And I think it's important to point out, no matter who was picked to runn against Felix Allen, Felix was going to dig up something and twist it to fit his NEED TO STAY IN POWER AND SCREW UP THE NATION MORE. He must be defeated and will, cause I have faith that Jim Webb will lead us to victory over the Senatorial-trailor-park trash Felix Allen.

Personally, I would like to encourage I.chickenhawk to post often- all of the posts are hilariously over the top. Who does her remind me of most? Bahgdad Bob, remember him? "There are no Americans in Iraq! We have stopped them in Kuwait!" This right before the city fell.

If you are attacking George Allen regarding the VMI case, you are also attacking Doug Wilder and Mary Sue Terry.  In fact, you are also attacking most major candidates of the Virginia Democratic Party over the last 15 years.

...if VMI admitted women, it wouldn’t be the VMI that we’ve known for 154 years. You just don’t treat women the way you treat fellow cadets.

What the heck does THAT mean? And how is what Jim Webb said back in 1979 any different, fundamentally?  The bottom line is that the issue of women in the military has been a controversial one, although far more in 1979 than when Allen made this bizarre comment in 1995.

This method of instruction is of English origin.  Essentially, VMI's version was and is very unique.  In fact, it was harsher than what was being employed at the service academies.

Geoge Allen's comment that "...you just don't treat women the way you treat fellow cadets" was basically a broad argument used by VMI throughout the court case.  The primary point was that if male cadets founds themselves somehow restrained from yelling, correcting, etc. at female cadets, the entire adversative method would fall apart.

This is in stark contrast to the premise that Webb propounded.  That premise was that women couldn't fight.  Moreover, he called them "thunder thighs" amongst many other less than flattering terms.

If you can see those distinctions clearly, you just don't understand the subject matter.

When VMI went co-ed, it transitioned quite well.  The same cannot be said of the Naval Academy.

The coward is the one who cannot admit his own mistakes, but must try to highlight the mistakes of others to puff himself up.

So, are you saying Webb is wrong in saying that women should not be in combat? I mean, front lines infantry or marines? His involvement with SECDEF and SECNAV (as SECNAV) he was responsible for the largest expansion of billets available for women (non-combat of course), so this is a tricky thing to be critical of him about.

I'll admit that the stuff about VMI is a little weak and probably doesn't matter all that much to Allen leaning voters, but Webb writing about how women should not be directly involved in combat probably speaks very well to Allen leaning voters.

Plus I do still think you are Bahgdad Bob.

You're pathetic."

If you switched Allen's and Webb's name in the paragraph above, wouldn't you be guilty of doing the same thing? Or am I missing something here?

Despicable.

This is the type of person Allen was protecting when he voted against extending the hate crimes legislation.

I still see a lot of hard-feeling on this.

BTW, the federal government is always "pestering" until you want some federal dollars.

They think Allen is a dick....and can't stand him.

If anyone has a problem with women it's Allen not Webb..

Allen needs to start packing...there's nothing under those rocks.

Buzz...Buzz...
Mosquito
mosquito-blog at blogspot.com

For Allen to say he was a rebellious young adult when he was doing this doesn't cut it. He should come out and apologise and admit that he was wrong for torturing his family like that.

First, VMI is not affiliated with the military.  Rather, it is a military school run by Virginia.  Cadets must take ROTC courses amongst the various branches but they are not required to serve.

This is in stark contrast to the service academies.  There, cadets and midshipmen are required to serve in Armed Forces.  In fact, those schools are run by the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

There's a big difference there.

Second, the VMI argument was not whether women could or should serve within the ranks of the military. In fact, the Gulf War had already been concluded by the time most of the decisions were rendered by the various levels of the courts.  So, it was clear that women were in fact a vital part of our armed forces.

The only argument that VMI tried to make during its court case was that single sex education was a viable form of education and that the admission of women would necessarily alter the VMI experience.

In fact, that has proven to be correct.  However, the changes, in my mind, were for the better.

I'll repost my earlier comments because I think you need to hear from someone with knowledge on this subject.  I lived and breathed this case as a cadet and later as an alumnus:

As one of the few VMI graduates posting here, I can shed a little light on the subject and provide some balance to Lowell's comments regarding VMI.
First, it was George H. W. Bush's Justice Department which originally sued VMI over its admissions policy. At the time, Dick Thornburgh was the attorney general.

I was still a cadet at the time.  Governor Douglas Wilder was in office.  VMI made the decision to fight the Justice Department.  Governor Doug Wilder backed that decision.  Morever, it was then Attorney General Mary Sue Terry who helped craft the legal defense employed throughout the various levels of the litigation.

VMI won at both the District Court level and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  After granting cert., the United States Supreme Court overturned the Fourth Circuit's decision in 1996.  VMI was thus faced with the decision to admit women or go private.

Governor Allen had little to do with either the litigation or the ultimate decision of the VMI Board of Visitors to go co-ed.  In fact, he had little influence over the process.

At the time, had VMI chosen to go private, there was some discussion that the Clinton Administration would withhold ROTC funding.

Given this pressure, some on the Board of Visitors voted to go co-ed.  It was a close vote.

Since that time, however, VMI hasn't looked back.  It has transitioned quite well.  I have met several of the first female graduates and find them to be welcome additions to the alumni body.

"That's the rest of the story...."

(b) Who would you rather have fighting next to you, Allen or Webb?

(b) Who would you rather have overseeing the supplies you got?  Making the manpower decisions?

By the way, this is so funny when you think of how much Allen's support comes from the religious right, which says the bible dictates women being in a subservient role.

Personally, I'd rather have Jaime fighting with me on a battlefield than Allen.

And given all the ridiculous posts (e.g. IPub's "I don't see white people") we're getting I welcome Roger's calm discussion of facts.

I'll repost my earlier comments because I think you need to hear from someone with knowledge on this subject.  I lived and breathed this case as a cadet and later as an alumnus:

Thanks for pointing that out to me, Eric.

Remember, I lived and breathed this case as a cadet and as an alumnus.  As a law student at Washington and Lee University, I brief this case before my constitutional law class.

While I don't profess to be an expert on it, I guarantee that I know more of the details than most here.  In addition, Lexington, Virginia is my hometown.  So, my experiences with VMI predate my tenure as a cadet.

You can suggest your own question to MTP by using the Web form that is here:
http://www.msnbc.msn...

His re-birth as a DEM also came w/ research for his book Born Fighting and his admiration for Andrew Jackson.

You are wrong!

The GOP's policy priorities these days simply stink.  A 10 trillion dollar national debt; Inaction in congress--working three day weeks and hitting taxpayers with the bill for the other two; mismanagement of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; a lack of a backbone in reference to executive overreach; failure to enact ethics reforms.  Flag burning . . .

George Allen and some of his cohorts (Burns, Kyl, Talent, Sanitorum) are pretty useless. 

Jim Webb will actually work for his salary and take his job seriously.  He may embrace some values that some might have recognized 20 or 40 years ago as GOP values, but that GOP, and those days are long since gone. 

I suppose in the real universe you're a calm, rational guy.

Also, George Allen's record suggests a strong sympathy for racism, tempered only by the need to appear mainstream.

Actually, Webb is a conservative in the old sense of the word--government should not be intruding into the bedroom or making decisions for women about their bodies. 

Have you been paying attention at all?  You know, when people have strokes, neurologists ask basic questions to indicate the extent of brain damage.  I'm not sure you'd pass it.

I'm hoping that if I say Rumpelstilskin Pubes'll disappear.

This list could go on and on and certainly is right out of the GOP platform.

What a tool

It would be a mad scramble with multicandidate fields in both parties (just as it will be two years from now if John Warner really does retire).  The GOP nominee would perhaps be Tom Davis...if not, maybe Jim Gilmore...if not, maybe Eric Cantor or Randy Forbes.  The Dem nominee?  Mark Warner for sure if he wanted it (and he would win as easily as Robb did in '88)...if he didn't, maybe someone like Chap Petersen or L.F. Payne...if not, maybe Creigh Deeds or Leslie Byrne.

Point is, if Allen had stepped down as Frist did, neither Webb nor Miller would have been mentioned, much less nominated (and that might have been the better course for Allen, as things have turned out).

So, if you were in battle . . . 
(a) Who would you rather have at your side making the leadership decisions, Allen or Webb?

(b) Who would you rather have fighting next to you, Allen or Webb?

(c) Who would you rather have overseeing the supplies you got?  Making the manpower decisions?

He can fight and he can led a platoon and/or company.  This does not, however, translate into an ability to lead larger groups of men beyond the company level.

And, combat experience does not necessarily translate into effective political leadership.  George McGovern and Joe McCarthy were both combat veterans afterall.

Are you now making combat experience a prerequisite to public service?

How do you explain Bill Clinton then?  Where were you went Bob Dole ran for President?

What about George H.W. Bush?  He had combat experience.

Now, let's take a look at executive leadership.  George Allen has proven that he can lead as a strong governor.  Virginia's executive position is much stronger than those of other states.

George Allen's executive leadership speaks for itself.  Virginia flourished under his leadership.  Crime dropped.  Businesses from around the world came to the Old Dominion thanks to his diligent efforts.

When Jim Webb was given an executive position as Secretary of the Navy, he decided to resign in protest after 10 months of service rather than continuing the stellar efforts of the Reagan Administration.

To me, that move right there tells me more than anything about his character.  To me, it suggests that he is prone to making rash decisions without much forethought. 

Some have suggested that he is an angry and bitter man.  He has a hard edge.  I'll leave that for others to decide.

When it comes to matters of policy and political leadership, George Allen has a proven track record.  What does Jim Webb have?

A history of writing scathing articles against women serving in the ranks...and a resignation.

Allen is NOT a southerner, how do I know this. George Allen grew up in the EXACT same place I did. In White suburban Orange County. He doesn't have a "twang", he's faked it.

Allen is a racist, his long history of it just proves it. He could get 10 more minorites or democrats to endorse him (My guess is they won't) and WE still will know how Allen feel and obviously treats minorities.

Allen tough a Governor? Oh yeah, your REAL tough signing pieces of paper from an office. Try being a blue collar Virginan one he has so tried to emulate. Try putting food on your tabe. Try sending your kids off to war, Try being a senior citizen choosing food over medicine.

Allen is a silver spoon, spoiled brat.

In the end, people like this always learn the hard way.

I hope you don't follow your village idiot too far.

Allen is long but overdue for an asskicking by a REAL fighter Jim Webb.

Jim Webb is no stranger to guns, he's a hunter and a gun owner.

Jim Webb is no stranger to death, he had to kill the enemy in battle to save his life, and lives of others.

Jim Webb is no stranger to poverty, when he grew up his father had no formal education so they struggled as a military family to get by that's why Webb decided to join the family tradition by serving in the Marines.

Jim Webb is no stranger to sending your kids off to war, he had to send Jimmy off to the WORST part of Iraq just recently.

Left and right issues no longer apply trolls, Virginia and America deserve better.

That was a rather long-winded rant there devoid of any real fact and heavy with rhetoric.  Hence, I feel no real need to respond.

PM's questions are absolutely foolish. Anyone in his right mind would want Jim Webb beside him in a foxhole. Besides, Felix couldn't wear his treasured cowboy boots, fly his confederate flag, display his noose or exercise his outward distain for people of color if he were in the military.

And Pubs, his comments are just laughable! Lets get back to the issue at hand - beating George Felix Allen and getting our country back on track. Lets look to the future!

I, too, am a VMI proud graduate and combat Marine veteran.

I'd like to ad, however, that we need to move off the discussion that combat experience necessarily qualifies one for public service.

These three political figures all had either combat experience or military service:

1. George McGovern
2. Joe McCarthy
3. Jimmy Carter

All three were disasters as political figures.  Then, there is Oliver North.  Oliver North was highly decorated combat veteran.  Many on this blog would suggest that he was unfit for public office.  However, his record as a combat veteran was without question.

My point is that military background can be helpful to political figures but it is the the "be all, end all" that some of you would suggest.

Bill Clinton's efforts to avoid the draft didn't keep any of you from voting for him in 1992.  And, Bob Dole's distinguished combat record in 1996 didn't compel any of you to vote for him in 1996.

End of discussion.

I agree with you that combat experience is not a requirement for public service. Your examples are good. Oliver North, and I know him well, was a brave young officer when in combat. Nothing needs to be said further; however, his actions in the years following did, I believe, disqualify him from public service. He is not respected by his Marine Officer contemporaries. The issue at hand is who should be our next Senator - Jim Webb, a man of intellect, distinguished 4 years service in DOD and a man of honor or George Allen, a man of questionable intellect, a non-distinguished legislative record  as a Senator, and a racist? For me, the answer is simple - Jim Webb.

I agree with both of you that military experience is not a prerequisite, but we do like to get a look at how someone would stand up under pressure.  Do you think Jim Webb would have continued reading "Pet Duck" with the grade school kids after he heard the second WTC tower was hit?  If you look at timelines,  W, in my opinion, could have saved the Pentagon.  I think Allen has a backbone similar to W's.  And Allen's personal record suggests he has a typical bully personality (beating up siblings, hanging a noose in his office to intimidate).

Oh, I forgot, Allen now says it was "more of a lasso."

BTW, I supported Dole twice in various elections --sent him a $500 check back when that was a lot more money and I coudn't afford it.  I supported Jim Miller over North -- North had severe personality problems in my opinion.

The reason why Webb quit is well known, and historical review established he was right.  He would not stand for a manpower cut he thought would hurt the defense of our country.  It takes guts in this town to say, "F you, I'm not going to preside over a charade."  And I suspect that in the Senate Webb will tell the Dems that a few times too.  On the other hand, if you like rubber stamps . . .

I disagree with the analysis that Carter was a bad president.  I hated him at the time, but after reviewing the options he had (e.g., in the hostage taking) he had no choice.  Mark Bowden's book solidified my thoughts on this.  (Like he could have invaded Iran.)  In other areas, such as the oil inflation, he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  The U.S. does not now and did not then control the world economy.

Clinton was a good president, but he was lucky too.  The U.S. economy was benefitting from a wordwide expansion of markets, lowered trade barriers, and efficiencies brought about by computerization.  Clinton in economics was a free market advocate.  However, his IQ was about 20-30 points higher than W's (W's may have been lowered from alcohol abuse).

The McGovern example is not germane.  He was not a good politician, and he never got the chance to lead. 

I thought Dole would have been a good leader at the time, but in later years he's been adopting too many of the ultra right wing positions.

Finally, I do not understand how anyone who pays any attention to the issues can support this president, and, by extension, a senator that does nothing but cheerlead for him.  This is not a case of, say, debating whether Stevenson would have been a better president than Eisenhower.  The only excuse for supporting Bush is nonattention to the issues, a mental impediment, or adherence to a standard of ethics which tolerates greed and thinks hanging a noose in your office is no problem.

Even your man, Webb, would agree with me there.

I respectfully disagree with you regarding Webb's resignation.  Standing and saying "Fuck you" to the establishment, brave or not, is not the way to shape and mold defense policy.  It reflects his temper and his inability to work with others.

The Sec Nav position has a proud and storied history -- but his resignatin was not one of those moments.

I'm sure you would agree with me there.

Didn't Reagan re-appoint Paul Volker, Carter's anti-inflation architect?  Reagan didn't think Carter was the disaster you seem to think on inflation policy. More like Carter was the one who bit the bullet.

There is no doubt that he is a man of some intellect. 

The thorny question is whether he has the temperment to serve as a United States Senator.  Some of your contemporaries question Webb's fitness in much the same manner they did North's.

Am I mistaken there?  Many of those contemporaries have described him as "uncoachable", "unyielding", "prone to temper", and "arrogant."

As to the racism comment, candidates who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. 

Allen's executive and legislative record are rock solid.  He is a conservative...and his actions and votes reflect a strong adherence to conservative principles.  I understand that some will respectfully disagree with that record.

However, George Allen did more than any other modern Virginia governor to get the Commonwealth's economy moving.

The record of accomplishment is there.  Some choose to ignore it and I understand the motivation beyind doing so.  However, facts are stubborn things.

In the race between Webb and Allen, however, military experience is relevant, because we of the war that we are in. One important role of the Senate is to provide a balance to Executive control of government. In our current war, Senators with combat experience are a refreshing alternative to the Bush administration because- unlike Bush and his cabinet- they know the human cost of war from first hand experience. I believe that military training and combat experience are useful to John Warner, for example.

Most Americans now believe that we rushed into Iraq for questionable reasons, and that it is not going well. George Allen was one of the leaders who enabled this situation to occur. We need leaders who are capable of executing sound judgement regarding war at this critical time in our history, and military combat experience is a plus. Jim Webb has known war on the battlefield AND in the Pentagon. I believe that gives him an edge over Allen with regard to the war- which is the number one issue today.

Regardless of how and why we got into the war, I don't think there is any question that we must win the war.

The fundamental question that must be asked is whether we want to win.  By winning it, I mean securing Iraq's democracy in such a fashion that it takes root and grows.

If you are not prepared to make that commitment, say so.

I don't think that his combat experience on a tactical level gives him a global vision necessary to fully contemplate all of the ramifications of American withdrawal.

Jim Webb understands the Far East much better than he does the Middle East. He understands the Asian mind not the Arab mind.

If we were locked in a struggle with Red China or North Korea, Jim Webb would provide great insights into such a conflict.  However, the Middle East does not seem to be one of his stronger subject areas.

By the way, Jim Webb won an Emmy award for his reporting from Beirut.  Not bad for someone who has no understanding of the Middle East!  LOL

The fundamental question that must be asked is whether we want to win.  By winning it, I mean securing Iraq's democracy in such a fashion that it takes root and grows.

The victory that you describe is not really an objective that can be reached through military force, in my opinion. We tried something like what you describe in Vietnam, and failed. That objective of winning a democracy is very costly. 

Framing the question about Iraq as a matter of "whether we want to win," as the Bush administration has done, sets up a false polemic, so that anyone who questions or disagrees with current policy can be summarily dismissed. What about the contention that by putting so much effort into nation-building in Iraq, we have allowed ourselves to become vulnerable in the global war on terror?

I haven't heard Webb announce a planned program for withdrawal of troops on a certain schedule, but I have heard him say that we should be planning to get out rather than building permanent bases in Iraq. This is reasonable.

Getting back to the topic of whether military experience is an asset for public office, I would contend that in the current environment, I'd opt for Webb's knowledge of the Middle East AND the Far East over that of Allen.

N.Korea is definitely a foreign policy and military concern, as is the growing influence of China- even in places like Iran. As a Senator, Jim Webb will not be able to single-handedly resolve these matters. It is likely, however, that he will provide a more informed balance to the efforts of the Bush administration than would George Allen.

The military aside, I hope anyone interested in how George Allen really feels about women's rights will take a look at his ratings by women's groups.  This from vote-smart.org:

2005  Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 17 percent in 2005.

2005  Senator Allen supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 0 percent in 2005.

2003  Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 20 percent in 2003.

2001-2002  Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 0 percent in 2001-2002.

2001-2002  Senator Allen supported the interests of the Business and Professional Women USA 11 percent in 2001-2002.

2001  Senator Allen supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 0 percent in 2001.

And let's not forget Allen's speech at a country club, ridiculing single mothers needing welfare (as reported in the Richmond Times Dispatch (July 24, 1994)). 

But, hey, it's nice to be noticed.

Jonathan Weisman: I was kinda thinking the same thing. Until now, Republicans have been trying to tar Webb as a liberal by association, pointing out the liberal bloggers and Washington Dems working on his behalf. Suddenly, they're painting him as a military neanderthal. If women this year are more likely to vote Democratic as a protest against the president, than the current controversy may not lose them but may help him with white men, the GOP mainstay.