Can’t Fade Jim Webb

Jim Webb’s Democratic response

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

I have a feeling that if Webb was the only Democrat in Congress, he’d show the way all by himself.

And hey, look, a Democrat found a way to give a speech that didn’t include hope, faith, or any other sops to the religious right.

**Obama is on with Anderson Cooper. He’s not completely awful, but why is he bending over backwards to call Bush’s healthcare and energy plans “legitimate?” Bush has been making empty promises about energy in each of his seven State of the Union addresses, and his healthcare “plan” is a joke. Obama’s characterization of them as “legitimate” is the worst kind of bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake. What’s the point of this other than to further brand himself?

Comments

  1. Patrick Sauncy says:

    You consider the notion of hope a sop to the religious right? That’s a shame.

  2. matt says:

    in the arena of politics, you’re damn right i do.

    what kind of policy comes out of “hope?”

  3. tom says:

    it’s like the old saying: “hope in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first”……..

  4. matt says:

    i think you made that up. and i have no idea what it means.

  5. tom says:

    uh, well you’re wrong:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22hope+in+one+hand%2C+shit+in+the+other%22&btnG=Google+Search

    and what it means is that you can hope all you want, the shit keeps piling up………

  6. matt says:

    yes, well, then i’m on board.

  7. Stanford says:

    Hi, everyone, my name is Stanley.

    Okay. You have my name. The real question is, do you have the courage to debate me over the relative merits of Senator Obama and John Edwards?

    Let’s see.

  8. matt says:

    if you knew what the merits were, maybe. but you don’t. all you have is vote totals from 04 and nonsense about baiting and switching. you’ve already admitted that you have no idea what you’re talking about, but i’ll be glad to knock you around for as long as you can take it. your little signature isn’t going to stand though. we know who you’re for. and we know who you’re talking to, so stop repeating my name.

  9. sac says:

    Webb is sort of unimpeachable on the military thing and I think the way he talked about his family history in the speech was effective without being pandering. He is exactly the kind of guy that people who admire the faux-populist thing Bush attempts should actually like. In fact, I probably wouldn’t have much in common with Webb on a personal level. He’s basically a Republican (I think he used to be one, right?) but since the Bush administration abandoned anything resembling traditional Republican politics long ago, Webb was forced to migrate to the opposition party to get anything done.

    It’s amazing how far we’ve swung when someone like Webb can energize Democrats. Anyway, his speech was EXACTLY what was needed to rebut the State of the Union. The Daily Show had a rundown of rebuttals from the past few years which were laughably tame.

  10. matt says:

    stop agreeing with me.

  11. sac says:

    I believe it is you who has finally come around to my way of thinking, as Urge Overkill would say.

  12. matt says:

    well, that’s just counter factual. until about 10 minutes ago, you were trying to split every difference up to and including the chicken/fish meal decision in Airplane.

    now you’re down with edwards (over two serious difference-splitters) and webb (former republican or no), partisans both.

  13. sac says:

    I only fence-split when I analyze debate styles, like I almost did in your post about the minimum wage where I was going to say that the wealth of those senators doesn’t really come into play as they could argue that it was the small-business owners who aren’t wealthy that they are looking out for. Stuff like that.

    In terms of getting results, I’ve always said go for the throat. In fact, it has been my main criticism of the Democratic party here on this site, that they can’t seem to ignore small differences and put up an aggressive and unified front. It is YOU, my friend, who sweats things like intention and process when backing one politician or another. At least until recently.

  14. matt says:

    just fucking shoot me.

  15. sac says:

    I know, the blinding clarity of my logic is heard to take.

  16. sac says:

    But seriously, are you saying that you haven’t in the past supported or not supported a politician based on that politician’s intentions or the way he/she is running a campaign? Or that I haven’t in the past argued that the Dems need to act a little more like the Repubs and just put up a unified front and stay on message?

  17. matt says:

    an observation: why is it that people don’t take into account timing or majority/minority status when evaluating situations.

    pre-election (let’s say anytime between primaries and general in even numbered years) is different than the early part of on odd numbered year.

    being in the majority is different than being in the minority.

    my take on democrats wouldn’t be credible if it was independent of the time and status.

    now that we are about as far from the next election as you can be with congress in session, and are in the majority, the time for intentions and process is past. do you really not see the difference between scoring points in the minority and trying to win an election and having won an election and trying to govern effectively? if you see the difference, then why should the rhetoric/standards/strategy be the same?

    also, when have i ever said that democrats should not be unified?

  18. sac says:

    From what I can tell from this site, you’re all for a unified front as long as everyone is speaking and voting from their hearts. That’s just my impression and I could be wrong about that.

    I don’t see a difference between election and mid-election time periods. To get elected, you have to act like you’re capable of achieving something. When a party is in the minority, that means filibustering and coming out explicitly in opposition of policies you don’t agree with. Stand for something. For instance, this non-binding resolution against the “surge,” while symbolic, is meaningful because whatever happens in the future, people can point back to this and say “I voted against the surge.” If more Dems would have acted this way pre-Iraq war, regardless of their inability to change the course due to the minority status they held at the time, then I think the general population would have a bit more respect for them. I know I would.

  19. sac says:

    Actually not just pre-Iraq war, but showing some spine any time during the past 4 years would have been nice.

  20. matt says:

    From what I can tell from this site, you’re all for a unified front as long as everyone is speaking and voting from their hearts. That’s just my impression and I could be wrong about that.

    not just wrong. insane. what site have you been reading?

    I don’t see a difference between election and mid-election time periods.

    game over.

  21. sac says:

    Nice rebuttal. I think I offered up a decent argument, and look! We’re back to disagreeing, the universe is in order once again. Let’s just bask in our mutual endorsement of Edwards.

  22. matt says:

    I think I offered up a decent argument

    you said there’s no difference between governing and campaigning, election years and off years. not only is that not a decent argument, you’d have a hard time finding anyone who agrees with you.

    what can i even say in response?

  23. sac says:

    you said there’s no difference between governing and campaigning

    Where did I say that? I said I don’t see a difference in how a party should act in either situation. Maybe I’m being idealistic, but I think a party should clearly convey and forcefully advocate for their platforms and policies before and after they are elected, and whether they are in the minority or majority. Obviously there are nuances, but as I’ve said here many times before, for the past 4 years the Dems have offered up nothing but a muddled message and passive-aggressive support for most of the Bush administration’s policies. I’m glad to see the recent elections have emboldened them, but it is my belief that they should have been acting this way all along, whether or not their actions would have ended up being symbolic. Do you agree that this recent non-binding legislation against the surge is a worthy endeavor? If so, then you agree that opposing policies, as a party, regardless of whether you have the power to effect those policies, is important.

  24. matt says:

    oh for fuck’s sake.

    if you agree that there is a difference between campaigning and governing, then why would you expect people to act the same in both situations?

    it’s really hard for me to accept the fact that people want a minority to somehow make up for their minority status by…YELLING LOUDER or STOMPING THEIR FEET.

    I’m glad to see the recent elections have emboldened them, but it is my belief that they should have been acting this way all along, whether or not their actions would have ended up being symbolic.

    the emboldening (and embiggening) has come through their ability to set the agenda, pass legislation and get on tv. all things they couldn’t do, and had no control over, until very recently.

    Do you agree that this recent non-binding legislation against the surge is a worthy endeavor? If so, then you agree that opposing policies, as a party, regardless of whether you have the power to effect those policies, is important.

    i think the resolution has to be done if there is no other option. i’m not convinced by the legal arguments that say congress can cut off funding and block the surge for real. in that case, you have to take what you can get. but there wouldn’t be any surge voting had republicans won because none of the resolutions would have made it to the floor, and none of the democrats’ complaints would have been seen on tv. the difference is they are now in the majority, and are acting like it for the most part. you can’t do that in the minority, just ask the republicans today. what i’m waiting for is to see what the democrats do with regards to house-senate conference committees. republicans used these to render the senate useless and ram through house bills.

  25. sac says:

    it’s really hard for me to accept the fact that people want a minority to somehow make up for their minority status by…YELLING LOUDER or STOMPING THEIR FEET.

    A smart party would evaluate when and when not to do this. I think taking the country to war under suspect (at best) pretenses is an example of a good time to STOMP THEIR FUCKING FEET. The Dems didn’t do this. Also, as I’ve said, people look at politicians’ records. If they spend their time voting one way, then during an election suddenly talk another way, they’re going to come off as disingenuous because they are. Also, ineffective.

    By your argument, it would be difficult if not impossible for a minority party to distinguish itself at all from the majority party. This has been the very problem for the Dems that I keep harping on. Even when the Repubs were in the minority pre-1994, you knew exactly what they stood for.

    Anyway, I’m kind of bored with this argument now and we seem to be in agreement that the Dems are headed in the right direction. So, uh, go team go?

    Off topic, but who would be your pick for VP and Sec. of State. I’m not sure of the former, Hillary maybe, but since Clark probably won’t run, I’d say he’s a prime candidate for Sec. of State. I’d be completely happy with that choice.

  26. matt says:

    A smart party would evaluate when and when not to do this. I think taking the country to war under suspect (at best) pretenses is an example of a good time to STOMP THEIR FUCKING FEET.

    at what price? how would any of this have gone over in 2002-2005? it’s only after the war became completely unwinable and obviously fubar that the media started to stop calling those against it traitors.

    By your argument, it would be difficult if not impossible for a minority party to distinguish itself at all from the majority party. This has been the very problem for the Dems that I keep harping on. Even when the Repubs were in the minority pre-1994, you knew exactly what they stood for.

    it is difficult, and 94 is the exception that proves the rule.

    Off topic, but who would be your pick for VP and Sec. of State. I’m not sure of the former, Hillary maybe, but since Clark probably won’t run, I’d say he’s a prime candidate for Sec. of State.

    i think that jim webb is going to be the next vice president. in fact, it would shock me if he wasn’t. clark could run state as his experience at dayton and dealing with NATO heads of state both proves and qualifies him. i’d also be very happy with him as national security adviser. it’s been kind of understood that dick holbrooke will be the next democratic sec of state , but that could change also.

  27. sac says:

    at what price? how would any of this have gone over in 2002-2005? it’s only after the war became completely unwinable and obviously fubar that the media started to stop calling those against it traitors.

    Who cares how it goes over? More importantly, who cares what the media says? Politicians have to be willing to risk that kind of treatment if they believe what they’re doing is important. Look, I know at this point I’m being highly idealistic, but this fear of what the other side or the media is going to say is, yet again, exactly the problem with the Dems and exactly what the Repubs don’t care about. So actually, I’m not being all that idealistic as the Repubs have been doing exactly what I wish the Dems were doing.

  28. sac says:

    Forgot to put your quote in blocks. Also, Webb, huh? I don’t know. As with Obama, I’d like to see him get a little more experience. How about an Obama/Webb ticket in 2016?

  29. sac says:

    Sorry, another.

    it is difficult, and 94 is the exception that proves the rule.

    Were the Repubs in the minority during the 80s? I think so and everyone knew exactly what they stood for then, as well. I don’t think it’s difficult, or rather, it’s only difficult if a party is not willing to define itself.

  30. matt says:

    Who cares how it goes over?

    people who think strategery is important.

    More importantly, who cares what the media says?

    probably a plurality of voters.

    Look, I know at this point I’m being highly idealistic, but this fear of what the other side or the media is going to say is, yet again, exactly the problem with the Dems and exactly what the Repubs don’t care about.

    it’s not the idealism i mind. democrats care what the other side will say to the extent that the media will take sides. the media took sides (Rep>Dem) on iraq. you can’t brush this aside with a who cares, it’s important.

    I’d like to see him get a little more experience.

    webb has plenty of experience. so does obama. it’s how they play the game now that differentiates them.

    Were the Repubs in the minority during the 80s? I think so and everyone knew exactly what they stood for then, as well.

    congressional republicans were a joke in the 80s. sans saint ronnie, they would have been extinct.

  31. sac says:

    people who think strategery is important.

    A strong opposition stance IS a strategy.

  32. sac says:

    congressional republicans were a joke in the 80s. sans saint ronnie, they would have been extinct.

    Another excuse, much like “but the media won’t play nice.”

  1. [...] Matt: “And hey, look, a Democrat found a way to give a speech that didn’t include hope, faith, or any other sops to the religious right.” [...]