Over the past few days, the Allen campaign has been busy spreading disinformation that cuts to the core of Jim Webb's service in the Reagan Administration, and to Webb's character more generally. Specifically, the Allen camp has started pushing the bizarre line that "Webb is Not and Never Was a Reagan Democrat." Even worse, Allen's allies have been attempting to argue that Jim Webb resigned as Navy Secretary NOT on principle but in a fit of "pique." Webb wasn't a "Reagan Democrat?" How can the Allen camp and its conservative allies make such a claim, when Webb served in the Reagan Administration for 4 years, from 1984 to 1988? Aside from the fact that Webb resigned as Navy Secretary, the right-wingers point to policy disagreements between Webb and certain other Reagan Administration officials. I know, we're all shocked, SHOCKED that there would be policy disagreements within a presidential Administration. Well, news flash to George Allen, the Reagan Administration was not monolithic, with people agreeing 97% of the time as you do with your soulmate, George W. Bush. What a concept.
Meanwhile, the right-wing smear machine is pushing the swift-boat-style attack line that Webb resigned as Navy Secretary out of "pique" rather than "principle." Ironically, the Allen campaign and its surrogates in the right-wing media are relying heavily for this charge on an 18-year-old editorial in the New York Times, of all places. Rather ironic, considering that the right wing is usually busy claiming that the New York Times is ultra liberal, "disgraceful," and even treasonous.
Still, here's the conservative National Review Online quoting the evil New York Times, which opined back in February 1988 that Webb resigned as Navy Secretary because "He failed to get on with his boss, Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci."
Is there any truth to this? Well, believe it or not, someone actually wrote a 114-page thesis on the subject of Webb's resignation as Navy Secretary. The thesis was written in March 2000 by Bradly Hanner at the Naval Postgraduate School, and concludes:
Webb's insistence on maintaining the United States' Navy's force structure in the face of Secretary of Defense Carlucci's unwillingness to do the same, led to his resignation. His opposition to the reduction in force structure was rooted in his fundamental belief that it was unwise for the United States, as a maritime nation, to undercut a service upon which it relied so heavily.
No sign of "pique" there, just principle.
Don't believe the author? Then how about George Will, who wrote a piece at the time entitled, "Navy Loses a Warrior." In it, Will argued pointedly that "the defense budget, and especially the Navy, should be tailored to the nature of the nation's security needs, not budgetary convenience." Essentially the same exact argument that Webb was making.
How about conservative Republican Jack Kemp, who wrote:
...[it was] a terrible mistake accommodating...to the mindless cuts in defense. I think the wrong man resigned. It shouldn't have been Webb. It should have been Carlucci.
How about Reagan White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater, who commended Webb for doing the "honorable thing" in this matter?
Finally, how about Jim Webb himself, who told Jim Lehrer at the time:
My final conclusion on this when each time the answer was you have to take ships out, even when we could afford them, was that this was not being done for a strategic reason.
Instead, Webb felt strongly that the Navy was being harmed for "a political reason I couldn't agree with," and that this was unacceptable. So he resigned on principle, not out of "pique," but in support of President Reagan, whose plan for a 600-ship Navy was "an important campaign plank of [his] in the 1980 presidential election."
Webb wasn't a "Reagan Democrat" during the 1980s? Webb quit out of "pique?" The facts simply do not support such an allegation. Nice try, though, guys.
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.
Now, we know from his comments that he felt disgruntled with Jimmy Carter because of the amnesty situation -- so he gravitated to Ronald Reagan sometime thereafter.
Let's have him come on the record to tell us how he voted in 1972.
Did he vote for McGovern? His comments seem to suggest that it could have been a possibility.
Did he vote for Carter in 1976? Again, by his comments that appears to be a possibility.
In order to best dispel the questions regarding his party affiliation, Webb should come clean. Tell us more.
In reading his letter of resignation coupled together with other articles regarding his decision to resign, I come to the conclusion that he did so partly as a matter of honor and partly the result of frustration of his own inability to work within the system.
In the end, I have to question whether he has the temperament necessary to be a U.S. Senator.
Politics is about getting along with others when needed...and fighting it out when necessary.
Resigning as SECNAV during the midst of the 1980s is not a way to incluence events. To me, it seems more akin to a kid who gets frustrated with the game and takes ball home.
I don't care how Webb voted in the past. I care about who he is now and what he will do for the country as a senator.
“You have to have been a Republican
to know how good it is to be a Democrat.â€
-- Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
It's not too late to respond?
What are we going to do about it?
That's the real question.
Maybe we here should divy up the editorial boards, and go after Allen ourselves.
They are going to make the swiftboats look like children, wait they are making the swiftboats look like children, along with painting Webb as one too.
Thank god I am not in charge of the campaign, or I would make Allen's campaign shudder with fear.
I would call him (Allen) on EVERYTHING.
Taking no damn risks. It's not worth it to worry about the risks, if it's the truth why hold back? why wait?
What are the things we can call him on? Lets make a list...
The Navy is so very important to the planet in peacetime too. I am so proud of Jim for having principles and standing on them. I'll call it from the hill top. Jim Webb cannot be bought.
But DrMontoya ... I'm starting to wonder about you. Yesterday it was stirring the pot on Campaign "issues" and today it's .... let's face it they are winning. I mean what fuck ... what side are you on?? A defeatist democrat / a litmus test democrat / a republican troll master??
Anybody who's been around Jim Webb and this campaign knows it is George Allen's worse NIGHTMARE! Otherwise these guys at NRO and such wouldn't be spending so much energy on the attack. Good God man ... George Allen and his entire staff where ass puckered throughout the whole debate ... just hoping Bored George didn't blow it.
Webb was cool, confident and sharp. His staff confident and collected. Not surprising ... Webb inspires confidence ... he radiates it. Nobody doubts his sincereity .. it's a fallout product of his humility.
Everything about George Allen is Spin factory manufactured where as Webb is authentic ... The Allen campaign started losing the day Webb showed up ... it's just up to us to keep him in front of his audience .... you know the MAJORITY of voters.
So montoya ... change your tact ... unless of course you set sail as a troll flying friendly colors as you pirate along. Lowell .... keep an eye on this guy.
Webb for Senate .... he'll make you proud to be an American again.
If you don't want to listen to what I have to say fine, walk blindly.. but don't badger me or call me a troll.
That's insulting.
I don't need to go around here flying flags for anything, if you don't know where I stand. Just ask me, or ask Lowell yourself.
I have said it before, and say it again. Jim Webb makes me proud to be a democrat, and proud to be an American.
But, we can't act like in some way we are winning when we are not.
Be realistic.
If you want to win, you debate the issues.. you don't act and pretend there isn't a problem. Unless, you really believe it and then we are really in trouble.
The only flag I fly, is the flag with the donkey on it.
Come to the meetup (more info on my page) to find out!
Still I'm dismayed with all this campaign questioning ... second guessing and inadvertent bashing. That is old news ... water under the bridge.
The campaign has looked at it's strengths and weaknesses since the primary. Adjustments were made ... some painful. Very good people were called in and are filling needed rolls... the outreach is picking up. The communication is improving.
I believe the candidate himself made the hard calls that had to be made (to clear the air) and has provided the needed guidence to his staff.
So I'm moving out from there. No looking behind ... moving forward ... and yes I question any and all blogs as I see more negative Repub-hype coming along all the time.
The time has come to pull together and push on through.
Sorry again for the challenge .... If I get to meet up with you I'll certainly look to buy you a beer ... or such.
Best regards,
Tony Mastalski
It is time for Webb to go on the attack. Point out that Allen has readily supported the President in sending other persons' sons and daughters to war. Use the "chicken hawk" label as defined by Glen Greenwald.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-makes-someone-chicken-hawk.html
Or, go through Allen's voting record. For example, Webb should make the point that Allen voted against the Medicare prescription coverage amendment that would have allowed the government to negotiate lower prescription prices as the Canadian government does and then voted to criminalize those who would cross over to Canada to take advantage of the the lower negotiated prices.
The point is, we have a tremendous cache of material that can be legitimately used to put Allen on the defensive. We should be doing it now and relentlessly until November.
Yes, Allen was able to beat Marine Corps veteran Chuck Robb and Allen is trying to swiftboat Webb's military career. We need to be wary of this, as the Repukelickins have done this on many occasions: Reagan (military actor) vs. Carter (Navy); Bush (ANG AWOL) vs. McCain (USAF POW); Bush (lost pilot qual) vs. Gore (Army reporter in Nam); Bush (early out) vs. Kerry (Navy Purple Heart, Silver Star); Chambliss (pussy) vs. Cleland (lost 3 limbs in Nam). They are also working on Jack Murtha, a true hawk who realized that Iraq was a misuse of troops' lives.
But I think Webb is different. Webb is a fighter where many of the above mentioned Dems were caught off guard. They could not believe a chickenhawk would have the audacity to attack a veteran's military credentials. Yet the generally ignorant, uninformed populace bought the one-liners and talking points.
Webb needs to swing at Allen and swing for the knockout, hit below the belt, and stick his finger in Allen's eye. Allen is a pussy and will fold like a card table when his legs are kicked out from under him. The question is: does Webb have smart, strong people advising him, or does he have the typical Dem advisors who are clueless in a street fight?
This is going to be a mean, dirty campaign -- or at least Webb better make it that way. That is the only way to pull a Rove on Allen: to come out hard, strong, and dirty. And the time for that is now.
Come on Lowell, you'll have to do better than this to keep earning those big consutant bucks.
Here's a slogan for your candidate: "While my opponent was foolishing risking his life in the service of his country, I was physically abusing my siblings, including my kid sister." Yeah, it's in her book.
Sorry, I can't agree with that.
Tell me we don't have an issue when the Webb Camp promised it would put up the video "in it's entirety" and then even post a bulletin on it's site after "claiming victory" and not put it up?
And the worst of it let that snake "dickwad" and the Allen camp put it on the FRONT of Allen's page.
IF you question motives of those who question, you are not helping everyone move forward..
Maybe Wadhams will allow you guys to link to theirs, go on, give him a call and ask.
Fast-forward to 2006. We're exactly at the point at which Allen's mud-slingers are about to begin the campaign in earnest to attack Webb's character, and define him in the minds of the voters as some sort of hideous monster (whatever fiction they imagine will be most believable).
It's very important for the Webb campaign to do whatever they can, immediately, to get Webb's biography out there and define him in the public eye as the war hero and patriot that he is. They may not have a lot of money, but they need to do everything possible to get in the free media. We should all be crafting Op-Eds explaining who Jim Webb really is, to send to our local papers ASAP -- beginning with Webb himself, who is no slouch as a writer.
(P.S.: drmontoya is absolutely right to raise the alarm bells. Never shoot the messenger if he's got a valid message.)
Candidates with real conviction embrace public conversation and debate on the issues. But George Allen has already spent enough money in television to house a small village in marketing a skewed and unchallenged version of what he is all about. And it's only July. From the looks of it, by the time election day arrives, he will have spent enough for a small town and could help sustain it with a couple of start up businesses.
George Allen has made the choice to sell to the citizenry rather than inform them. And where the hell is the meat in these monologues? TV commercials can make money off of puffed rice in a plastic bag and return more substance.
Meanwhile back in the real world, the struggle is becoming more difficult by the day for low income families trying to make ends meet. Good jobs are pouring overseas, and the corporations sending them there view increasing world crises impersonally, and hold conferences on navigating these problems as a business management issue.
Top offshore providers of R&D and software engineering services as well as off-shoring experts who can help set up wholly owned subsidiaries abroad will discuss patterns for successful off-shoring; what’s risky; what’s safe and sane. Countries for special focus may include China, Malaysia, Mexico, Brazil and Southern Europe.
Enough of this moral paralysis on the part of wannabees who shun accountability from the back seat of a limo.