Allen needs to make up for the past 2 debates (bc he lost them) and he also needs to wear a lot of powder since he will be sweating.

Jim will do great, but he needs to know that this debate will be HUGE.

Allen will sweat, Allen will stumble.

This debate is important because it will be just about the only chance for voters to see and hear both candidates talk about the issues.

I hope they don't waste too much time talking about Allen's racism and the paper Webb wrote about women in the military 28 years ago.

Allen's main goal will be to keep from saying something idiotic that will be a headline the next day.  He may be planning to try to throw Webb off guard with some obscure reference (like he did in the last debate about Craney Island).

Webb's goal should be to show that Allen is joined at the hip with Bush.

I hope they briefly review Webb's impressive resume.

I hope they spend a lot of time on Iraq.  It needs to be pointed out that Webb opposed the invasion beforehand, that he has a plan for getting us out, and that people like John Warner and James Baker are coming around to his way of thinking.

I hope they ask questions about implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, veteran's benefits, the budget deficit, the minimum wage, offshore drilling, environmental protection, global warming, health care, stem cell research, Medicare Part D, and Social Security privatization.  These issues are all winners for Webb (if he is prepared for them).

I want the moderaters to ask each candidate if they would support a ban on assault weapons after the rash of school shootings, and that awful shooting at Sully Station here in Fairfax

That'll rally the rural base. Get our guy to talk about banning guns.
Doc, it hurts when I do this......
.....well, don't do that.

so you're saying rural voters want Assault Weapons??

I'm not talking about a massive gun control project, I'm just talking about RE-APPROVING the Assault Weapons Ban, that Republicans let go, that's SUPPORTED by almost every Police Dept. in the country, and a REAL Hunter doesn't need to blow the freaking animal apart to pieces.  Only hunters who are lazy and stop their cars at enclosed quail hunting reserves would probably need that, right after they blow their friend away by accident of course.

I have a feeling, that something interesting is going to take place tonight during the debate.

So, I suggest everyone who can watch, watch.

really interesting, But if anybody is still undecided about this race after all the republican gaffes, they should  look themselves in the mirror, and take stock of their lives.

I posted a comment on my blog about Allen's Tax ad at xianleft.blogspot.com.  Check it out.

Webb needs to drive home a few very important points:

1. Are we safer today than we were six years ago when Republicans took office?

We have not caught Osama bin Ladin, despite five years of searching.  We have not presented a plan for success in the Iraq War.  We have not stopped the massive growth in terrorist organizations, in part fueled by our distraction towards the Iraq War.  We have not responded to emerging threats like Iran or Venezuela in a way that kept them in check.  We have not stopped hostile nations from developing and testing nuclear weapons.

Republicans say they are the best party to handle national security issues.  We see a string of failures, broken promises and flawed objectives.  A good military strategist understands taht when you are faced with a brick wall like Iraq, rather than pounding your fists against it like the GOP is doing, you've got to find smart ways to climb it.

2. Are Virginia's citizens doing better than they were six years ago?

We have seen tremendous growth in Virginia, particularly in Northern Virginia.  Wealthy businesses have made huge profits, lobbying and receiving for tax cuts and economic incentives from George Allen and George Bush.  But middle- and lower-class Americans, whether in Springfield, Norfolk, Richmond or Roanoke, have struggled to make ends meet as jobs moved overseas, as college tuition became more expensive, as Republicans supported tax cuts for the richest Americans.  We need to make sure every Virginian has an opportunity for success, not just those who pay to be in George Allen's hip pocket. 

3. Can we really trust George Allen and his Republican friends to provide sound leadership for our country?

There are two key questions here - "values" and "competence."  Republican leaders have acted only in self-preservation, not with the best interests of Americans at heart.  Otherwise, why did they not appropriate respond to the repeated, consistent, serious concerns regarding Rep. Foley's behavior?  Why have they pat eachother on the back (you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie) for the Katrina response when every American tuning into NBC saw Americans - people who believe in our values, who love our country, who should be part of the American dream - sobbing, starving, sick and dying in conditions as bad as we've seen in the U.S.?  The Republican rhetoric of compassionate conservatism has an asterisk next to it, one whose footnote says that these values need not apply to those who fall outside the GOP power circle.

Just my two pennies...

But it won't have the same impact as MTP (in in-state viewership, or as a fundraising tool).

If there's a meltdown by Allen again, that may get some extra play, but at this point I think TV ads, direct mail, and phone banking are what will move points in the final days.

I would be curious to hear a question about Allen's financial dealings while in the Senate.  Will he release the "constituent" letter that he sent to the Army on behalf of Xybernaut?

Given Allen's performance in the last two debates and the general melt-down in the Allen campaign, here's my question: What will Allen screw up tonight? How will he shoot himself in the foot this time?

My prediction: He'll say something very damaging about the stock options. He should be thoroughly prepared for this, but he also should have been much better prepared on the question of his Jewish heritage in the last debate.

So what do you think he'll mess up tonight?

(Snark: Maybe he'll bring a mounted deer head along with him, to show his support for and from the NRA? And, he'll say, "No, I didn't leave it in a mailbox. It's right here. I've had it in my house for the last 30 years.")

Allen needs to be pressed on whether he can promise Virginians that he will not run for president in 2008. Why should Virginia send him to the Senate for another term, only to have him use that platform to resurrect his national ambitions during the next two years. We need a full-time Senator.

a boring and quietly effective debate for Webb.  Nothing earth shattering, just that Webb will hit more effectively on the majority of issues while Allen speaks in typical Republican double speak mixed with fear mongering and name calling (liberal, flip-flop, etc).  Webb will come out the technical winner but many pundits will say it's a victory for Allen because he didn't stick his foot in his mouth.

Allen has a short fuse and could always blow it, but expect him to be well counseled about not saying or doing anything noteworthy.

I doubt there will be any surprise questions ala Peggy Fox. 

Overall boring and, as others have said, the real battle will focus on TV and advertising.

But I hope I'm wrong and we get to see some flubs Allen has become known for.

will watch this debate?  And of those, how many will change their minds?

on exact numbers, but I'd say a large percentage are people who are already involved and interested - the strong Webb and Allen supporters.

I'd bet most people don't even know it's happening and will get their info from reading tomorrow's headlines.

On a practical side, don't forget that Monday night football starts at 8:30 so there could be a real dropoff then. This debate should have probably been on a different day to avoid it.

But I think some stations are going to run it later on.

Check your email pls- just sent you something

-eddie

Mr. Allen should be asked why in his infomercial last Monday he called for an end to personal attacks, then launched a continual barrage of negative ads.  When asked about that on Friday he said it was "out of respect towards women".  What respect towards women???  He is no champion of women's rights.  A look at his voting record proves that.  If he respects people so much, then he won't mind a continued discussion of his respect and sensitivity towards all people over the last 30 years.  He has made honesty and integrity an issue in this campaign through his utter lack of both.  I'm still trying to understand how it takes over 20 years for a History major to understand that some images might offend people.

I hope they talk a lot about Iraq, because Webb's knowledge and understanding come through very strong.  Sen. Warner's recent comments reflected what Jim said on Meet The Press (which made me happy) and Allen's immediate response was to hold a conference call with Warner and reporters to give the impression it was their joint position.  Important to note that Sen. Warner DECLINED to criticize Webb, though I'm sure he was asked by the Allen camp to do so.  Allen will try to say that they are 'partners', which they are not.  Compare the voting records.

Lastly, if Allen says one word about Nancy Reagan, I hope he will be asked why he thinks she hasn't endorsed him.  Maybe she didn't buy the 'Buckeroo' ticket at the Hoedown.

Webb should say she agrees with her about stem cell research.

According to a US Army paper I discovered online
"The objectives of Operation Enduring Freedom were spelled out by President George W. Bush in a 22 September 2001 address to Congress.  They were: the destruction of terrorist training camps and infrastructure within Afghanistan, the capture of al Qaeda leaders, and the cessation of terrorist activities in Afghanistan."

Now here we are:
Oct 2
"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said Monday that the war against Taliban guerrillas in Afghanistan could never be won militarily, and he urged support for efforts to bring "people who call themselves Taliban" into the government.

Frist said he learned from military briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield."

We have reached this point by the bungling incompetence of the bush administration.  Webb needs to address this as it shows the complete failure of the bush administration and its clone, allen.

I would like to know why he such a dirty campaigner? And why he lied about saying nigger? How can he look himself and in the mirror knowing he said such a lie. If he can lie to himself like that, then where else has he been lying? Also does he consider himself lucky to have gotten a free pass all these years from the media for being such a creap of a human being? I'd like to know what he's going to do when he loses? Will he blame it on the media, or will he finally take stock and look at himself and admit that he's a sorry excuse for a human being. That would be a good place for him to start looking at all the crap he has done over the years. By the way hrconservative, I talked to a just Retired Lt. Col in the marines, and he's a GOPer and he's voting Webb, cause he said he trust's people with war decisions that have been shot at. People that have been shot at are a little more hesitant to jump into some distracting war. There's more military people jumping off your Allen wagon of hate too........

Just wondering.  I don't want to do anything to help him prepare.

I would not be surprised if at least one person in Allen's camp is tasked with reading RK and other Webb blogs. (The charges levelled against Lowell suggest that someone is paying attention).

I wouldn't worry too much about this thread.  With a number of these questions there really isn't a good canned answer that Allen can give.  In all likelihood he'll be doing a lot of stonewalling and giving non-answer answers similar to the other debates.

unless of course there are some huge gaffes for the headline seekers.

All in all, I think Webb has to come out swinging. George Allen is a known quantity, Webb not so much. This is Jim Webb's major introduction to voters who haven't been paying particular attention. I hope the debate focuses solely on issues instead of the personal distractions.

The immediate post debate headlines are what will move the polls.

Let's assume for a moment that the Allen team suddenly develops brains and decides to attack on issues.  Crazy, I know, but stranger things have happened.  I believe they will recognize that they're not going to make any headway in places like Northern Virginia or Charlottesville. 

If they have any sense they will aim for the traditional rural conservatives and evangelicals, for whom Mr. Webb's credentials may make him an attractive alternative to Allen.

Allen's strong suit with those areas is on social issues such as stem cell research, abortion, and gay rights.  Mr. Webb must be prepared to answer in such a way as not to offend the evangelical base, for whom these are the definitive issues.  I think he has to be prepared not only to deflect questions from Allen about these issues, but that he has to be circumspect enough in his support for stem cell research (under strict federal guidelines, no embryos to be deliberately produced for stem cells, going to alternative sources as they become available through scientific study) so as not to stampede those folks into Allen's camp.  He should note the delicate weighing of the issue of combatting horrible illnesses such as Alzheimers (even Nancy Reagan supports such research) and preserving the sanctity of life.

On abortion I would certainly point out that Allen has always portrayed himself as pro-life (better than calling it "anti-abortion", which pro-lifers find offensive), but that he has never taken any steps to curb abortion and no one should expect him to start now.  He has sponsored no legislation against it.  Mr. Webb should make two things clear:  one is that most abortion rights issues have already been addressed in our court system through a number of Supreme Court cases and are mostly being determined through the applicaton of stare decisis (prior case law) and not through any new legislation.  Second, Mr. Webb may even be able to turn the argument on its ear and point out that many women feel compelled by finances to have abortions where, if there were universal health care and higher incomes brought about by increasing the minimum wage and curbing the current influx of cheap illegal immigrant labor, they would be more likely to carry their babies to term. 

On gay rights, Mr. Webb should repeat that he believes in personal responsibility and that it is never a good idea to encourage government intrusion on personal relationships, any more than government should forbid people from being able to protect themselves or to educate their own children.  He should also point out that the current proposed constitutional amendment seeks to curtail the rigths of ALL unmarried couples, not just gays.  That you can be against same sex marriage and still be against this amendment because its effects will be so extensive and the litigation spawned by its adoption will be so expensive for Virginians,  we'll all pay for the lawsuits.

Allen hasn't proposed any federal pro-life legislation?  Of course not, there isn't much federal "pro-life" related legislation.  He'll point to the steps he took as governor (such a parental notification).  There really isn't much a pro-life Senator can do to advance the pro-life agenda.

That said, I can't see how we'd possibly benefit from going at Allen's right on this issue.  Webb is for Roe v. Wade.  Allen is not.  No reason to play games with the issue.

I think you misstook my meaning.  People who feel very strongly about the issue really buy into the idea that their senators can do something about abortion.  I'm pointing out that they can't.  I'm not asking Webb to go to Allen's right.  I'm pointing out that it's a possible line of attack which always works with a certain portion of the public unless it's nipped in the bud.  This is a situation where Webb actually looks attractive to some traditionally conservative voters, but they won't go for him if they think he's in a position to do something about abortion but won't because of his pro-Roe v. Wade stance.  If they realize that it's a non-issue for a US Senator they're more likely to set aside their opposition and pay attention to the parts of his message that are very appealing to them.  Some people really do vote on the social issues.

I think that these might be some issues that Allen attacks on, Webb needs to have some responses ready.

please post the particulars of the debate.  It is tonight.  What channel, etc.?  Sorry but I've had other things on my plate this weekend.

Senator Allen, you frequently refer to yourself as Jeffersonian.  Yet, the policies set forth by the current administration and supported by you some 95% of time are in conflict with the principles Mr. Jefferson held dear.

As just one example, the national debt.  President Jefferson was a strong believer in each generation paying its own way.  He felt it immoral to leave debts to future generations:

"Then I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

And his solution should the need to borrow arise:

"Our government has not as yet begun to act on the rule of loans and taxation going hand in hand. Had any loan taken place in my time, I should have strongly urged a redeeming tax." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles 

In light of your obvious admiration for President Jefferson’s philosophy, how can you reconcile your votes over the last six years?

and not just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the areas of the world where the Republicans have failed to show leadership, like Darfur.  I'd love to see the panelists field a question about the UN, NATO forces and crises in Africa.  I heard Webb touch on these briefly and I'd like to hear more.  Also, the aspect of torture.  I think Webb has a lot of moral authority on this issue.

I think his strong suit is foreign policy and the military.  I'd love to hear the candidates engaged on a real discussion of these issues.

on hearing him tonight I realize that Allen isn't intelligent enough to have a discussion on foreign policy issues.

If the public doesn't perceive the intelligence difference in these two men, and want someone of intelligence to represent them, we don't have a chance.  But if there's just a little light that goes off that says, "I think I won't vote for the dumb guy," we might have a chance.

He was wise to acknowledge that he doesn't know something.  But I thought Webb did very well.

and it was a better answer than Webb gave.

Webb's focus on working from the "bottom up" was excellent.

Tester is articulate and very strong. He's going to win big time.

as President of the Montana Senate. It really isn't fair to compare the two.

Webb definetly needs to loosen up a bit.

I watched tester clean Burns' clock tonight as well. If Montanans don't vote for Tester, they are really missing the boat.

"I think people have listened to me tonight and really know how absurd some of the things that George Allen said tonight really are."

I tried to keep up and post on my blog Southern Democrats.