This photo, an instant classic courtesy of the Associated Press' Kevin Wolf, truly sums up the Webb vs. Allen campaign. On the one hand (or, more accurately, foot), we've got a fake "cowboy" named George Allen. The guy's not a cowboy, he grew up in Southern California NOT Virginia, he's gung-ho about war but has never himself served, etc. etc.
On the other hand (er, foot), we've got combat boots and a REAL soldier named Jim Webb. Why is Webb wearing these boots? To honor his son, Jimmy, a Marine currently stationed "in harm's way" over in Iraq. Jimmy's dad, of course, served with extraordinary valor in Vietnam, winning the Navy Cross, Silver Star, and numerous other medals for heroism.
Interestingly, Jim Webb the REAL soldier opposed the invasion of Iraq, because he understood that it was a strategic blunder and a "double mousetrap," as he calls it. And Jim Webb, the REAL soldier, now favors a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. national security strategy, part of which involves turning Iraq back to the Iraqis and refocusing our energies on the REAL fight against our REAL enemy, Al Qaeda.
I would point out that neither a REAL cowboy nor a REAL soldier would support abominations like waterboarding or the extreme violations that took place at Abu Ghraib. On this issue, Jim Webb is strongly and firmly aligned with three other real military men - John McCain, John Warner, and Colin Powell. In contrast, George Allen has aligned himself against Warner/McCain/Powell and with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, two men who never served in combat and who, apparently, do not understand (or care about) the risks to American servicemen stemming from their faux-fearless, "bring-it-on" leaders' flagrant disregard of the Geneva accords.
By the way, according to Jim Owen, author of the book "Cowboy Ethics," a REAL American cowboy was a man who "knew right from wrong and was willing to speak out about it." Now, Jim Webb isn't a cowboy, just an old soldier. But that old soldier knows the difference between right and wrong, and he's not afraid to sand up for what's right.
In stark contrast, George Allen is neither a real cowboy - but he plays one on TV, yeehaw! - nor is he a man who understands the true "cowboy code of ethics." But he sure knows how to play dressup right nice! Ha ha.
Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign. The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.
Probably Allen. Which is just fine with us.
And/or, just spread this photo around a lot? I just e-mailed the link to the photo to several friends.
And also, go to Yahoo News and "recommend" the photo, so that more people might see it. It's here.
I read the Washington Times piece on the debate, and it reflects the strong AP story -- the writer makes a point of letting the reader know Webb is strong on military, Allen weak:
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Mr. Allen said he has not decided whether to support President Bush's push to revise Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which regulates the interrogation standards of military prisoners.
Mr. Webb, 60, agreed with Republican Sens. John W. Warner of Virginia and John McCain of Arizona, two former Marines who are concerned that the president's plan to redefine the provision to deal with terror suspects would open the door to torture of U.S. troops.
"What you're seeing is a split between the theorists who have controlled so much of the policy in this administration, theorists who have never been on a battlefield, who have never put a uniform on, and who are looking at this thing in a totally different way from people who have had to worry about their troops and themselves possibly coming under enemy hands," Mr. Webb said in the second debate between the two front-runners.
Most of the debate centered on the link between the Iraq war and the fight against international terrorism.
Mr. Allen, 54, reiterated Mr. Bush's push for the United States "to stay the course" in Iraq.
When asked what "stay the course" means, Mr. Allen said, "Staying the course is meaning we don't tuck tail and run. ... This is a central battlefront in the war on terror."
Mr. Webb disagreed, saying the United States did not go into Iraq because of terrorism, and that decision has drained the military resources needed to fight terrorism.
"We have terrorists in Iraq because we went in there," he said.
Mr. Webb, a former Navy secretary, cited a report released last week by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, saying, "Saddam Hussein was not an aligned with al Qaeda -- they were natural enemies."
He said the administration must work with Iraq's neighbors on a plan that allows U.S. troops to leave without jeopardizing the region's stability.
"There are limits to what the military can do," said Mr. Webb, a Vietnam veteran. "Eventually this is going to have to move into a diplomatic environment, and that's where this administration seems to have blinders."
Republicans reading this are going to wonder whether Allen is the better choice or not -- the same response Hugh Hewitt had yesterday.
My favorite Barnett quote from yesterday:
Allen seemed like a politician through-and through. Webb seemed like he was intellectually and spiritually slumming
But this was a pretty good summation from a deeply conservative person:
Considering that Allen knew the issue was bound to arise in this morning’s debate, his defense of his comments was fairly shocking: He claimed that “macaca†was a word that he just made up on the spot when he called a young Webb volunteer that name while the video-recorder whirred.When Allen offered this latest explanation, I’m pretty sure even in Massachusetts I heard the sound of half a million Virginia conservatives simultaneously slapping their heads and screaming, “Oy vey!â€
AS EVERYONE HERE KNOWS, I THINK IT’S A MATTER of considerable import that Republicans maintain control of Congress. But, I have to admit, I can imagine far worse things than having a man like James Webb in the Senate.
Here's another Republican who hates America:
"If an American agent were captured in Iran, tried on secret evidence and sentenced to die, Mr. Graham said, 'Americans would go crazy.'â€-- Sen. Lindsay Graham
But I also wanted to say that the presentation in the paper version of NYTimes was even better than the on-line version.
The article, illustrated by The Photo, started on front page -- good position. The Photo had the following caption:
A campaign of contrasts, right down to footwear: Senator George Allen, left, Republican of Virginia, favors cowboy boots, while his opponent, James Webb, a Democrat, prefers his son's old combat boots.
That's for starters. Further in the article, the online edition has the pics of the two looking like they're the same size. But, in the paper edition, the photo of Webb is 3 times the size of the photo of Allen *and* it's placed at the top of the page, while Allen's is at the bottom (to match the title about the rise of Webb, I suppose
The photos themselves are beautifully selected, too; there's Jim, relaxed, in what looks like a clasroom setting (leaning against a "blackboard") and described as "speaking to students recently in Falls Church". And there's our Felix, on a horse, "taking part in labor Day parade in Buena Vista"
The impression you get is this: Webb -- an approachable person, who cares about education. And the fact that he's not just an old soldier but an intellectual (writer) is mentioned in the article. Allen -- a poseur, with more experience of parades than parade grounds (his lack of military experience is mentioned in the article), who rides high above the people he's supposedly serving. I *loved it*
And the article -- bless Robin Toner's heart -- does mention, close enough to the end of the article for people to take it as the parting note:
Which might just spur some more donations...
"Mr Webb's allies, for their part, worry he will not have enough money to hold his own against Mr. Allen on television"