A friend of mine was visiting Walter Reed yesterday to see a buddy blown up in Iraq.  And naturally he saw lots more young men, limbs missing, etc.  We know George Bush has never gone to a soldier's funeral.  Has he ever visited a military hospital?  Anyone know? 

Though I disagree with the statement that Allen was a good governor, has thought been giving to making the pitch that Allen may have been a decent governor but he's not right for the times -- we need someone to stand up to George Bush?  This may help with people who find Allen personally appealing (instead of personally appalling, as I do).

Bush has also historically banned any cameras at Dover, where our fallen arrive on US Soil.  He wants to hide the dead, and prevent Americans from taking a moment to pause and give them respect for their sacrifice.

And with how things have been going, many Americans would be pausing, and often.

Shame on Bush, and Allen for being his yes man.

Thanks!

To be blunt, I didn't like lots of things Allen did as Governor, but his record of accomplishment is undeniable. He had three or four substantial initiatives that he could point to as evidence of his leadership.

But as Senator? Voting with W 97% of the time is not leadership. Funding obscure pork projects is not leadership. Criticizing the job you hold is not leadership.

Allen hasn't been a good Senator because he doesn't want to be Senator. He always has seen this job as a stepping stone to the White House. If Gore had won in 2000 (or if Katherine Harris beleived black people deserved the right to vote), you can be damn sure Allen would have run in 2004, and as his frequent flyer miles indicate, he's lining up to run right now.

Allen is power hungry and self-centered. He's kissing the asses that got W into the White House in hopes that they'll carry him in 2008. If he was a real leader, he would have defied the party establishment and run for President in 2000 when he wanted to. Instead he's waiting to take Bush's sloppy seconds and Virginians have a Senator who doesn't give a shit.

Many on my side of the isle felt the same about Bill Clinton.  Unfortunately, we were blinded by our anger and our hatred for the man.  As a result, we were unable to respond in a meaningful fashion (i.e. one that would be supported by the vast voting public).

You are now in danger of falling into the same trap.  To defeat an opponent, you must make an honest assessment of that persons strengths and weaknesses.  Your party has never acknowledged George Allens strengths...and as a result you will have your asses handed to you yet again.

I know you are having surgery soon, good luck with all that.

But, here's one of my last posts for awhile....

First, I'm not going to bash corporations.  Too many people really don't understand how corporations operate...and corporations in the post-Enron era are easy targets. However, for every Enron out there, I can point to several more corporations who are good corporate citizens.  They just don't get press in the MSM.  Corporate entities will always exist so I suggest you get used to that idea.  Work with them...and not against them.  If you own stock, attend the annual meetings, vote, etc.

Now to Allen...his strengths are considerable...and they really don't need to be rehashed here but I will take a stab at it.

I'll preface this by stating that the current Republican majority in Richmond stems in large part to George Allen's success in getting elected Governor in 1993 and his legislative successes.  The Republican onslaught of the 1990s actually started as the result of Gov. Doug Wilders unpopularity but George Allen came on like gangbusters in 1993  -- at a time when most people thought Mary Sue would be in the Governor's Mansion.

Parole abolition was a HUGE reform.  It is one of his legacies....and to this day...he owes a lot of his current support to that legacy.

Now to his strengths as a candidate:

1.  Hardworking --  As a candidate, this guy goes everywhere.  He cannot be fatigued.  No one outworks him.  He'll shake hands in the drive-through of a Burger King if he has to.  When it comes to raising money, he'll make the calls...and he is not afraid to ask for money.  He will campaign from 6 am until midnight.  When his staffers are completely fatigued, he keeps going without losing a stride.

I haven't noticed this work ethic with your man Webb.  In fact, the rumor is that he does not like to raise money.  Good leaders, as your man has said, lead from the front.  In the battle for his political life, Jim Webb is sitting back and not doing what it takes to win.

2.  Likeable -- Felix is likeable.  Some of you folks hate him because of his smile but the fact remains that people like this guy.  The more that you try to "tar and feather" him -- the more you engender a sympathy backlash.

Folks have seen this guy all across the state for years...from Floyd to Clifton Forge.

3. Clear cut ideology -- Despite much of what has been written, folks know how George Allen stands on the issues.  He's been running on the same platform for the past 16 plus years.  Lower taxes, lowering the regulatory burden on small business, traditional family values, and a strong national defense.

4.  He clearly communicates his message.

5.  Sunny disposition -- In terms you might understand, George Allen has much of the same qualities of former Sen. John Edwards in that he is an optimist -- the sun never sets, etc.

There it is in a nutshell.  I cannot overstate the importance of #1 -- hardworking.  I was on winning and losing statewide campaigns in the 1990s.  It is crucial that political supporters, volunteers, campaign staff, etc. see that their candidate is fully prepared to campaign his/her ass off in order to win the election.  If a candidate is not willing to do the work, make the calls, and shake the hands, he/she might as well pack it in and go home.

So far, I have not seen evidence that Jim Webb is making his rounds on the highways and byways of the Old Dominion.  I don't think he knows where to get good chocolate malts when in Staunton (Wright's Dairy Rite, btw)or where to find good antiques in Amherst County.  I guarantee you that George Allen and John Warner do.

If I am being honest, I'd have to say that my very distant observation of Jim Webb is that he is a well intentioned pseudo-intellectual who otherwise lacks the fire in the belly for elective politics.  In other words, he is more a policy wonk than a candidate.  And, when it comes to his knowledge of policy, he is a one-note singer.

There it is....

What is behind parole abolition.  When prisons become privatized and prisoners make profits we have failed.  But business succeeds.  You must like the prison-industrial complex. I do not.  It is very dangerous for business to profit from incarceration and misery.

I'm not against corporations (much), I'm against them being treated as persons (14th).  I'm against them controlling the planet.  I'm against them vacuuming the life out of this world. 

So Allen has lots of time to play.  He grew up playing.  I don't call that being successful at making decisions for the greater good. He is a shallow thinker with lots of time for superficiality.  Maybe that is important to you but not me. 

Webb thinks before he speaks. He THINKS.  I don't call him a pseudo-intellectual.  I find it refreshing that he is respectful of money, and he would be respectful of how he spends ours.

Fire in the belly, ask the people whose lives he saved.  He is not a lying politician.  He cares about the people being left behind.

I wasn't aware that Wilder was so unpopular.  He was elected in Richmond.  Problem is with one term governors we have a lot of X governors running around.

Allen has had lots of time to drink malts. That makes him a better national leader?

Jim Webb is actually talking with the people of Virginia. Not just shaking hands and floating through. 

From my perspective, Allen's "positions" are related to profits not people.  There it is.

Feel better real soon.

Doug Wilder was tremendously unpopular circa 1991.  Just check a little history on that.

You must favor leniency for violent offenders.  I do not.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Go find a spin cycle.  BAWAHAHAHAH....yourself.

I know the answer.  I suspect you do as well.  The question was rhetorical in nature.

There's nothing wrong with me.  I'm just realistic.

If you were to see past your blind devotion to Allen, you'd see that I gave him a compliment most Democrats would never do. I think as Governor he had some very notable accomplishments, even on issues I would have disagreed with him on. He had a committment to governing.

As far as the Clinton comparison goes, your side hated Clinton for who he was, not what he did. The smear attacks on Clinton were unprecedented, and they were not at all related to policy. I don't find George Allen to be very authentic, but my frustration in him comes from his complete lack of attention to his job and his shear devotion to the GOP. There are many strong conservatives that I disagree with but hold respect for - Chuck Hagel and Lindsay Graham for example. They are certainly Republicans, but they put their constituents ahead of their campaign contributors.

As far as Webb being down 16, I think he is much closer than that. It's certainly an uphill battle for him to win, but for me its not about winning and losing. It's about giving Virginians a chance to see that there is another choice, there is a better way, there is a new direction. I would certainly vote for any Democrat who ran against Allen, but it is Webb's sterling character and values that makes me enthusiastic about his candidacy.

If you think I'm more anti-Allen than pro-Webb, then frankly you don't know what you're talking about.

I primarily opposed Clinton for the programs he advocated: (1) tax increases, (2) nomination of the most liberal judges this country has ever seen, (3) Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders promoting masturbation to six graders, (4) Lani Gunier, (5) the most embarrassing Attorney General in the history of the Republic...Janet Reno, (5) Sec. of Defense Les Aspin's failure to provide heavy armor (i.e., tanks) after expanding the mission in Somalia after dramatic troop reductions (ever watched Black Hawk Down?).  The list goes on and on...

I've supported George Allen for years...and I have done so because I always knew where he stood on the issues that matter most for me.  You and I disagree on those issues.

But, your man does not seem to have much knowledge of a plethora of issues ranging from tax policy to tort reform.  He has knowledge in defense matters but somehow failed to recognize that Craney Island contains the Navy's largest fuel depot.

I don't get a sense that he understands the variety of issues facing small business people.  I don't get the sense that he realizes that small businesses fax not only a tax burden but also a regulatory burden preventing them from achieving full success.

I don't get the sense that Jim Webb has ever done anything to promote Virginia to foreign businesses who might wish to locate here -- as George Allen did throughout the 1990s.

I don't see where Jim Webb that tort reform is a necessary aspect to reforming our health care system.

And, I don't get the sense that Jim Webb has ever really had a thing to say about the war on crime.  For that matter, where does he stand on the Patriot Act?

Where does he stand on the issue of taxation?  Would he like to make the tax cuts permanent?  Or, would he like to raise marginal income tax rates thereby strangulating the economy?

These are just a few reasons why I sense that the Webb campaign does not have a raison d'etre.  Aside from a rather convuluted position on Iraq, Webb has shown little interest in the above-referenced issues.

For all the talk of him being a Jacksonian Democrat, I've yet to see a sliver of difference between him and Ted Kennedy.

If Webb is a conservative, why doesn't he show some opposition to Kennedy and Schumer on some issues?

1. He hasn't done what Allen did to promote foreign businesses because he wasn't Governor. I could say that George Allen did not promote literacy because he isn't an author, but what point would that make?
2. I think that our health care system has a lot of ills and the only way we are going to get through it is by a bipartisan effort. I think tort reform is certainly a peice of the pie in the same way standardized tests are valuable to education. They certainly figure in the picture, but they're not the biggest issue.
3. Webb has said he would repeal the Bush tax cuts on the rich. Frankly I think the economic boom of the Clinton years proved that raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to lower the deficit, lower interest rates, and spur business investment is a sound policy. I wouldn't advocate returning to the pre-Reagan draconian years, but I think a top income tax rate of around 39% if reasonable. I'm not an economics major, but much smarter people than me (Robert Rubin for instance) seem to think that this policy works. In addition, cutting taxes in a time of war seems grossly irresponsible. As someone who hopes to be around for the next 60 or so years, I don't want to see our country headed towards fiscal disaster. If you're going to cut taxes, then cut spending. Bush wants to have his cake, eat it, give it to his friends, and then throw it across the room.
4. I can't answer your criticism on the Patriot Act, but I'd guess Webb's position would be that on the whole the measure is positive, but there are a few edges that need to be smoothed out.
5. As far as opposition to Schumer and Kennedy, I don't think it would be productive for him to highlight every difference he holds between them when he needs to make friends in the party and play nice. Off the top of my head I know Webb said he would have voted for Judge Roberts (which I have to beleive Schumer and Kennedy did not), would not support new gun control laws, and would be more hawkish on foreign policy. Remember, Webb opposed Iraq because it was a strategic miscalculation, not because he's a Russ Feigngold peacenik. I think Webb may end up displeasing some on the anti-war left because he feels the need to flex some muscle against North Korea, China, and Iran.
6. I think the Craney island issue was a pure ploy on Allen's part, and to his credit it worked. His side pushed for direct questions and for whatever reason (Chris Lactiva?) he thought Webb would be uninformed on it. I can guarantee you that with Webb's inquisitive mind he won't be uniformed on it much longer. Plus, the Virginia-Pilot exposed Allen's hypocrisy on touting Craney Island as a major issue when he's taken little action to see it completed.

For the Clinton criticisms:
1. Again, I don't think those tax increases hindered the economy. Now I was 7 when they were passed, but I know my family's income increased greatly in the Clinton years. I think some conservatives don't see cutting taxes as a means to acheive economic prosperity, but they see them as being the end itself.
2. The liberal judges were largely blocked by the Republican Senate. I can assume from your law background you had strong ideological differences with them, but thats the way the game is played. I'd like to see both sides show some more cooperation on judicial confirmations, but its just not in the cards right now.
3. I was unaware of the surgeon general comment and don't find it particularly relevant. I along with most kids my age had sex education classes starting around 4th grade, and they covered a broad range of issues including abuse, changes in adolescence, and talking about sex. If the SG was distributing playboys I'd find it more offensive, but informing kids on changes in their body isn't a horrific evil.
4. Lani Gunier - again, ideological differences but highly qualified.
5. I think that history will be much more favorbale to Ms. Reno than it will to Mr. Ashcroft.
6. The Somalia incident was a horrible tragedy and exposed Clinton's inexperience in foreign affairs in his early years. However, complaining about a lack of heavy armor for our troops? Pot-Kettle.

I'd still say that despite ideological differences you had with Clinton, the amount of negativity thrown at him by the right was unprecedented. I think that is started a trend of venomous opposition that now sees cooperating with the other side as sinful. Newt got booted for working alongside Clinton (and the dailykos crowd stupidly criticizes Clinton's '3rd way' as selling out), and now it looks like the same thing might happen to Lieberman on Iraq alone.

You have lived through some pretty properous times, my friend -- beginning with Ronald Reagan and continuing until today.  Our problems of today pale to what this country faced in the 1970s under Jimmy Carter.

Bill Clinton was part of that prosperity...but you must also acknowledge that Republican control of Congress had much to do with the economic success of the 1990s.  Most of Clinton's pork projects were rejected during that era...including the Slim Stim package of the 101st Congress in 1993.  I know...because I worked on the Hill then.

Here's my economic philosophy in a nutsell:
1. Keep tax rates low;
2. Cut spending (or, at least limit the increases in federal spending); and
3. Place a morotorium on regulations. 

Clinton did face a firestorm.  That much is true.  However, much of his woes were self-inflicted.  The same can be said of Bush.

LBJ and Nixon faced it too.  Politics is a rough business.  Forging a coalition is perhaps the toughest thing to do in our system of government.  It takes a special kind of leader....someone like Ronald Reagan.  Just maybe John McCain looms on the horizon to be that kind of leader.

I think that John McCain will be the man for our time.

When you cut marginal tax rates across the board (including those in the higher income brackets who by proportion pay the most in taxes), the result is that revenues decrease slightly at first but that will increase as the economy gains speed.

If you raise the highest bracket marginal tax rates to 39%, as you suggest, you could expect some nominal increases in revenue during the short-term but decreases as the economy falters under the weight of those increases.

I love Jimmy Carter, I don't think a more honorable man has ever served in the White House, and I still would have voted for him, but I'm not going to defend his economic policies. I'm young and naive, but not that young to think the 70's were an economic boom time.

And I would agree that the Republican Congress helped contribute to the prospertiy of the Clinton years. Both sides actually worked together and the best ideas prospered. Unfortunatley any since of compromise and focus on governing dissapeard when Newt was dumped and Hastert and Delay started selling government to the highest bidder.

Reagan didn't create any miracles, and Carter didn't cause the massive economic problems afoot during your infancy. Congress and the President control fiscal policy, while the Federal Reserve controls monetary policy.

During the years prior to Carter, the US saw tremendous inflation- it was over 12% in 1974- and a recession.

I would argue that prosperity during the Reagan years occured because Paul Volker took over the reigns of the Federal Reserve from G. William Miller in 1979, and enacted tighter monetary policies to stifle inflation. He was so successful that the CPI was cut from over 13.3% to 3.9% between 1980 and 1982. Reagan did not cut spending, but infamously ran up the deficit to over $200 billion dollars because he cut taxes by 23% while increasing spending.

During the Clinton years, we enjoyed economic prosperity because Greenspan kept inflation in check, while Clinton increased tax revenues to address the deficit. Ironically, Clinton's success in erasing national debt was aided by Congress refusal to spend money on social programs that he promoted. We wound up with a surplus, while just a few years earlier, during Nixon's administration, we were at the brink of a very serious financial disaster.

The supply side "Reaganomic" economic theories propounded by people like Alfred Laffler have been outdated for many years now. Lower taxes promote some additional economic activity, but not enough to correct enormous deficit spending. You can see that in the history of George HW Bush's administration. While he did try to limit spending, he wound up spending more on the Persian Gulf War, even as he cut taxes further by reducing captital gains taxes. We were plunged into a recession in 1990, partly as result of rising oil prices attributable to the Gulf War, partly because Greenspan didn't act quickly enough to regulate interest rates.

Reagan proposed that lowering taxes would result in lowered spending and smaller government. He called it "starving the beast". It doesn't work that way. William Niskanen, chairman of the Libertarian Cato Institute recently summarized decades of economic recording and analysis with the conclusion that tax cuts, when unmatched with spending cuts, only reduce the apparant cost of government, thus stimulating rather than shrinking government spending.

The neocon movement, with GW Bush as it's figurehead, has been far worse in expanding deficits than Reagan. They've gone so far with it that it looks like our economy may be wrecked beyond repair unless we make some dramatic changes real fast. We simply cannot afford to have fools with unlimited credit running the fiscal policies of this country any longer. Sooner or later, you have to pay the piper. We need someone with plain horse sense to provide real leadership for a change.

That is why I am backing Jim Webb to replace George Allen in the Senate.

It's unlikely that you and I will reach common ground on this issue. We could argue about it, but we probably both have better ways to spend our time.

I wish you the best in your recovery from hip replacement surgery- especially with physical therapy.