Article

2006-06-14 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2006-06-14 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Virginia still mostly a red state, though lots of the military voters prolly liked Webb's bona fides. I like Webb as Allen's opponent, he's not looney tunes like Harris and may actually have a sane nat'l security outlook. The Deaniac wing will of course be appalled. Let's see how much the DNC invests in his campaign.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-06-14 00:19|| 2006-06-14 00:19|| Front Page Top

#2 nope, sea.

Webb was backed solidly by the Kos crowd. Hes an old Reaganite, and is rightwing on gun control, and is probably right wing on economics in his heart of hearts, though hes been trying to hide that the last few months. But his hawkishness on national security consists of such bits of brilliance as thinking Reagan was cutting the Navy too far in 1988 (when the USSR was in free fall) and edging toward paranoia abotu China now. He left YOUR party in 2002 over ONE issue. Iraq. which he bitterly opposed, blaming it on the neocons.

Hes basically a Scowcroft type background, trying take the Wesley Clark niche in the dem party - the man for the doves/"progressives" who dont really care about domestic liberalism, and think ex-military guys and ex-reaganites are the way to beat the "Eeevil" neocons and get out of Iraq.

Harris Miller's views on Iraq were more or less sensible - withdraw based on metrics - which would include the state of the Iraqi army, etc.

Thats why the Kossacks hated him so much. Murtha, Kerry, etc all supported Webb. (Schumer did too, on the idea that Webb is more likely to win, a choice Schumer will live to regret, I think) Our local Dem pols mainly supported Harris, as did the WaPo editorial page.

Harris was a solid programmatic liberal. Webb is a protectionist populist, and a selfproclaimed "realist" on foreign policy. Harris may not be the ideal liberal hawk, but he was a damn sight closer than Webb, who represents a dangerous temptation for the Dem party. (The lowest common denominator populism of the Webb campaign also spawned an anti-Miller cartoon, that looked to some of us - myself included = like it had overtones of antisemitism)

I voted for Harris. Today I am disappointed. Allen will probably win anyway though.

If the Dems in Conn vote for Lamont over Lieberman, that, combined with this, will lead me to seriously reconsider my lifelong support for our party. I will still hope Hilary can rescue us from this Kossack insanity - our last, best, hope.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-14 09:35|| 2006-06-14 09:35|| Front Page Top

#3 Kos Kids must be still partying. This is their first W. Too bad, cause Miller would have been easier to beat. But if Allen wants to look to Pennsy Ave, he ought to be able to beat Webb. If not...

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-06-14 09:56|| 2006-06-14 09:56|| Front Page Top

#4 Thanks, LH. Appreciate the info.

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-06-14 10:08|| 2006-06-14 10:08|| Front Page Top

#5 Webb was a odd choice for the Kos kids to support.

He has affirmative action ideas which don't square with the democratic party.
He believes the democratic party lost vietnam (by not sending aid to the south when they needed it)
He vigorously opposed women in combat support positions.
He used antisemitic imagery in his campaign ads (claimed he didn't know anything about it).

Posted by mhw 2006-06-14 10:13|| 2006-06-14 10:13|| Front Page Top

#6 MHW

Thats only if you assume the Kossacks are genuine liberals. Theyre not. They are not particularly interested in progammatic liberalism. They have to basic obsessions - Iraq, and anger. Webb was dovish on Iraq, and sounded ANGRY. And thats all they need.

If they were interested in women and blacks, etc, would they be fighting tooth and nail against Hillary?

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-14 10:17|| 2006-06-14 10:17|| Front Page Top

#7 And Condi, and Mike Steele, and...

Posted by Seafarious">Seafarious 2006-06-14 10:36|| 2006-06-14 10:36|| Front Page Top

#8 No, i didnt mean BECAUSE hillary was a woman, but on policy grounds.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-14 10:42|| 2006-06-14 10:42|| Front Page Top

#9 Webb is an odd choice for the Kos Koolaiders for another reason -- his latest book (Born Fighting) makes plain his admiration for the Confederacy. Not the slavery part of course, but the common fighting man and a good part of the ideals for which those men fought. The ideals included freedom from the Northerners and from the moneyed interests, and for a social structure that was in essence a caste system with the great Scots-Irish style chiefs on top.

I don't think the Kossites read that, or at least didn't consider that Webb is very serious about this.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-06-14 10:43|| 2006-06-14 10:43|| Front Page Top

#10 LH,

The kossacks are constantly getting on about lots of non-Iraq issues, e.g., NSA 'spying', Corporate corruption (although not by FANMAE), rich people evading taxes, blah, blah.

Is your opinion that this is basically performance art?

Posted by mhw 2006-06-14 11:01|| 2006-06-14 11:01|| Front Page Top

#11 1. The Kossacks have a world view that Bush is a dictator, and naturally theyre going to see real NSA abuses in that context, and exagerate them.

2. They are angry at corporate power in a classic populist-progressive way, thats more concerned with its conspiratorial aspects, than with actual economic costs to working class people. To an old fashioned (soc dem leaning) dem like myself corp power requires countervailed power by organized labor - to the "progressives" organized labor is only slighly less menacing then corporations. They want rule by high minded intellectuals. While Webb may not be a high minded intellectual, hes a populist who shares a distrust of the boardroom that doesnt lead him to labor-social democrat solutions.

And dont forget, one of the reasons they have such an enmity for corp influence, is that they see it as behind Clintonism, and the DLC taking the Dem party from them. They believe that theyd run the Dem party, and the country, otherwise.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-14 11:18|| 2006-06-14 11:18|| Front Page Top

#12 MHW = in short, their concerns on domestic policy are

1. on issues that for Dems are motherhood and apple pie or
2. Motivated by the larger "progressive" world view that is behind their obsessions with Iraq and Bush, but are at this time subordinate or
3. Tactical

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-14 11:20|| 2006-06-14 11:20|| Front Page Top

#13 I dont think too many people have read Webbs book real closely. ANd I dont think Kos really cares - again, this isnt about Virginia, or one more Senator more or less.

Its about establishing precedent for 2008. How do we reach to the center? By a focus on policy, that attempts to integrate traditional liberal concerns with modern realities? IE the Clinton way? Or by nominating someone with a "tough guy" personality, whos angry, whos against "corporate interests" whos bitterly partisan (now, even if an ex Repub), and whos conservative domestic positions are an asset in getting the red necks to vote for the Kossack view of foreign policy.

IE its definitely against Hillary. Clark looks most like Webb at the national level, at this point. Not sure if they will settle on him - but thats the direction they want for the party.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-14 11:27|| 2006-06-14 11:27|| Front Page Top

#14 LH: I thought you lived in Dallas or Austin, not Virginia. (Not that it's any of my business, of course).

As for Webb... the Reagan Administration, during the closing of the Cold War, made a bunch of faustian bargains in the Middle East, in particular re: Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, that led to the mess we're in now.

I don't have time to talk about how badly I think they screwed up in Lebanon.

Posted by Phil 2006-06-14 11:40|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2006-06-14 11:40|| Front Page Top

#15 Anyway, to make a long story short, I am of the opinion that the Reagan Administration not only showed that the US could be used by guys like Arafat, but that terrorism could then be used afterwards to manipulate us into going away afterwards when our presence was no longer convenient to them, or to bring us to the negotiating table when that was what they wanted (i.e. the Iranian arms-for-hostages deal).

And now Webb (and some paleoconservatives from the Reagan administration that I'm not going to mention) are going to lecture everyone else about how to fight the war on terror?

Posted by Phil 2006-06-14 11:49|| 2006-06-14 11:49|| Front Page Top

#16 Let's cut the shit here.
Not one f'ing Kos or main democrat would be against the war in Iraq if Willy was pres.
You can't just invent a political position based on the election outcome, but that's what all this anti-war bullshit is. Without the Drive-by Media carrying the water, the entire Bushhitler crap would have disappeared 5 years ago.
Logic tells me you democrats are all phalking mad.
You can only recruit stupid people with such nonsense.

Posted by wxjames 2006-06-14 12:03|| 2006-06-14 12:03|| Front Page Top

#17 "Not one f'ing Kos or main democrat would be against the war in Iraq if Willy was pres."

Nope. The Kos type people never really like Bill. They didnt like his catering to the center. They didnt like his support for the first gulf war. They didnt like him on welfare reform, not one bit. and they didnt like his coziness with Israeli pols (albeit Labour party Israeli pols) and they hated his support for free trade and globalization. Lewis Lapham of the lefty Harpers was a bitter Clinton hater from the beginning. And Hal Raines of the NYT, though less in your face about it than Lapham, was also a steady detractor of the Clintons.

There were exceptions on the left of course. Some were so obsessed with the right wing attacks on Clinton that they developed an obsessive protectivenss of the Clintons. That would be the folks at Salon magazine. and many feminists liked Hillary alot. And everyone had to recognize that Clinton could win.

But the Kossacks dont really care about feminism. They are less taken in by the "enemy of my enemy" stuff than the Salon folks. And they think they have their own strategies for winning.

Now rank and file liberal democrats still like the Clintons, esp Hillary. That just shows how limited the influence of the Kossacks has been thus far on rank and file liberals. Lots of folks here simply thought of Webb as a moderate, based on his resume. Hell, even someone usually as sharp as Glen Reynolds seems to have gotten the impression that the Webb win was a Kos loss (but go take a look at the Daily Kos, if you dont beleive me) So it was a stealth win. They think they have Lieberman on the run - Lieberman has never had the popularity of clinton, and is resented by some clinton supporters for speaking out on Monicagate (though Hillary doesnt seem to have held that against him)

The real crunch will come in 2008. AFAICT the Kossacks are too devious to come out and attack Hillary straight on the issues, as they are attacking Joe. Instead they will go after her "electability".

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-06-14 13:27|| 2006-06-14 13:27|| Front Page Top

#18 #2 LH - if Shrillary is your last, or best, hope, I feel for you.

My deepest sympathies.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-06-14 14:59|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-06-14 14:59|| Front Page Top

#19 What about Mark Warner? He looks to me the most dangerous to us in the general. Is he a nonstarter among Dems somehow?

Posted by JSU 2006-06-14 15:39|| 2006-06-14 15:39|| Front Page Top

12:00 Doogl comments (UK)
11:57 Doogl comments (UK)
10:23 Doogl comments (UK)
09:28 Doogl comments (UK)
09:27 Doogl comments (UK)
07:50 Doogl comments (UK)
07:29 Doogl comments (UK)
07:21 Doogl comments (UK)
07:20 Doogl comments (UK)
04:37 Doogl comments (UK)
23:59 DarthVader
23:58 Rafael
23:56 Broadhead6
23:56 Sherry
23:47 Broadhead6
23:41 Broadhead6
23:38 BA
23:38 trailing wife
23:38 trailing wife
23:36 Broadhead6
23:36 Rafael
23:34 trailing wife
23:32 ed
23:31 BA