Chuck Robb, Independent?

By: Lowell
Published On: 12/30/2007 9:39:14 AM

This morning's Washington Post has an article about an upcoming meeting -- organized by NY City Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- of  "a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join [Bloomberg] in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington."  The list of attendees is impressive, people like Sam Nunn, Gary Hart, John Danforth, Christine Todd Whitman, and William Cohen. But the name that really jumped out at me from the attendees list was Virginia's own former U.S. Senator (and Governor) Chuck Robb.

What's Chuck Robb doing at this meeting, which threatens that if "the two parties do not pledge to 'go beyond tokenism' in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president?"  And what is "national consensus" anyway?  Would we really WANT a consensus, for instance, between foreign policy "neocons" and those (like me) who believe in spreading values of democracy and freedom using "soft power" and alliances?  What would such a consensus look like?  Slightly less militaristic than the neocons, maybe a bit more "soft power?"  Same thing with global climate change, would we really want a "consensus" between anti-environment extremists like James Inhofe and with...well, pretty much the entire scientific community which says we need to take drastic action in the next few years?  Wouldn't that just lead to a watered down approach that would accomplish nothing?  Hint: that was a rhetorical question.

Anyway, back to Chuck Robb and his presence at the meeting.  Perhaps this might explain it?

Politically, Robb was a moderate, but known as a conservative Democrat. As governor, he balanced the state budget without raising taxes, and dedicated an additional $1 billion for education. He appointed a record number of women and minorities to state positions, including the first African American to the state Supreme Court. He was the first Virginia governor in 25 years to use the death penalty. Robb was instrumental in creating the Super Tuesday primary that brought political power to the Southern states. He was also a co-founder in creating the Democratic Leadership Council...

Also, "Robb ranked annually as one of the most ideologically centrist senators, and he often acted as a bridge between Democratic and Republican members."  In other words, Robb fits in very well with people like Sam Nunn, Christine Todd Whitman, William Cohen, and Michael Bloomberg.  

The question is, will this "Unity 08" movement go anywhere?  My guess is that it all depends on Mayor Bloomberg and his gazillion dollars of personal wealth.  I mean, if Bloomberg's willing to spend $1 billion of his own money to run for president, and if Americans aren't thrilled with the Democratic and Republican parties, who knows what could happen in 2008?  But I'm still left with the nagging question: what would a real "consensus" between right and left in this country look like?  Would it be like the Bill Clinton/Tony Blair "third way" approach?  Would it be intellectually coherent?  Politically appealing?  Policy effective?  

I'm skeptical, but if there's ever been a time in America more open to new ideas and approaches, it might be this one.  I just hope that the ideas are broadly Progressive, in the Teddy Roosevelt sense of making PROGRESS, not in the sense of "synonym with liberal."  I'll definitely be watching to see what, if anything, comes of the January 7 meeting.  I'll also be watching Chuck Robb, who -- along with his wonderful wife -- were such big supporters of Jim Webb in 2006.  Speaking of Webb, he sure sounds like he'd fit in with Bloomberg, Hart, Cohen, Whitman, Robb et al.  Just a thought.


Comments



Unity 08 is ridiculous (Sui Juris - 12/30/2007 11:42:45 AM)
soft mushy pablum for people who don't really care about substance, but like the way "compromise" sounds.

Why is Robb there?  Probably spending too much time over in the faculty lounge at GMU law.  That has to rot your brain after a while.

~

Also, Christine Todd Whitman's name really ought not be mentioned in the same breath as Sam Nunn or John Danforth.  She absolutely disgraced herself.  What a waste of a promising future.



I agree with you on Christine Todd Whitman (Lowell - 12/30/2007 12:05:09 PM)
She truly did disgrace herself as EPA administrator.  If she had had any integrity whatsoever, she would have resigned after Bush reneged on his campaign promise to slash CO2 emissions and said EXACTLY why she was doing so.


To answer your question.... (ub40fan - 12/30/2007 11:46:19 AM)
of why Chuck Robb might be on this "list", I think you know better than I - that the rumor mill had him itching to get back to a public service career / job.

So his named was floating around for SecDef prior to the Gates appointment.

What is important to me about the meeting .... is that a good group of centrist politicians are concerned, quite concerned that the major parties will be stupid enough to elect this primary season .... VERY POLARIZING candidates.

If Obama wins the nomination .... and then picks the "right" Vice President ... I think the Bloomberg "candidacy" card goes away. Can't say I see that potential in the Republican field ... other than longshot Ron Paul.

All Big IFs right now, hence the apprehension of good people about the polarization of our politics.



Consensus to go where? (Kindler - 12/30/2007 12:09:50 PM)
First of all, I find it very interesting that this article was written by David Broder, who has written about 80 gazillion columns about the need for everyone in Washington to give up partisanship, hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and all drink from the same ceremonial Kool-Aid cup.  So much for the Post's bright line between reporting and commentary.

Of course consensus would be a wonderful thing, as would world peace, free love without disease and every other item on the laundry-list of utopia.  The question is, how do you get there?  Do you simply split every question down the middle?  If so, then there's the classic bargaining incentive for each side to push their position farther towards the extremes so that the "center" (a purely theoretical concept) ends up closer to their side in the end.

Partisanship, like a lawyer, is a terrible thing until when you need it.  If Martin Luther King had settled for "consensus" with the Southern segregationists, where would we be today?  Perhaps blacks would be allowed to use public facilities between the hours of 3pm-7pm?



Exactly (Craig - 12/30/2007 12:31:30 PM)
I don't think Broder realizes that there ISN'T a broad national consensus on these issues.  I mean, try to tell me there's a broad national consensus on health care that both parties are just ignoring.  And try to tell me that one can split the difference between denying global warming and doing something about it.

Sometimes I think Broder and others like him just hate political reporting in general, and want Unity 08 to succeed so they can fire off columns in 2 seconds then kick back and play golf.  Personally, my suggestion is that Broder should relocate to, say China, where the political decisions, however brutal or unpopular, are always consensus choices of One Big Happy Party.  Because that's the only way all that bad, bad partisanship is going away.



2 second rule (Sui Juris - 12/30/2007 1:30:19 PM)

Sometimes I think Broder and others like him just hate political reporting in general, and want Unity 08 to succeed so they can fire off columns in 2 seconds then kick back and play golf.

Surely you can't be suggesting that he puts anymore effort than that into things now . . .



Heh, well probably not (Craig - 12/30/2007 3:33:07 PM)
Still, he's such an unapologetic cheerleader for singing Kumbaya that I have to think that the Unity part isn't really what he cares about.


We just need ethics and honesty in government, not another party (relawson - 12/30/2007 1:10:41 PM)
Our problem isn't that we have a two party government.  Our problem is that both parties are heavily influenced by big business and no longer represent OUR interests - the majority.

If we add another party, that will be just another group of people to bribe with junkets and trips to golf courses around the world disquised as something that will benefit the tax payer.

We need someone who will limit the influence of lobbyists and multinational corporations.  Only then will the parties come together for the greater good.  

We know that Senator Clinton won't do anything to limit influence of big business.  I am currently on the Edwards bandwagon, but will support Obama if he doesn't do well in the first few states.  I think both men would be a good choice.  Though Edwards is of course the best choice ;-)  

Senator Clinton will drive away independents and moderate Democrats in masse.  We just don't like her.  If you look at where her money is coming from, you will understand why.



Chuck Robb is more of a pragmatist (legacyofmarshall - 12/30/2007 1:28:43 PM)
Than a "centrist."  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure he was one of maybe 5 senators who voted against the Clinton-era act that said that states do not need to recognize other states' marriage laws - the beginning of the modern federalist homophobic movement, and he vehemently spoke out against it in a Washington Post editorial at the time.  He said he knew it would hurt his re-election chances in Virginia in 2000, but he still couldn't bring himself to vote for something so irresponsibly anti-constitutional and anti-human rights.  He was a one-of-a-kind senator just for that.

Virginia's idiocy in switching from Robb to Allen in 2000 continues to amaze me as much as Virginia's genius in switching from Allen to Webb in 2006.

As for Christine Todd Whitman - give her some credit, at least she quit the Bush EPA out of frustration eventually.  I personally think she thought she could change it from the inside and left when she realized she couldn't.  And, she founded a PAC "It's My Party Too..."  That's just funny.

Interesting fact about Whitman: only Republican to win statewide office in New Jersey in the past 15 years, and she didn't even get 50% of the vote.  They say New Jersey's a swing state, but it's one of only TWO states (the other being Washington) with a Democratic Senate and State House, two Democratic Senators, a Democratic Governor, a Democratic immediate-past governor, voted for Dem. president in 00 and 04, and a Democratic-majority House delegation.  Democrats never win in a landslide in New Jersey, they just always win.



The thing that bothers me about Whitman (Lowell - 12/30/2007 1:34:26 PM)
is that she didn't speak out, at the time, about why she was essentially forced out from the Bush Administration.  Also, why does she stay in a party which is obviously NOT her party anymore?  Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Jeffords figured it out, so it's not THAT hard!