Salon: "War Hero vs. Faux Cowboy"

By: Lowell
Published On: 7/17/2006 11:15:12 AM

Salon Magazine's lead story this morning is on Jim Webb ("war hero") vs. George Allen ("faux cowboy").  The subheading pretty much sums it up:

War hero Jim Webb has the r+â-¬sum+â-¬ to take a Senate seat away from presidential hopeful George Allen. But the cowboy-boot-wearing Allen will use every trick in the Rove playbook.

Salon elaborates:

If federal elections were decided on biography, Democrat Jim Webb would be a sure bet as Virginia's next senator.

[...]

But elections hinge on far more than the actual stories of candidates. They turn on a blizzard of 30-second campaign ads, sound-bitten messages and political attacks. And that is why Allen, the part-time cowpoke, has been telling folks on the campaign trail that he questions the patriotic values of Webb, the war hero.

[...]

...if the past is prologue, the Virginia Senate race will not turn on a sober analysis of the issues. It will be an all-out war, filled with the dirty tricks and nasty attacks. In addition to Wadhams, Allen has hired Chris Lacivita, a former consultant to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which tarried Kerry's political biography in 2004. One Democratic strategist said he could imagine Republicans mounting all manner of front groups to attack Webb. "I would not be surprised if in a month or so there is a group of African-Americans -- African-Americans for Truth, or whatever -- attacking Jim Webb on race," the strategist said.

So, what do we do about this?  Very simple.  As I pointed out this morning, Jim Webb needs money - as much as he thinks "[i]t sort of sucks" that the system works this way - and lots of it in order to counter Allen's shenanigans.  Webb also needs money in order to get his amazing biography in front of every single Virginian.  If Webb does that, as Salon points out, he wins.  Because, frankly, there's no comparison.

The thing is, as senior Webb strategist Steve Jarding points out, we "don't need to raise dollar for dollar [with Allen]."  However, we do need to raise millions of dollars.  The more we can raise over the internet, the better.  Among other things, raising money from "small donoros" makes the candidate less beholden to big money interests. 

Can it be done?  Well, Howard Dean raised rougly $7.3-$7.4 million over the internet in the 3rd quarter of 2003 alone.  John Kerry raised $82 million from online supporters in 2004.  Paul Hackett raised an estimated $500,000 out of $750,000 total over the internet during his near upset of Jean Schmidt for Congress in Ohio in August 2005.  So yeah, I believe it can be done.

What we need to do is get some serious "people power" and "viral marketing" going here.  If we can get 100,000 people to give $100 each, that's $10 million right there.  In 2005, over 1 million people voted for Tim Kaine in the Virginia gubernatorial election.  If only one-tenth of those people gave $100 each - the cost of a couple of nice dinners out - we could elect Jim Webb to the U.S. Senate.  Does that sound like a worthy goal to you?  It sure does to me!  If you agree, please click here and give whatever you can.  Thanks very much, and sorry to keep bugging you about money!

Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign.  The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not necessarily represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.


Comments



Gotta love their cover photo... (Loudoun County Dem - 7/17/2006 11:55:55 AM)

However, I still like...



You nailed the real problem (Eric - 7/17/2006 12:03:46 PM)
with fund raising in another post this morning.  When voter turnout is a pathetic 3% I have trouble seeing 100,000 people donating $100.  After all, voting is free (except for a few minutes time) and hardly anyone came out. 

Sure, there are significant differences between a primary and the real election, but looking to a fairly apathetic voter base for cash probably won't go far.

Other ideas you mention - things like people power, word of mouth, viral marketing - are likely to go much further in terms of getting votes and of finding the people who will donate.



Ahhh, Salon, (I.Publius - 7/17/2006 12:43:22 PM)
the mouthpiece of the DNC.  Nice propaganda piece.


Yeah, it was a pretty nice piece (pitin - 7/17/2006 1:19:22 PM)
Getting a little nervous there I.Publius?


You betcha. (I.Publius - 7/17/2006 1:40:02 PM)
We're shaking.  Watching all this Democrat money (what pittance there is) getting poured into a Webb black hole is a beautiful thing.  That means less for Democrats to spend in close races in Va, and less for other Senate races, such as against Santorum and Lott.

Stuff like this from Salon is expected.  Salon preaches to the choir, and any moderates or conservatives who happen to read it will recognize it for the slanted rag that it is.

How much credence would you give to a similar article at Newsmax that ripped Webb and sang Allen's praises?

Yeah, that's what I figured.



HoHo (seveneasypeaces - 7/17/2006 1:44:11 PM)
Are you bragging about being bought and paid for? 


Can you read? (I.Publius - 7/17/2006 1:48:48 PM)
apparently not particularly well. 


The last Newsmax article about Webb and Allen was July 1 (RayH - 7/17/2006 3:33:52 PM)
I thought Webb came out looking credible in that article, which is surprising, considering the Newsmax slant.

Sadly for everyone in Virginia, Senator Allen doesn't have many positive accomplishments to recommend him for re-election.

He's going around the Republican fundraising circuit drumming up fear that the Democratic party will dump money into Webb's campaign. I'll give him credit for being able to raise money. That doesn't mean that he's a good candidate, a good man, or that he will win in November.



Sold (seveneasypeaces - 7/17/2006 3:40:55 PM)
"I'll give him credit for being able to raise money. That doesn't mean that he's a good candidate, a good man, or that he will win in November."

It means he has a price.