As you rightly point out Lowell, Jim Webb, like his base of support does not fall into the neat little "liberal" (or "conservative") buckets. I spoke with Shear directly during the Dem. primary and pointed out then where Webb gathered support and the issues that cut across the party and philosophical labels of the past. Shear seems not to have absorbed this explanation. Another MSM journalist among the last to understand the social and political trends at work?

"to understand the social and political trends at work?"  Or do they not even care?

Jim Webb fills a leadership vacuum; as a matter of fact, a nearly perfect leadership vacuum existed in Washington, D. C. before Webb's arrival, and he will be equally - or perhaps even more - impressive on other issues as time goes on.

Webb's leasdership is not an isolated incident, and many of his colleagues need to get a "courage transfusion" from him, soon.

Thanks!

Steve

He answered his own question. People want serious, blunt politicians. These are serious times.

I could be the only one here but I think Jim represents something much more: Certainly he represents a necessary change of attitude in Congress and in the country. But more important, in my opinion, he represents a change in Virginia, in the South and in the U.S. Jim is what I would call a "federated Virginian" - that is, he identifies with family, faith, honor, in the tradition of rural Virginia and Appalachia entirely in the model of Jeffersonian philosophy and the 400-year tradition of Virginia. And on the other hand, he accepts the Hamiltonian vision, which Washington signed on with at Jay's Treaty (in opposition to Jefferson and Madison) of a vast uniform federation of weak states and regions in a kind of "super ego" which has its own collective needs and wants. These can be considered the life of the "heart" (Jefferson's Virginia) and the "head" (Washington's America). They invariably come into conflict and did in the most primal way possible in 1861. I've been writing in a different venue these past years that we are facing a epic historical shift in the U.S. since the 1950s; not only are population and economy shifting from the Northeast to the South and Southwest, but in what Southern historian Dan Carter calls "The Southernization of America" - a phrase used by The Economist magazine in the 1990s - we are seeing a change in the actual nature of our country:  Since the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution and Northern domination of the American and Western condition, "head" has dominated and "heart" has been submissive. The condition has flipped: Jim is "heart" first (family - Jefferson's Virginia). This brings forth an American vision accorded to Jefferson (family, farm, community) rather than Hamilton's vision of a federation and a world dominated by corporation and capital.

Anyone interested, more at: http://quigleyinexil...

Thanks Bernie, I always look forward to what you have to say.

as liberal as they come and jim webb's always said exactly what i thought needed to be said and he seems to believe in the same things i do -- does that make jim an ultra-liberal like me then?

i'm so glad he's getting the attention he deserves and our country needs. keep it up!

Webb is right there with some of the most liberal Democrats on the economy (he prefers the term populist.)  He's a self-described moderate on social issues.

Shear's piece is a pretty good illustration of "false balance" and relying on cliches to fill copy on deadline. 

The first half focuses on positive statements about Webb and his rise into the national spotlight, then the second half focuses on negative statements and posits the inevitable fall that must inevitably occur because the seed of a man's greatness is the seed of a man's downfall, and a rapid rise must also have a corresponding rapid fall, etc, etc, etc. 

Apparently, Webb will be in the spotlight for the next "several weeks" during which time the public attention is focused on Iraq, because, of course, within the next "several weeks" the Iraq War will be completely resolved and drop from the public attention.  Then presumably by mid-May Webb's unpopular economic populism will come to the fore and voters of both political stripes will immediately sour to him.  End of story.

Anyone want to place a wager on Shear's narrative of likely outcomes? 

I generally think Shear is pretty good as a journalist, but as others have pointed out this is a case where his theory and points of emphasis just seem to miss the mark entirely (e.g. regarding Webb's base of support being simply "liberal bloggers" -- "anti-war bloggers" would be a little more accurate; although even "anti-war" is a reductive explanation).

I also note that Shear misrepresented the Fox News exchange about the overblown and outdated meeting with GWB (Shear attributed the line about the "breach of courtesy was not my own" to Webb.  Webb was quoting the WSJ's Peggy Noonan when he said this--Webb even told Wallace something along the lines of "I think Peggy Noonan had it right when she said . . .").

Shear's piece seemed to be more about filling up space than enlightening minds, which is probably why it was buried in a supplemental section of the paper.  Definitely not Michael Shear's finest hour.

The Press "chorus" always conspires to quickly extinguish a new "awakening" so as to sustain the conventional establishment already in place (of which the Press - the "chorus" - is a central part); it never works because history tumbles forward with people like Jim and casts off the the old tired and worn conventions like an old skin to bring on new life and new generations.

The corporate media machine definitely has a reactive component to it.

In this case I don't view the media machine as repressive, so much as in love with novelty and addicted to abberations from the norm. 

At least on some level Jim Webb IS an abberation from politics as usual.  He is giving reporters great copy, and an idiosyncratic, intelligent, no-nonsense voice on an issue that concerns most Americans.  And he's got a great backstory to boot. 

When the Iraq War ceases to be an issue--hopefully sooner rather than later, although I am skeptical about the "few weeks" Shear prediction--then it is true that the media spotlight may look for new voices.  But for the time being, if you want intelligent, thoughtful, no B.S. analysis from a Democratic Senator--odds are Jim Webb will be one of the top names on the list.

I think a major flaw in Shear's analysis is that he conflates media attention with constituent popularity.  Legislators aren't Hollywood stars, and I don't get the sense that Jim Webb's reason for being is because he is addicted to camera time or media attention.  I think he will have viability after the media spotlight moves on, because he genuinely cares about issues that matter to his constituents. 

Economic populism is one of those issues of concern.  Webb's ideas aren't some "radical" departure from the norm (Shear is missing the story here too).  Webb IS pro-Union, but he is also right-to-work.  He favors giving workers a fair shake, but he is not opposed to international trade.  He is attuned to the fact that, even in relatively prosperous Northern Virginia families are concerned about skyrocketting college tuition, energy, and health care costs.

I think there's enough nuance to Webb's positions on economic issues where he can strike a balance between looking out for working families, while not inordinantly undercutting economic growth.

The problem with the mainstream media is that they have bought into the stereotypes and labels which have been placed on the parties and on the American people. They also have bought into the "cautious" approach which basically means "DON'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING THAT IS A PROBOLEM FOR THE REPUBLICANS!". Jim is like many people who just want to cut through the BS and get to the truth. In addition, people are really ANGRY and they want someone who is will to express that for them.

I recommend watching the doumentary "The Revolution will not be Televised". A very interesting film made during the attempted coup on Chavez in Venezuela. The mainstream media literally refused to televise much of what was really happening. They lied to the public in an attempt to help the coup succeed. For example they told the public that Chavez had resigned when he had in fact been taken prisoner. When the palace guard learned the truth they took back the palace and held the criminals in the basement.

Questioning Jim Webb and treating him like a strange duck is another way of not televising the revolution.

And the "Ministry of Truth" continues its work...

Thanks!

Steve