A Question from a Webb Supporter

The Washington Post ^ | November 14, 2006 | John Whitesides

[DCBandita]

The announcement by McCain, who has put together campaign organizations in many of the states with early nominating contests, was widely expected. The intentions of Giuliani, who has been less active in early organizing, had been less clear.

Giuliani's campaign team said the committee was simply an opening move designed to keep his options open, with a final decision still to come.

"This filing affords him the opportunity to raise money and put together an organization to assist him in making his decision," Giuliani adviser Anthony Carbonetti said.

[MHGinTN]

You gat a partial pass for ignorance. Take some time to actually look into what the so called religious right believes ... do you believe, for instance, that if I want to murder you, there should be no restraint from legislation on that behavior? Scientifically, the alive unborn are your fellow human beings and they deserve as much right to not be killed as you do.

[george76]

" Must be some kind of celebration at libertarian central knowing they've created a socialist landslide in the middle of a war."

[dpwiener]

Frankly, I think Allen's excerpting from Webb's novels is what sealed the deal in his loss.

I don't know that much about Webb, but I have some hope for him. He basically appears to be a "Reagan Democrat" who was registered Republican for a long time but switched back to the the Democratic Party when President Bush moved away from rhetorical Reaganism with his "compassionate conservatism". Now Webb is trying to recenter the Democratic Party by bringing other Reagan Democrats "home". He understands and is able to tap into the Scotts-Irish heritage which underlies much of this constituency.

Furthermore, whether one agrees or disagrees with him over the Iraq war, Webb's opposition appears to be principled. He opposed it before it happened because he thought it would be counterproductive to the War on Terrorism, unlike many opportunistic Democrats who supported it when they thought that was the politically safe thing to do and then did a 180 degree turn when the liberal netroots made that an anti-war position a litmus test.

And I agree with you (to the extent I can judge these things way out here in California) that Allen's desperation dive into Webb's fictional novels probably backfired badly and (deservedly) cost him the election.

[Doohickey]

I had expected someone more articulate.

He didn't have to be articulate, because he never had to campaign. The media and the DNSC carried his water for him. All you needed to know about Webb was that Allen said "macaca" and that Allen agreed with Bush 96% of the time.

And to the starter of this thread, what was it about George Allen that made you decide not to vote for him? Actually, what I want to know is why you oh-so-open-minded social moderates have such a jones against religious conservatives. They're not going to force you to convert, you know.

[Mister Da]

IBTZ means "In before the Zot". The poster of the IBTZ reply believes your posted article will be pulled by the Moderator, usually because it is liberal nonsense or vulgar, etc., & he/she is trying to post a reply before the entire article is pulled. It's sorta like trying to hit a fast moving target.

As a Rat, you need to be very careful what you post, as the Pubs here are a real POed bunch since last week's election.

[spunkets]

"Don't forget Big Lawyers."

LOL! Thanks! They play a big leadership role under the big parasite tent.

[MamaLucci]

I believe the Republican party in the White Hosue has stretched the concept of executive power PAST the point of breaking and requires oversight for all of our sakes (because the executive is the executive, regardless of party and precedents set by this one will extend to the next one).

LOL.....you must have LOVED the Clinton administration........

One of the children Clinton "saved" at Waco

The Clinton Legacy

An excellent compilation from Free Republic's own alamo-girl

[DCBandita]

So at what point and cost does it not become a failed state? In other words, how much effort and how many lives and how much money is sufficient to secure it? Moreover, what possessed the administration to think that the Iraqi people could simple embrace and then support a viable Democracy? It's not as if they planned for this and revolted on their own, demanding their freedom. So why would we expect viable results?

[MHGinTN]

At first I thought you were one of those PT Barnum described, but after reading #56 it is more clear you are one of the ones doing the suckering. Slaughtering the alive unborn children is not a neutral issueand that you try to present it as such proves your deceitful agenda here at FR.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

And what's wrong with religion in molding and guiding someone's political viewpoints?

Nothing, as long as he or she is honest about the role religion plays in their decision making. If their views mostly happen to agree with my views, which are not based on religion, I'll probably vote for them.

[libertylover76]

I'm sure you're no 'nut-job', but I'm curious: (a) would you back Romney, and (b) have you ever read the Book of Mormon while staying a Marriott? (I have and it si SUPER weird!)

[MadIvan]

So at what point and cost does it not become a failed state? In other words, how much effort and how many lives and how much money is sufficient to secure it? Moreover, what possessed the administration to think that the Iraqi people could simple embrace and then support a viable Democracy? It's not as if they planned for this and revolted on their own, demanding their freedom. So why would we expect viable results?

It becomes a viable state when the insurgency is capable of being squashed by Iraq's own forces, and the democratic processes are entrenched to the point of being unlikely to be reversed.

However, let's address a deeper point by your post. When America fought in Korea, World War II and World War I - people simply did not ask those questions. The point of that war was victory; people did not just think of giving up because a thing was difficult. This latter idea is precisely the implication of what you're saying: because something is long and wearisome and difficult, give up. Such decisions do not lead to successful wars, and furthermore they do not enhance the idea that a country is willing to fight for itself.

Ivan

[DCBandita]

Sorry for the delay - I have trouble following the thread in this format.

Specifically regarding the warrantless wiretaps - here's where I stand. If there was an insufficiency in the current law that oversees such activities (FISA), the administration should have gone to their own legislative leadership and asked that the insufficiency be addressed. There was a legal way that this could have been addressed yet the administration ignored the appropriate CONSTITUTIONAL checks in place and violated the law in so doing.

Do they need to listen to these calls? Fine. Go to your own leadership (the Congress was and still is Republican-controlled) and pursue a legal, legislative way to close the gap. THAT is what the so-called "left" would like to see. Not a cease and desist - a legal way that adheres to Constitutionally designated powers to write and pass legislation.

[DCBandita]

I'm a tough Dem. ;-) You should let me fight the war on terror. :-D

[MamaLucci]

As far as the concept of executive power is concerned, take a look at the last administration and the new House and Senate majorities. There is more protected corruption, more bribes and kickbacks, and more executive privilege than Bush could ever dream of.

CNN didn't explain any of that to her/him/it.

[section9]

DC,

Nobody likes McCain, that's a point in Rudy's favor. Romney has been pandering to George Allen's voters to try to corral them before Rudy can convince them that he's the Second Coming of Ronaldus Magnus.

Rudy can claim the nomination if and only if he does two things:

1. Say that he is in favor of the 2nd Amendment as written, and understands that what may be applicable in New York may not work in Alabama and Florida. He'll need to sit down with Wayne LaPierre and Marion Hammer for a Come to Jesus meeting on Gun Rights.

Period: anti-gunners don't get the nomination. It's even more poisonous than abortion.

2. Abortion can actually be finessed. If Rudy says he'll appoint judges in the mold of Scali, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts and says "no litmus test", even though he's pro-choice, he might get the nomination. Base Pubbies understnad that McCain is a media stooge and I don't quite think they are sold on Romney.

It's times like this when I wish Condi would run: as an absolutist on 2nd Amendment issues and a Federalist on abortion, she would win the nomination in a walk.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[beckysueb]

Look at South Dakota's utter rejection of Draconian abortion restrictions.

It would have passed in SD if it had a clause in it about rape which it didn't. I think a pro abortion liberal wrote it. I have a suggestion. You seem to be very pro abortion. Please go to a website where they have pictures of aborted babies and really look at them. The precious faces, tiny fingers and toes all chopped up. I honestly think you are a decent person and if you can look at those pictures of these precious little human beings who have been slaughtered like animals and not come away from it apalled by it, then you are heartless.

[libertylover76]

An even-tempered, well-spoken Dem like DC Bandita can't seem to catch a break here!

Here's one thing conservatives better decide: do they accept different viewpoints within the GOP or do they blow off Giuliani with typical RINO-bashing venom?

Does Rudy's lack of idealogical 'purity' lump with Chaffee, Voinovich and company? Demanding unflinching loyalty to a narrow outlook might wind up condemning the GOP (and conservatives) to a permament minority. Remember: Ronald Reagan was not above political expiediency, a great example being his selection of Sen. Schweicker as his running mate back in '76.

[DCBandita]

I would define the "religious right" by saying who I think belongs to that category:

Rick Santorum
Bill Frist
Sam Brownback

To name a few. Now - I need to clarify - I believe there are principled people who are religious, believe deeply in the guidance that being religious (primarily Christian) gives them. And then there are the politicians who pander to them, incite them to vote and support them. I would consider those politicians who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research in that camp. I would consider all of the politicians who dragged the Terri Schiavo case onto the national stage in that camp as well. I would consider any politician who makes it a campaign promise to make abortion illegal in that camp.

My personal belief is that if you run on promises to enact a "Christian" agenda (no abortion, bash the gays, no embryonic stem cell research), you are a religious right politician.

[libertylover76]

Schiavo sank Frist forever.