Marc Fisher and my response

I have pasted my response here:
Mr. Fisher-

Your column this morning (11/05/06) is so incredulous in its accusations and you reach so far to try and criticize Webb that you actually contradict yourself halfway through, leading off the article by calling this a "nasty" campaign but then stating that Webb is a bad campaigner because he won't make personal attacks against Allen or call into question something that does not have to do with Allen's record as a public official or candidate!  Please tell me your definition of a nasty campaign if a candidate actually sticks to criticizing his opponent's record and doesn't take the bait of personal attacks, bait that in virtually every instance was actually provided by his opponent.

Webb declared very early on he was a conservative Democrat who supported individual freedoms, whether it meant abortion, gun ownership, or gay rights.  My goodness, a Democrat running statewide in Virginia that believes in the 2nd Amendment!  What an incredible happening!

Why does Webb wear combat boots, Mr. Fisher?  A macho symbol?  Hardly. You know they are in honor of his son who is currently serving in Iraq.  He put them on at his son's request, not by some handler.  Why does George Allen wear cowboy boots?  Because he likes how they look and watched a lot of cowboy movies in his youth in Southern California.  And you know this is the truth.

Please show me your evidence that Webb has railed against multi-culturalism and Hollywood elites.  Cite your source.  Webb has previously admitted he was against affirmative action and still believes that it is an unfair program, but that is hardly a radical concept for a conservative Democrat and his consistency on this position may actually cost him votes.  You mean a candidate is taking a firm stance even though he knows it may cost him votes from an important constituency?  Oh the shame of this election!

You declare that both candidates have run remarkably inept campaigns.  But the evidence you provide of Webb's ineptness is that he is a reluctant candidate, someone who was recruited out of the blue to run for a very important office and had to get comfortable shaking hands, kissing babies, and smiling even though he didn't feel like it.  Oh what depths we have sunk to in this campaign!  Imagine, a candidate for office who thinks it's just as important to be genuine and true to himself and not paste on a Disney animatronic smile at every event, being able to reach for every two-bit, tired cliche to rally voters.  Just turns my stomach to think that a candidate portrays himself as he actually is and not what he and his handlers want voters to believe he is.

You criticize Webb for his reasons for opposing the marriage amendment on the ballot because he believes its restrictions are broad and impact all Virginians regardless of sexual orientation.  Gee, where does this sound familiar?  Oh yeah, from the The Commonwealth Coalition, the main group opposing the amendment!  Wow, how non-liberal it is for Webb to stand with this organization that is representing this stance of gay and lesbian groups from around Virginia.

But beyond all this is the heart of your column where you say on one hand Webb won't criticize or take advantage of Allen's missteps during this campaign, gaffes that while alarming and call into question Allen's judgement and personality, have absolutely nothing to do with Allen's record as a senator or public official,  but then declare "filthy" a press release from the Webb campaign that forcefully responds to the ridiculous allegations directly sent from the Allen campaign about the content of Webb's war novels--novels recommended by the US Marine Corps and required reading-- which was an attack that insinuated Webb was sexually immoral and had no trouble with pedophilia.  Are you kidding me?  Really, Mr. Fisher, you know better.

So, let me make sure I get this straight.  Webb has run an "inept" campaign because he is not a natural candidate and refuses to make his campaign on something other than the issues, despite the fact that his opponent has provided numerous opportunities.  Webb has run a "filthy" campaign because they responded to a scurilous attack from his opponent that called into question Webb's morals, and deep and personal attack that had nothing to do with the issues in this campaign.  Webb is "arrogant" but you don't actually provide any evidence so I don't know where that comes from.

In the meantime, 80% of your article is devoted to what really has happened in this campaign which is that every single personal, non-issues attack in this campaign has either come from the Allen campaign and his affiliates, or has been self-inflicted by Allen himself.  In fact, I defy you to provide one tiny shred of evidence that the Webb campaign or even the Democratic Party and its affiliates have done anything except discuss Allen's record as a public official.  One.  Just one.

And, finally, for you to call into question Jim Webb's honor is beyond the pale.  He has done nothing but run a campaign based on the issues of the day and Allen's record as a public official, and maintained his integrity throughout this process.  If anything, he should be recognized for having kept the high road and never once allowing himself to be drawn in to Allen's personal issues.  Most campaigns would not be able to resist what Allen himself--with no prompting--has provided on a silver platter, but Webb has not.  Now that is honor.

Sincerely,

Adam Shubert

Comments