Allen/Webb bleg:
I live in Virginia and am looking at various Allen/Webb materials. But suppose I don't care about Allen's business interests, use of racial slurs, or Jewish heritage, or about Webb's graphic novels. Does anyone have any input on whether -- based on his policy positions -- Allen is one of the best of the Republican lot in the Senate, one of the worst, or middling?
I don't know a whole lot about Allen's stances on other issues, though.
- USC, then Annopolis, and earned the Navy Cross, along with various other honors.
- After the the military, he went to Georgetown law. He has been very active in government, and was the Asst. Secretary of Defense, and then Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. He was largely responsible for cleaning up a number of issues with the Marines, in the day.
- He's a bit of a policy wonk, which, depending on your outlook, might be a good or a bad thing. (A plus, in my book.)
I don't live there, and Allen isn't my Senator. I don't know how well he's done for the locals. I'm also of the throw-the-bums-out mindset at the moment. Now that my biases are stated, I have difficulty imagining supporting the guy. Can't say I like Webb either, but you go to the polls with the alternatives you have, not the alternatives you wish you had.
Allen was a highly successful governor, abolishing parole for violent criminals and reforming welfare (accomplishments that politically correct journalists opposed and have never forgiven him for).
But it's easier to pinpoint a governor's accomplishments than a senator's. Junior senators typically have far less power and influence than senior senators, and Allen has been in office for only one term.
My guess is that if Jim Webb ousts Allen, and gets elected, he'll discover that in a hurry. Webb has plenty of expertise in the area of defense, but not in the other issue areas that come before the Senate. He may end up being bored by much of what goes on in the Senate.
I have not seen any significant deviations from the Republican party line on Allen's part. For the last year or two he's seemed more interested in exploring Presidential prospects than doing anything significant in the Senate, to be perfectly honest, but he's showed up and cast his votes with the majority.
Allen has been a supporter of free trade, while Webb criticizes it.
It'd be nice to know how Webb would vote on judges, but he hasn't said boo on the issue. Allen has been a party-line vote for Alito and Roberts and cloture against filibustering nominations.
Webb is arguably a better human being than the silver-spoon Allen (though Webb's anti-Semitic attacks on his Jewish Democratic primary opponent with campaign literature portraying him as a hook-nosed "antiChrist of outsourcing" with money spilling out of his pockets sure gives me pause), but for a junior Senator, what counts is how people vote, not their motivations for doing so.
Didn't think so.
Cheers,
Marty
Prof. Lederman--
I'm not from Virginia, so perhaps I'm missing something, but I assumed this wasn't a racial reference. Rather, I thought Allen was referring to people from Northern Virginia as opposed to the rest of the state. (I wouldn't vote for Allen anyway, but I assumed he was referring to something like the Chicagoland/downstate divide in Illinois or upstate/NYC in New York.)
If you reread Sasha's post, he says "but suppose I don't care..." about all of those issues, and that he's trying to get policy evaluations. Everyone who's voted in an election during recent years has *had* to consider both personal character and policy factors in making one's decision, and it's pretty clear that the Allen/Webb race has become a joke of a character campaign for both candidates. Neither man seems particularly pleasant, but what an otherwise conservative person has to ask is whether Allen's policy positions outweigh his personal baggage. We did this for Clinton, we did this for Bush, so let's not be purposely obtuse in this case.
If Allen's history (some of which is disputed, but hey, I'm still wondering about the noose as much as the Confederate flag) is not a problem for Va black pols who have endorsed him, why should Sasha treat it as a deal breaker?
See: Byrd, R (D - W. Va).
actually, i think he was contrasting "real americans" with the people who webb was rubbing elbows with in california at the time.
i would also add that allen gets a sort of fortuitous pass on the "maquaques" comment in print media. if you listen to the pronunciation as opposed to read it, the word is pronounced differently than you would expect it to be - precisely the pronunciation you would expect to hear from someone from his mother's birthplace.
P&R summarize senators' voting records on a scale of economic conservatism to liberalism. They rank Allen 23rd out of 100 senators, which makes him pretty conservative for the Senate as a whole, but puts him square in the middle of the Republicans (23rd of 55)
I agree entirely. It's a remarkable example of a media double-standard that an off-the-cuff comment by Allen is treated with so much more concern than offical campaign literature bigotry from Webb's camp. It also puts Webb's remark that army service is the "Scotch-Irish bar mitzvah" in a nauseating light.
Marty: Would I have found the teenage Allen an insufferable and offensive fratboy? Sure. I care more what the grownups are doing.
For Webb, see here
For Allen, see here.
Of course it depends on (1) how bad the other guy is, (2) whether failure will make your guy learn the lesson you want him to learn, (3) how long it will take before you can reelect your (chastened) guys, and so on.
And all that contributes to whether your punishment strategy is to punish the whole party, just punish the worst half, just punish the worst tenth, etc.
But if you always vote for the guy who's marginally better at the moment, you're inviting him to take you for granted. Therefore, while you might do that most of the time, or even all the time, it shouldn't be your strategy as a matter of principle.
I don't like George Allen. In fact, I think he is an embarassment. George ALlen also built many new prisons in Virginia (got to put them somewhere if there's no discretion on parole), costing a fortune. Then, as they were finished, the demographic change happened (with a "bubble" in the population of 18 - 34 year olds--the group that commits more crimes--aging out of the most crime prone years) and there was lots of surplus capacity in the prisons. That's why Virginia "imports" so many prisoners from other states.
My military spouse made sure to vote absentee ballot just to vote against him, something I look forward to as well.
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the president has been given such a free pass on virtually everything he wants to do, with little to no oversight by Congress is reason enough to vote them all out. George Allen just has given Virginians additional reasons to do so. Frankly, I don't care to be represented by ANYONE who thinks the executive has unilateral authority to declare someone (citizen or not) an enemy combatant and hold them incommunicato. Are we living in the U.S. of A. or Argentina? No "disappeareds" here, please. I find it interesting that Bob Barr (!) is one of the few voices I've heard raised in concern about this.
The "real Virginia" was not a contrast to Webb being someplace else. It was him trying to be a "good old boy" and play to (assumed) prejudices of those in the SW corners of the state. Shameful.
basically, allen is exactly where you'd expect a social, political, and economic conservative to be on every issue. either that appeals to you or it doesn't.
thanks justin, i didn't know that he voted against MLK day.
The legitimate argument against it was that plenty of very great Americans don't have holidays in their honor, such as the Roosevelts, Jefferson, Madison, and the like. The US Senate vote was 78-22, with people like Warren Rudman and Barry Goldwater voting against. However, there were 54 GOP senators at the time, so obviously most GOP senators voted in favor of MLK holiday on October 19, 1983. Reagan gave a very good speech honoring King, and he signed the legislation.
Without knowing what Allen's reasons were in the Virginia House of Delegates 23 years ago, it's kind of difficult to hold that vote against him, at least for me.
But if a Democrat Senate blocks judges, or forces a more "moderate" pick, we're stuck for decades paying that price.
Hence, if the GOP needs punishing, let them lose the House, not the Senate. So hold your nose and vote for Allen. A vote for Allen is a vote for another John Roberts. A vote for Webb, and for a Democratic Senate, is a vote for a probably blow-up of the Gang of 14 truce, and a return to full-scale filibuster obstructionism -- esp. with 2 years on the Presidential clock. If you believe Judge Jeff Sutton and others have really been ogres, or that the 6th Circuit deserved to be horribly understaffed for years over Levin's temper tantrum about a relative's nomination under Clinton, then vote Webb.
And Prof. Lederman, respectfully: I look forward to the day the Dems get honest about Sen. Byrd's KKK roots, and his use of the N-word on TV in modern times. And the day when guilty white liberals face up to the virulent anti-Semitism of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and when the Left faces broader anti-Semitism in academia generally. THEN I'll start to worry about Allen's fratboy antics.
* With a two-point lead and time running out, his campaign is in a zone defense, with the coach on the sidelines screaming "Don't foul!"
His position paper is straightforward:
Of course a lot of people here demand that those who advised against picking up that piece of china and throwing it to the ground are the ones who have to have a plan for putting it back together. Sorry folks, about all we have left is a less bad way of losing. Webb says that the US should first clearly state that it has no intention of staying in Iraq for the long term, the second step would be to start looking for diplomatic support and solutions. I appear to remember a certain Eisenhower having about the same plan to end the Korean war.
You may not like his plan, but it is a lot like the ways that the Korean and Vietnam wars were ended
Most of the self-described "smart" people sneered at welfare reform, saying it would never work, but George Allen, as Virginia's governor, made it happen, and the state is better off for it.
Most of the "sophisticated" lawyers opposed getting rid of parole for violent criminals, but George Allen, as Virginia's governor, pushed for it, and got it. And Virginia's crime rate is down compared with neighboring jurisdictions.
Not too long ago, crime rates were similar in Montgomery County, Maryland, and Fairfax County, Virginia, two adjacent, demographically similar, equally wealthy counties.
Now, the crime rate is much lower in the Virginia county (Fairfax) than in the neighboring Maryland county (Montgomery), about half as high.
One contributing factor is that Virginia, under George Allen, got tough on crime, and Maryland didn't.
Most self-described intellectuals opposed the above successes of the Allen administration (reforming welfare and ending parole for violent criminals), wrongly viewing these measures as pandering to ignorant yahoos.
They were wrong, as history has demonstrated. They resent that.
And I think they especially resent the fact that Allen, a man with a fairly typical IQ, proved them wrong.
His accomplishments show that common sense does not require exceptional intelligence, nor do intellectuals necessarily have common sense.
I felt that Sen. Allen was a decent governor - certainly better than his successor - but hasn't brought any of the creativity or practicality he showed in that job to his role in the Senate. In this, he reminds me of the differences between Governor Bush and President Bush. An additional similarity is also the role of their famous fathers in their success.
In any case, from a "winning" perspective, the correct question is not whether Webb or Allen is considered a win, but whether a GOP Senate or a Democratic Senate is. Not in the abstract, but given the situation we currently find ourselves in. A "win" to a small-government conservative is probably divided government, not a Republican one.
(Heck, a win to a Republican partisan might be divided government, because the only chance Republicans have of holding the White House in 2008 is if they have someone else to blame for the next two years. Or if the Democrats nominate Kerry.)
For what it is worth three of the REASON editors live in Virginia and all three said they are voting for Webb. My take on Allen is that he is a big government Republican using rhetoric for small-government but voting the Bush line most the time.
Now back to the accusations. Here is the "offending" brochure by the Webb campaign as a pdf. There is no reference to fictional "antiChrist" remark. The claim was that the drawing of Harris Miller was stereotypical antiJewish art. The problem with that claim is that the drawing of Miller basically looks like Miller. See here as well.
This accusation strikes me as really sleazy. The drawing of Miller looks like Miller. There was no reference to an "antiChrist".
1. Iraq is a "diversion from the war agains international terrorism." Firstly, we are not fighting "international terrorism", which is a tactic, not an enemy. We are fighting Islamic fascism, jihadism, radidal Islam, or whatever other name you want to call it. Then, to state that Saddam's Iraq was not related to jihadism is either ignorant or ingenuous. He was financing suidide bombers in Palestine; wanted terrorists were given safe haven in Iraq; after the Gulf War, he began to "islamize" his regime in many ways, among which was to invite important jihadists for strategy meetings; his agents were active in Sudan when bin Laden was there; and so on. Aside from this, which you may not accept, or may view as circumstantial, Webb's own formulation calls the enemy "international", that is, "stateless". It's not located in any state, but depends on a web (no pun intended) of alliances. Iraq was an important "node" in the web. It was, above all, a "node" that we were capable of taking out. And taking out the "node" has had important effects on "international terrorism": Syria is out of Lebanon; Libia gave up its WMD; there are strirrings of democracy in autocratic Gulf states; and so on.
2. Webb says that the invasion was a "strategic blunder" because it "strengthened the Shia population of Iraq". I don't know quite what to make of this. He seems to be saying that 'strengthening the Shia population" is automatically a bad idea, but I have no idea why. Of course, "strengthening the Shia population" is automatically a bad idea *if one is Sunni*, but Webb isn't Sunni. He only seems to be a victim of Sunni propaganda by his saying this. The Shia are the majority in Iraq, so why shouldn't they be strengthened?
3. The invasion has "strengthened Iran": where's the evidence for this? Iran today is surrounded by states that owe us some kind of loyalty (Afghanistan and Iraq). This naturally makes them paranoid and for good reason. They know they're next. I can think of nothing that would strengthen them more than a precipate withdrawal from Iraq, which is what Webb, and most (if not all) Democrats propose.
The remark is properly attributed. But looking at the big picture, as a Jew I find Allen's reaction to his heritage far more damning. His "aspersions" says a lot more than this "anti-Christ" about how anti-Semitic each man may or may not be.
So, you think it's just find to cast aspersions about people because of their religious beliefs? Geez.
It's obvious from the Webb flyer that the Webb campaign was backing the "anti-christ" claim. Do you really think Webb could wiggle out of resposibility if the flyer instead said that Miller had been "called a lying, sleazy murderous piece of scum who murdered his wife and stole from his employees"?
You think it's an "aspersion" to ask about somebody's Jewish heritage? As a fellow Jew, may I second your "geez."
makes some interesting observations that are,in my opinion, well worth reading. She uses an opinion column from the New York Times as the starting point of her observations. This column is also interesting. Here are a few excerpts, stolen from the blog entry: Althouse excerpts more of the column, but I thought that Conspiracy readers might be interested in these specific excerpts, as they touch on issues that have been discussed extensively on this thread and on other Volokh Conspiracy threads that discuss the Virginia Senate race. In any case, the whole blog entry is short, well-written, and makes some excellent observations about this Senate race and about Webb's candidacy in particular.
He didn't specifically accuse the reporter of casting aspersions at him. But it's very clear that the reporter was seeking to promote aspersions against Allen because of his Jewish background. Hence the boos.
What's "independent" about him? He's running as a Democrat. Is he not a Democrat?
I swear I was going to post the exact same Mrs. Lincoln line. Well done.
Anyway, I just wanted to note that if you really want smaller government, you should vote for split government. And the recent years of GOP single-party control have made that absolutely clear.
But the question is, why does it matter? Why was Peggy Fox asking the question?
[Peggy Fox: Could you please tell us whether your forbearers include Jews, and if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended? (Booing from the audience) ]
It reads like a "So when did you quit beating your wife" question.
Can you even imagine her asking, "Did your forbearers include Catholics, Muslims, Presbyterians, African-Americans (you can fill in the blank) and if so, at which point that identity ended? I can't.
She says it's a matter of honesty. Huh? Why? Again, it is as if there is something that needs to be revealed like a dirty deed. I think Allen's response was totally appropriate to such a question. Since when does one's forbearers matter and why did it matter so terribly much to Ms. Fox that his ancesters may have been Jewish? If there is an anti-Semite in the crowd, I would look to her. It seems that not only Allen, but the audience who booed, knew exactly where Ms. Fox was coming from and it was not a pretty sight and both reacted precisely as they should.
"May I ask a follow up? Following the macaca episode, the Jewish press published a story on the internet that explored your possible Jewish ancestry on your mother's side. You've been quoted as saying your mother's not Jewish, but it had been reported her father, your grandfather Felix, whom you were given your middle name for, was Jewish. Could you please tell us whether your forbearers include Jews, and if so, at which point Jewish identity might have ended?"
I think Fox asked her question in a pretty unfortunate fashion. But when you put it in context, her intent is clear (she wants Allen to explain the discrepancy between the report in The Forward and his own statements about his ancestry).
Were you asking me if I thought Fox's question was relevant?
Personally, I do think The Forward's report raised a factual issue upon which Allen had not been clear, and indeed his later story was that until that time, he himself had not known what The Forward reported.
So, I think clarifying this matter was an extremely minor but perfectly understandable part of the campaign. But it should indeed have been nothing but a minor footnote, and it would have been if not for Allen's odd reaction.
"This might complicate life for Allen, a practicing Presbyterian who besides running for re-election this year in Virginia is often mentioned as a possible Republican 2008 contender. Political analyst John Mercurio of National Journal’s noted tip sheet, The Hotline, said that any complication 'would depend largely on how this information was revealed.'
'If it was discovered that Allen knew this family history, but attempted to keep it under wraps for whatever reason, it could do great harm to any political campaign,' Mercurio wrote in an e-mail. 'He’d face serious questions, in the wake of the Macaca incident and his history with the Confederate flag, of whether he’s both racially prejudiced and anti-semitic. Given the intensely pro-Israel sentiment that exists in this country today, that could be a huge political liability — but on the other hand, if this is something he discovers and promptly reveals about himself, and does so with a sense of pride in his family history, I don’t think he’d face much backlash at all.'"
It seems to me that Mercurio got it exactly right.
Anyway, Allen has said he's fine with his Jewish heritage, so this is a non-issue. It's m ind-boggling that he's being criticized in this thread for making a very good statement in that debate:
To vote against someone because of a statement like this would be disgraceful.
I agree that the confusion over Allen's ancestry--which was caused by Allen himself--should have been a trivial matter, but trivia comes up in campaigns all the time. And interestingly, Allen did not, as you suggest doing, treat it as trivia. Rather, he treated the suggestion that he had Jewish ancestry as an "aspersion", and that really is a pretty disturbing thing to say.
All that said, I don't think this is nearly as significant as the macaque incident. Personally, that was simply a deal-breaker for me, whereas I at least feel some sympathy for Allen given the impossible task his mother apparently placed upon him (namely, to refuse to discuss his Jewish ancestry even though it had already come out).
To me, Webb seems like an interesting character with a lot of good points. But I very much want to keep a GOP Senate so we can get some SCOTUS Judges like Scalia and Thomas.
Yes, because the most important factual issue facing Virginia voters right now is, "who's the Jew?" - and even more importantly, "which candidate is a Secret Jew masquerading as a Presbyterian?" Now that the ever-vigilant watchdog media has cleared that up, everyone in Virginia knows exactly how to vote.
Of course Allen apologized for the macaque incident--he got caught on videotape and it hurt him badly. But having seen the videotape, I have no doubt what he was doing, and I think the consequence for campaigning in that fashion has to be a rejection by the electorate. If you think your partisan interests are more important than such a principle, then I think that reflects poorly on your judgment.
Incidentally, I don't think the "antichrist of outsourcing" incident is the same. Here is the original reference in its original context:
"Harris Miller, aka the Antichrist if you're an unemployed IT worker, is gearing up for a Senate run as--a Democrat? 'I think businesspeople can be good Democrats,' Miller told me last week. 'I'm proud to be a businessman; my father was a small businessman.'
Miller stepped down as president of the Information Technology Association of America last week to focus on his campaign for one of Virginia's Senate seats. The ITAA is a high-tech industry lobby group backed by the likes of IBM, Intel, and Microsoft. Through the ITAA, these heavyweights have been pushing the federal government to ease restrictions on the hiring of immigrant tech labor and quash bills that would limit their ability to move operations to low-cost countries."
Reading this, I don't think the original author was referring to Miller being Jewish. And I don't see any reason to believe the Webb campaign intending anything different than the original author.
Now, inadvertently the phrase "anti-Christ of outsourcing" may have been offensive to some Jewish people in light of the fact that Miller is Jewish (although I'm not entirely sure that such offense would be warranted). But again, I have no reason to believe any such offense was intentional on Webb's part.
In contrast, as noted, to me it is very clear that Allen intended to do exactly what he did, namely use a racial slur to brand someone as a social outsider for the sake of ingratiating himself to his audience. So, even if you think the form of the incidents are the same (and I think that is a highly dubious contention), that difference in intent makes the two incidents quite different to me.
Oh, and "porn"? Please. Allen just embarassed himself with that nonsense, and you are doing the same to yourself.
Of course it wasn't "the most important factual issue facing Virginia voters." But since when have campaigns only been about the most important issues?
And see Andrew's reference to "porn".
If the other career, however, is kind of sketchy, then probably it's not worth getting so ecstatic about. My parenthetical reference (above) to Webb's previous career as an author was merely meant to suggest that said career should not give said Webb a leg up on said Allen. I read somewhere that Mark Foley is desperately looking for his library card....
There is nothing "sketchy" about Webb's novels. And calling them "porn" is just silly.
Anyway, this is all a red herring. No one here was discussing Webb's career, and it is a transparent attempt to change the subject from Allen's unsuitability for the office of Senator.
But I think you have made your position clear. Allen is a Republican, and so are you, and therefore you support Allen no matter what. Which is sad.
All of this discussion about macacas and anti-christs and graphic novels and jewishness is all well and good. But, how about addressing some real issues?
George Allen says at the Project Vote Smart site that he supports granting the President line-item veto authority to help eliminate non-essential, wasteful government spending. However, I don't know James Webb's position on this issue, because Webb refused to fill out the questionnaire for Project Vote Smart. Does anyone know Webb's position on this vital issue of fiscal responsibility and bloated government?
On June 22, 2006, the House passed the line item bill (H.R. 4890). 93% of Republicans supported the bill, whereas 82% of Democrats opposed it, in the House. S. 2381 failed in the Senate. Is Webb going to make sure that it fails again?
Readers will not find anything about this issue at Webb's website either. I looked.
Thank you. In a few words you put this entire issue in perspective.
Quick research suggests that Allen isn't really the kind of Republican to thrill libertarians (as suggested here: http://www.theagitator.com/archives/027004.php ... with the caveat that I don't actually know anything about this blogger, but his claims seem in line with a few minutes of web research). A lot of this, of course, depends on which issues you prioritize, what your take is on the relevant foreign policy questions, etc. And, in any case, I'll confess to being less informed than I ought to be this election; I've ended up paying more attention to the marriage amendment (having gotten involved a bit in campaigning against that).
Also, hi! *waves*
Who knew that giving Bush yet more authority over Congress was "vital" to fiscal responsibility? The past couple of years are evidence that the opposite is the case. That Bush has avoided his responsibility to veto spending bills he didn't like (jury's still out on that one, though) hardly demonstrates that he needs it or even wants it.
If more Republicans followed his lead, they wouldn’t be the hypocritical small-government talk, big-government voters that they’ve turned into. It’s probably true Allen ‘voted with Bush xx% of the time’; but if you subtract the countless irrelevant Senate resolutions, there are sharp differences.
Allen departs from the company-line on line-item veto, balanced budget amendment, legislator ‘Paycheck Penalty’ for overdue appropriation bills, immigration (for secured borders and deportation of felons, against amnesty), Ketchikan “Bridge to Nowhere”, individual health saving accounts, no tax for IRA rollover to health care, pooled small business insurance, education savings accounts, education-related tax credit, etc.
Allen pushed hard to bring high-tech business —business that depends on knowledge, not low wages or industrial location— to the state. He fights the eternal battle to keep the internet free of tax and regulation, supports net neutrality but not the Snowe-Dorgan bill (yet). He understands the link of prosperity and equal opportunity to innovation, free enterprise, and education.
As Governor, Allen created the Standards of Learning (SOLs) to link state-certified diplomas with knowledge. The federal No Child Left Behind loosely copies this and is a poorer standard. The price of success: now Senator Allen seeks exemptions from NCLB for states with better standards.
Also in that term, Allen enacted much-needed parole-reform, eliminating parole for violent offenses; to him a matter of public trust, honesty, and victims’ rights.
Allen’s bent over backwards for military and veterans, especially Reserve and National Guard. He’s improved their benefits, health care, insurance, retirement, and education benefits. On the minus side, he not a military strategist and tends to follows others’ leads; he currently pays a lot of attention to Sen. Warner.
IMO Allen’s most important contribution is his strategic outline on energy. It’s parts aren’t all new, but it outlines what the US must do, in what order. We are skating on thin ice, and without adequate energy, we will sink.
Last week at dinner with him —one of those ‘bolt it down before a speech’ meals— Allen and I chatted about his daughter starting college; the traffic, etc. One of his comments was about the disproportionate number of CT and NJ students at JMU; that it was sad —a loss of talent— those states didn’t have more in-state capacity because a lot of students wouldn’t move back.
Allen learns. He’s not an intellectual or anti-intellectual, he’s smart; Allen understands people and the consequences of government action.
I agree, so the question is then whether the better house to have/lose is the Senate/House. I urge you to scroll back up to my Sunday post, in which I argue that GOP Senate control is better to have good JUDGES. Let Denny Hastert pay the price of losing faith with 1994's promises.
Alos, I add this - TREATIES. A Dem Senate, joined by a Dem Prez in 2 years, and do all sorts of big-government mischief by signing onto international treaties that require statism at home.
So again, hold your nose and vote for whatever bad Senator or Senate candidate you face in your State, and say bye to your House Rep.
In stark contrast, Jim Webb is for rolling back the Bush tax cuts, rolling back the crucial capital gains tax and frequently cites Marx and Engels on the campaign trail when arguing that there needs to be income redistribution. Aside from that, his plan for withdrawing from Iraq and reinvading as needed, fits in the category of stupid ideas right next to John Murtha's redeployment to Okinawa. Finally, if this campaign has demonstrated anything, it has shown that Jim Webb knows almost nothing about the state he purports to represent. HE knew nothing about the Craney Island Terminal project that will bring 10,000 jobs to Virginia and has offered nothing for rebuilding or improving the over stressed and badly crumbling infrastructure in Northern Virginia (Allen has a good conservative plan that avoids wasteful and bloated public spending by providing tax incentives and the like to get the private sector to help pay for infrastructure improvements).
Seems to me that control of the Senate (for Judicial nominations) is more important than the differences between Webb and Allen.
Webb must be very far ahead if he's being smeared as a pinko. So, Jim Rittinger, what is he quoting from Marx and Engels? Let's hear it.
Nick
My source is the October 23, 2006 Bob Moser article in The Nation and the 9/21/2006 AP story. Both are linked by an article that discusses the topic at www.allens-a-team.com/thomas-jefferson-vs-marx-engels/
Game. Set. Match.