Posted on 01/24/2007 9:58:01 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
Like him or not, Ronald ("Tear Down This Wall") Reagan spoke in a clean, clear prose that almost always left listeners with a sense that he stood for something.
It may thus be no accident that Jim Webb, Virginia's new Democratic senator, was once a Reaganite.
In his reply to President Bush's State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, Webb defined the two central moral issues that animate most of the Democratic Party's rank and file: the mess in Iraq and the fact that the fruits of a growing economy are not being shared by all Americans.
Then Webb did something rather astonishing: He didn't fudge on his language or try to take the hard edge off his impatience with the status quo.
Giving the speech in response to a president's State of the Union address may be the hardest assignment in politics. Even the best of the genre reek of focus-grouped and poll-tested sentences. You have the feeling the words are dictated by some party pooh-bah who believes the speech will fail if it does not touch all the issues on every strategist's list.
Gee, say the consultants to the poor politician who has to carry the party's torch, you just have to mention health care and child care and the environment and union rights and stem cell research -- and every other issue that energizes some base voter in some corner of the party.
And, oh yes, Mr. Politician, don't forget that your real targets are those critical moderate independent swing voters in the Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states, and here's a list of key phrases we've polled to death that they respond to. You have to throw them in somewhere.
Ever wonder why politicians are so often accused of offering mush?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It's ridiculous that people get elected when they blatantly say, write, or stand for such things. It just sickens me. And this was the man who rebutted Bush last night? Please! On what moral authority! Especially being he's derranged to begin with.
I will read up, but even if Webb specifically deserves vilification I don't feel like it benefits us as Americans or Freepers to demonize everyone whos political point we disagree with.
Very true. We can only hope they self destruct with their lust for power. Being they really have no agenda and are as virtuous as a hitman, I'll be looking for that fingerpointing very soon amongst those rats.
The overall impression I got when I saw him was thug.
He no longer is fit to do either in my opinion, as he has taken on the mantle of the socialists and liberals.
What a jerk.
Mr. Webb was one utterance away from defeat...can you say "maccaca"?...
I suspect that you know why.
Book reports 101 . Shoot down the messenger and the carrier thus identifying their bias and their interpretation of the message with your interpretation.
Thusly; The Washington P and its hack E.J.Dionne jr review the Webb Dem Response to the Bush State of The Union 07 is the greatest thing since sliced bread,....Their review is a bit moldy and full of worms.
http://www.theusmat.com/
Actually, this is pretty fascinating. The WaPo, the leading DNC PR and spin machine on the planet, is actually trying to compare Webb to a Republican; one of those hated conservatives that the leftists all believe are demonic and mentally deranged.
The comparison and admission by the WaPo is nothing short of breathtaking.
The question is whether Webb specifically deserves scorn and contempt for his personal conduct, the answer to that is an unquestionable "aye." Save politeness for those not attempting to destroy this nation.
Can you provide an article or source that confirms what you're saying?
You're busy writing stuff without providing evidence.
He's a highly decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam. I'm justing pointing that out, and in my book that earns him respect. I still would have voted against him if I lived in Virginia. Both those are two different things. I can respect someone I disagree with. A lot of the people on this post don't have that much maturity or civility. Even Grant and Lee respected each other, although they were trying to kill each others' troops, and one was trying to break up the US, while the other was trying to save it.
And then while you're at it, why don't you ask him why he lied about the troops supporting the war? I am sure he will give you a civil answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.