breakdown of our society into three America+é-¦s as a result of the globalization of the economy; the impact of illegal immigration and what we should be doing about it, and the abuse of power by this Presidency as it relates to the proper role of the Congress.
The importance and urgency of this discussion is highlighted by news from Iraq on Thursday that a total of 2,500 American soldiers have died in Iraq since the war began, seventy-six of these casualties are Virginians. How long our troops should remain in Iraq is one of many areas where we disagree, but these disagreements should not stop us from having a public discourse on the issues. If we have this discussion the voters of Virginia can decide which course they prefer and vote accordingly.We are proposing that Jim and Senator Allen have 5 debates, one each in July, August, September, October and November.
Back during the primary, people were floating the meme that Webb would not be willing to take the fight to Sen. Allen. I think this is the first example of many more to come that shows Webb is more than willing to take on Allen.
It is also important to mention, though, how risky this is for Webb. Allen is a career politician that has spent many years debating numerous issues. Webb, on the other hand, is not a standard D.C. insider, former Governor, or a sitting U.S. Senator.
I certainly believe that Webb is the best guy for the job and this move will show he is willing to take on Allen - even on Allen's "turf," so to speak.
The "proposal" is also very clever. It puts the ball in Allen's court and if he decides to turn the Webb campaign down, he will be opening himself up to attacks of "ducking debates." I figure, though, he will probably only want to duck boxing matches with Webb.
I can see acceptance to broader topics - foreign policy, the economy, immigration, etc.
No way they accept the "let's talk about how much Bush sucks" one. Not with Allen's voting record.
Mostly, the more debates the worse for a leading incumbent - they can only hurt Allen.
But Dick Wad may jump at this. JW is perceived as rough, impersonable, and a non-polished debater with rambling, indefinite answers that are easy to pounce on.
I agree grenerally with what you said but I think as far as television goes that's one difference between Webb and any other candidate. Jim CAN get free media coverage, in fact free national media time and we saw that during the primary. I suppose the question is "Is that as effective as the local news stations?
Allen Campaign Calls for Debates on Wide Range of Issues
ARLINGTON, VA – U.S. Senator George Allen’s campaign today called for a series of debates on a wide range of issues and rejected James H. Webb, Jr.’s attempts to confine the debates to an extremely narrow list of topics.
The text of the letter Senator Allen’s campaign manager Dick Wadhams wrote in response to Jim Webb’s campaign manager Jessica Vanden Berg’s letter is below:
Dear Ms. Vanden Berg,
Senator Allen has already accepted the debate planned by the Virginia Bar Association on Saturday, July 22 and we look forward to scheduling additional debates and that each debate will focus on a wide range of issues.
I understand why Mr. James H. Webb, Jr. would like to confine debates this fall to a small number of topics.
The Washington Post reported last Friday that Mr. Webb will “have to have to get up to speed on domestic policy issues, which he largely avoided talking about during his four-month primary campaign.” However, we believe your list of topics, while certainly admirable, is much too narrow.
As you know, the same Washington Democratic leaders who are responsible for Mr. Webb winning the Democratic nomination last week--Senators John Kerry, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid--are also responsible for obstructing the confirmation of federal judicial nominations, obstructing welfare reform reauthorization, obstructing energy legislation, obstructing medical malpractice reform, obstructing the marriage protection amendment, and many others.
We believe those issues, which were not part of your limited list, deserve a full discussion during all of the debates as well.
Sincerely,
Dick Wadhams
Campaign Manager
The Marriage Restriction Amendment.
I for one will call it that from now forward.
Allen is good on TV, no doubt, but I see Jim Webb coming across as more confidant and more thoughtful. Jim projects gravitas, and in this election, his serious approach to the issues will trump the big grin that painted on Allen's face.
Someone early in life must have told Allen to smile and sometimes it's just hilarious. He'll be asked a very serious question, over war casualties or disaster victim, and as soon as the interviewer stops--that big dumb grin comes out. It can be inappropriate.
On the other hand, Jim could smile a bit more. But there no mistaking the fact that Mr. Webb is a serious man and his tone and manner always conveys his strong leadership potential. He's gonna be a great candidate and a fine Senator.
I say pray for as many debates as Allen willing to do.
The campaign was slow to get Jim out in public this past primary ... why I don't know. Jim Webb is intelligent and has the courage of his convictions. He is authentic. Put him in same room with most anybody and between his command presence and sincerety ... he'll win. George Allen is a careerist politician who hasn't commanded anything but sycophants .... He can be a text book demagoue all he wants ... but the people, the voters want AUTHENTICITY, INTEGRITY and HONESTY.
That's our candidate and he's Born Fighting ... get him in the ring.
Webb for SENATE!!