Democrats' Conundrum in Virginia

| | Comments (30) | TrackBacks (0)

Jim Webb is not exactly a paleoconservative but neither is he much like anyone else willing to don the Democratic Party mantle in recent years. Were he still a Republican his fiction writing alone would have gotten him pilloried if he was running for U.S. Senator. (We don't even need to get into other instances of rather extreme political incorrectness).

To understand the irony of Webb's running as a Democrat, read Andrew Ferguson's excellent article reporting on a recent Arlington house party. Then come back and read the rest of this.

My take: The Democrats will run ANYONE who a) is willing to be called a "Democrat" and b) has a chance of winning an election. If Jim Webb can be a Democrat, anyone can.

This observation is not just about snorting derisively at a political party forced to such depths of blatant expediency, however. The Republicans have been less than knights in shining armor on a number of issues despite controlling the federal government for the past four years. Perhaps the Democrats could grow a "Jim Webb" wing to eventually squelch the, um, entire party and thereby provide a viable alternative to the Republicans?

I support George Allen because, as noted in earlier posts, he is simply better on some issues I think are important, and I think a Republican-led Senate holds significant advantages over one controlled by the Democrats. If George Allen loses his Senate seat, though, I'm not going to stick my head in the oven. It's an electric oven, and the implications are simply to horrible to contemplate. And further, if the Republicans don't provide the opportunity to move our country in the right direction that isn't going to leave a whole lot of choices. Following November 7 we will be surveying some of those choices. You have to consider the Democratic Party a part of the mix, provided they grow a lot more Jim Webb and a lot less everything they are at this moment.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Democrats' Conundrum in Virginia.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


zimzo said:

I understand now. You oppose the Democrats circa 1972 so you don't want them to win. And you are in favor of the Republicans circa 1984 and so you want them to win. But don't you find it odd that the year is actually 2006?

Yes, John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Michael Moore, Kos, Babs, Rangal, Feingold, Leahy, Kerry and the rest of the left wing freakshow that constitutes the center of today's Democratic Party all ticked me off so much in 1972 that I still can't forgive them.

zimzo said:

That's nine actual members of Congress you've named. Have you actually read about any of the Democrats running in current newspapers? Do you honestly think they are worse than the Republican leadership which protected Mark Foley and has rubber-stamped Bush's debacle in Iraq? Worse than people like Ted Stevens, who heads the committee overseeing the Internet who believes the Internet is a series of tubes. Or Doc Hastings the House Ethics Committee chairman who was put their by Dennis Hastert after the former chairman Joel Hefley persisted in investigating Tom Delay? Worse than Don Sherwood the Republican congressman with a high rating by the Christian Coalition who denies attempting to strangle his mistress though he admits a five-year relationship with her? Worse than Curt Weldon who believes the government is conspiring to cover up that they knew about 9/11 before it happened and who is being investigated by the FBI for steering contracts to his daughter? Worse than Duke Cunningham or Bob Ney who are in jail for corruption? Etc. Etc.

The Democrats in Congress have a history of actual votes and statements on issue and therefore, yes, I think they are worse than the Republicans. Thus, I think the Republicans would be better to control the agenda of Congress. Etc. etc.

molasky said:

"The Democrats will run ANYONE who a) is willing to be called a "Democrat" and b) has a chance of winning an election"

Sounds true and a pretty reasonable thing for a party to do (see Chafee, L). If he wins it will only add to moderate strength in the senate. More moderates in both parties is good for policymakng more generally.

If your thesis is true though, it hardly squares with the oft-repeated claim that Lieberman was "purged" for simply being not liberal enough.

molasky said:

"I think the Republicans would be better to control the agenda of Congress."

If you are mainly a social conservative, that makes sense. If you are a fiscal conservative, you should reconsider. Divided government (better when reversed parties, but still) will mean vetoes of both taxes and spending.

Bush signs vast spending increases because it has republican pork, which helps him.

Once it helps him politically to veto the democrats evil socialist agenda, out of control spending will stop.

Susan said:

The funny thing is that Webb actually thinks that he can vote independently in the Senate. Reid, Hillary, and the democrats would squash him like a bug if he tried. Good thing they won't have the opportunity.

Have any democrats read the Ferguson article? Do they know who Jim Webb is? Who they are voting for? Or do they just not care? If he has a (D) after his name, even if only for a minute and half, he's good enough for them?

Molasky - good point about Lieberman. I guess it's all about the war. The article does point out some inconguities, through. RE: fiscal conservatism, you are semi-correct and obviously that's not my key priority...mainly because I'm not confident Bush and the Democrats would necessarily cut spending.

Susan, yes, I think it's mainly because of the (D) and most do not know anything about him.

zimzo said:

I guess it is all about the war, Joe. Some people think that the death of 3000 of our soldiers in a war that has made us less safe from terrorism is a tragedy and a little more important than property values. I guess if, like Geaorge Allen, you don't actually have a family member fighting there, you might not care as much as someone like Jim Webb who does.

And if you think fiscal conservatism is important, it's just laughable that you would support a party that has run record deficits and gives away billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to their corporate friends at companies like Haliburton over the Democrats who actually balanced the budget and produced record surpluses. Like I said, you seem to have a view of politics from 1972 instead of 2006.

Jack said:


I had a family member in Iraq. He is back now, but expects to return next year. I also encourage my sons to go into the military when they are old enough.

You have a point on the fiscal conservatism, though. It seems to me that the party in power becomes the Big Spender Party, and the party out of power, which cannot get its pet projects funded, becomes the Party of Fiscal Discipline.

That said, however, things are getting better, and this year's deficit looks to come in below last year's ( One year does not make a trend, but it is a hopeful sign.

It must also be noted that the last budget with a surplus was written by a REPUBLICAN Congress.

zimzo said:

...under a Democratic President. One of the reasons we have record deficits is that there are no checks and balances on the Republicans. That's why we need a Democratic Congress.

Well put, Jack, and for all practical purposes we already have a Democrat as president.

Jack said:


Answer honestly, when you vote for a Democrat for President, do you vote for Republicans for Senate and Congress, just to keep the "checks and balances"?

zimzo said:

I do sometimes vote a split ticket, but usually because I don't like the Democrat or like the person from another party better. But I think this election is different from most because of the degree of corruption and the fact that the degree to which the Republicans have failed to act as a check and balance rubber-stamping virtually everything George Bush has done. I don't think we have ever had a situation where the President used his veto power only once, to veto stem cell research, which shows how unwilling the Republicans are to buck the President on anything, even the debacle in Iraq. Every President before Bush who has had a Congress of the same party have met some resistence from members of their own party on some issues, including Clinton, Bush Sr., Regan, Carter and Nixon but the current President Bush has not been held accountable for anything and has even made it clear with his signing statements and his theory of the "unitary executive" that he doesn't think he should be held accountable.

Jack said:


I did not ask whether you had ever voted a split ticket. I don't doubt you've thrown a vote or two to the Communists. I asked whether you voted Republican down-ticket to balance your vote at the top.

In any event, I think you have it backward. Bush has rubber-stamped everything the Congress has done, with only the one exception you note. To "buck the President," Congress simply doesn't pass the bills he asks for.

zimzo said:

Funny, Jack. Actually I've never voted for a Communist candidate but I have voted for a few Republicans. I think you're the only person in the country who believes that Congress not the President is framing the agenda.

Joe, I would appreciate it if you could write a few more posts about how the Republicans are against Hispanics. A heavy Hispanic turnout in Virginia could tip the vote to Webb.

Jack said:

The President may frame the agenda, but Congress writes the laws.

Kevin said:

ZIM! Don't expose Joe's strategy here. Wait till after the election. . .till we see if his plan worked!!

Zimzo, Kevin: I hate to FREAK OUT YOUR MINDS but national polls, especially in border areas, show that immigrants from Mexico and Latin America, increasing with succeeding generations, are over 50% in favor of tighter restrictions on immigration.

A local reporter told me her informal conversations revealed the same thing. Check out this story:

It's a mistake (I won't say racist, but... oversimplifying) to think "Hispanics" are some kind of bloc. Also a mistake to talk about "Hispanics" because in reality immigrants from those areas represent a range of ethnicities.

zimzo said:

Although I think your statistics and anecdotal reports are bogus, even if they were true I don't think Latinos appreciate being attacked as Republicans have been doing lately. It certainly didn't work for Pete Wilson. But I guess we'll see. By the way, the latest polls show Webb has pulled ahead.

Kevin said:

"It's a mistake (I won't say racist, but... oversimplifying) to think "Hispanics" are some kind of bloc. Also a mistake to talk about "Hispanics" because in reality immigrants from those areas represent a range of ethnicities."

WOW! WOW! Look Zimzo! It worked! Let's do it again, I think we got him thinking!!

Zimzo: I realize if Republicans are not attacking Foreigners your entire world makes no sense at all. I can't help you with that.

zimzo said:

That's the point, Joe. Being Latino doesn't necessarily mean you're a "foreigner." Like most Republicans, you don't seem to understand that.

Zimzo, your white hood is showing. "Latino" is a patronizing term for people of a variety of ethnic backgrounds who all happen to come from south of the border. Not all of them even speak Spanish as a primary language, you might be interested in knowing. Read some history, and may God have mercy on your enthnocentric soul.

BigAl said:

The Senate must remain Republican for one simple reason. Supreme Court. If there's an off chance that a vacancy becomes available, a GOP majority will see the next Roberts/Alito hoisted to the Court. Of course the war on terror, taxes, and ilegal immigration other reasons.

zimzo said:

"Sadly, I think now Webb is going to have to spend the last two weeks of the campaign talking about his service in Vietnam and all that he witnessed there. Unfortunately, this will just serve to remind people that he served in the military and won the Navy Cross while George Allen was riding around in his pickup truck with the Confederate flag bumper sticker palying humorous pranks on black people like stuffing deer heads in their mailboxes. Regrettably, Webb will be forced to recount the story of how he won the Navy Cross."--Zimzo

"I have a feeling that's not how the public debate will play out, but I won't begrudge you the dream."--Joe

CNN, 10/29: Webb (D) 50%--46% Allen (R)
Rasmussen, 10/29: Webb 51%--46% Allen
Zogby Internet, 10/29: Webb 51%--47.2% Allen
DSCC internal, 10/29: Webb 47%--43% Allen

You seem to be assuming I am emotionally affected by the fact that Allen is behind in the polls? I am, in fact, not. Nor would I be emotionally affected if he lost. You must have me mistaken for someone else here. This will become clearer on November 8.

(And by "dream" in the quote above I was referring to your rhapsodic, jock sniffing prediction of how the campaign would progress in VA. I can tell you, that's not what's happening. Allen is simply running a lousy TV campaign, some of his remarks have not helped him, and Webb is not providing a bad alternative. Haven't seen diddly about military experience.)

radicalexposes said:

Please also read more by Googleing the following articles:
Anatomy Of The George Allen Lynching
Are Saddams Saddemocrats Behind The George Allen Lynching
Politics and Bedfellows An Age Old Story Told Once Again
You just have to go to
scroll down to Advanced Search
click on Advanced Search and put any one of those titles above in
with the exact
phrase and click on Google Search

zimzo said:

George Allen lynching? That's rich. Did they use the noose he used to keep in his office with the other Confederate memorabilia?

jacob said:

I am actually floored that you say you have voted Republican in the past. Could you name this Republican?

One more thing, this is a simple question. All macaca aside, does all confederate memorabilia equate to racism in your view?

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here