Wednesday, September 20, 2006

"This is absurd"

Webb trying to pretend his campaign has nothing to do with the jew-labeling or other things that "distract" from the real issues.

Meanwhile, Raising Kaine has gone into stealth mode, getting their "unpaid" bloggers to front stories for them for a while on the subject, so Lowell's name doesn't appear on them. Go check it out, suddenly every lead diary about Allen is from the unhired help. It's funny.

Watch the video on MSNBC's Hardball.

Now that's funny. Webb's having to answer questions about whether he is running an anti-semitic campaign.


Question: Do you have paid bloggers? And, are the pushing this story about Allen's Jewish Grandparent?

Webb: "Well, yes Chris, I pay two people to spread propaganda on the blogs, and yes they have posted lots stuff about Allen's jewishness. Before that they were on macaca duty"

Oh, wait. That would have been the HONEST answer. Webb's actual answer was:


Webb: "Look, Chris, first of all, I did not know that this would even be the subject of a discussion with you when I agreed to come on your show."

That pesky Matthews, asking an unexpected question of the candidate. At least he didn't ask him when his family stopped being jewish.


Webb: "Dick Wadhams is part of the Carl Rove method of conducting political campaigns, he worked for carl rove for several years, this is clearly an attempt to turn something around onto us, that has nothing to do with what we are doing in this campaign."

When you watch the video, notice how upset and angry Webb is at this question, as he answers it. By the end, he's had enough:


Webb: "This is absurd! "

Matthew's asked some more about Allen's jewishness and honesty, but Webb brushes him off. Webb thinks talking about Allen is distracting to the real issues, but apparently had no problem launching a personal attack on Allen's campaign manager.

Maybe Matthews should have asked if he agrees with his campaign calling Allen's manager a "dick-wad(hams)".

There was also an interesting back-track by Webb on the subject of 3-party talks between Iraq, Iran, and Syria. If you remember in Sunday's MTP debate, Webb said this:


But secondly, that we have to get these other countries involved, the other countries tangential to Iraq, the countries that have cultural and historical interests in Iraq, involved in an overt way to move toward a diplomatic process.
...
They’re not talking to Syria, they’re not talking to Iran.
...
And we need to convene an international conference with the countries in, in tangential and the countries that have cultural and historic ties to Iraq in order to have them move forward with us and, and assume some responsibility for the future of Iraq.

When asked on monday night, Webb repeated that we needed to have talks with Syria and Iran, even after Allen questioned involving Iran in Iraq's immediate future.

But when Matthew's asks the question, things seem to have changed in the Webb strategy. Having again said we had to bring some of the countries in the region together, he adds something new:


Part of the process is to begin talking specifically with Syria to break up the alliance between Syria and Iran, and also to start working toward a situation where we can bring Iran into the international community...

Apparently the "Get Iraq, Syria, and Iran together" idea didn't sound so good after Monday night's debate.

Again, listen to the entire interview. Matthews is a good liberal, and against the war, and a perfect place for Webb to get his ideas out. But given a national platform, he says very little about what he thinks we should do differently.

In fact, even his "get nations together to talk more"(which isn't a solution, it's hoping someone else might think up a solution if they have a meeting), isn't "different" from what we are working to now (although even the State Department isn't keen on involving Iran).

Webb said his campaign was about three issues:


Webb: "I have positions that I have taken. I've been running on 3 basic themes ever since february, they haven't changed, they are reorient our national defense, they are trying to do something about economic inequality in this country that has come about as a result of the internationalization of corporate america, the outsourcing of jobs, and the impact of immigration, and I've been talking about how we need to step up to administration abuses in the wake of 9/11. Those are the issues."

His third item was about 9/11, wasn't it?

But it's not about stopping another 9/11, or fighting the terrorists, or preparing for another terrorist attack.

No, Webb's most important issue regarding 9/11 is NOT stopping the terrorists -- it's stopping "administration abuses". Whatever abuses he means (NSA easedropping of Al Qaeda? Successful interrogation of terrorists which has stopped attacks on our soil? The Patriot Act?) he thinks stopping the "administration abuses" related to 9/11 is a top 3 item, while terrorism itself is NOT ON HIS LIST.

I went to his web site to see these three basic themes, the ones he is campaigning on consistently:

Jim believes that solutions will be found using a progressive approach to policy that prioritizes fairness and justice, focused on four major themes:
  • Refocusing America's foreign and defense policies in a way that truly protects our national interests and seeks harmony where they are not threatened.
  • Repairing the country's basic infrastructure, which has eroded badly over the past decade, and developing more creative ways to assist disaster-stricken areas such as those in New Orleans and along the Gulf coast.
  • Reinstituting notions of true fairness in American society, including issues of race, class, and economic advantage; and
  • Restoring the Constitutional role of the Congress as an equal partner, reining in the unbridled power of the Presidency.


Three, Four, whose can count? If a foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds, I wonder what a glaring inconsistancy is?

3 comments:

brimur said...

You're absurd. The terrorism point is included under national defense. Umm, please say you knew that, or I'll be even more concerned about Republicans ability to do more than parrot poll-tested talking points than I already am.

I'm really tired of Republicans sacrificing sounds national security policy for political crap like this.

Your party has failed, time for new leadership, try again in two years.

CR UVa said...

You miss the point entirely brimur. Webb has been incredibly inconsistent in his message recently, which is what Charles is trying to get at.

I would suggest that (1) you work on your grammer before hitting submit. What does "sounds national security policy" mean? Oh, wait, you meant sound national security policy? I guess I figured you would take a second to look at your response before posting. And (2) if you really believe that the Republicans have failed, best get out to the voting booth come Election Day, because I read a Salon article earlier today that suggested that a Democratic takeover of the House stands, at best, a 50/50 shot of happening, and may be as low as 15%. This, and the fact that Webb has peaked, failing to get his name out there following the so-called "scandal" that recently followed Senator Allen, means that 2006 might not be the revolution that all you Democrats are hoping for.

Charles said...

brimur. In his interview, he didn't say a "strong national defense", he said "reorient our national defense", which I presume was about Iraq and getting our troops out, not about how to fight terrorism, or homeland security.

Then on his web page, he says "Refocusing America's foreign and defense policies in a way that truly protects our national interests and seeks harmony where they are not threatened."

Again, "refocusing foreign and defense policies". WIth the goal to "protect our national interests" and "seeks harmony"

That's not talk about anti-terrorism, it's a talk about using our military only where our national interest is threatened, and otherwise trying to get along with people. We've been having tha conversation for a long time, long before 9/11, and it's a good discussion, but it isn't about fighting terrorism. It sounds more like Pat Buchanon's America First plan.

But I don't doubt that somewhere in the guts of talking about "refocusing foreign and defence POLICIES", there might be something related to terrorism -- but it certainly isn't shown as a priority in THAT theme.

Actually, it's worse than I said. Go to Webb's senate campaign web page. After the 4 themes, he has a list of 6 issues, and here they are:
Iraq
Economic & Social Fairness
Education
Health Care
Infrastructure
Immigration
What's the greatest challenge today facing America?

Where is TERRORISM? Is it under Iraq? Health Care? Immigration?

Go look, it's like playing "Where's Waldo".

A hint: It isn't under "greatest challenge" -- that says we are facing MANY challenges, without actually telling us what they are or how his plan to fix any of them.

Oh, don't look for plans under any of the others either.

I searched for the characters "terror" in his entire issues section. THere are THREE references:

1) Terrorism and Iraq were separate issues, until George Bush incorrectly and unwisely linked them

2) . First, it was a diversion from, not a response to, the war against international terrorism.

3) This would give us the ability to contain the terrorist threat within Iraq without continuing our occupation.

That's it. Not one word about FIGHTING terrorism, "protect" is only there once, and its "protect our values".

security is there 5 times, not ONCE in regard to dealing with our security:
1,2) the border security solution. There is a consensus that our border security must...
3) speech on national security
4) National security policy under the Bush-Cheney Administration
5) , and homeland security is being neglected
6)Iraq is in a crisis that we must address now in order to make progress on all other security matters.

In other words, there is nothing in his entire issues section about how to protect our country against terrorist attack in a post 9/11 world.

BTW, 9/11 isn't in their, neither is "attack". Oh, and defend isn't either.

My point is that he had 3 major issues, and terrorism wasn't one, but attacking the administration efforts to protect us was.