Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jim Webb still considering independent run
Hot Air.com ^ | December 28, 2015 | TAYLOR MILLARD

Posted on 12/28/2015 6:36:35 PM PST by Kaslin

Jim Webb may be considering trying to become the next Ralph Nader by running as an independent. Webb has been pretty active on social media, going after both President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for their policies. He’s tapping into the populist anger that those who are turned off by both Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz might have, but Webb is probably counting on their support too. Ben Brody at Bloomberg Politics Webb is going to hop back into the presidential fray.

Since dropping out of the race for the Democratic nomination, Webb has continued to maintain his Webb2016 website, which he has updated with posts about the possibilities of an independent run. On Twitter, he and his fans have been promoting a #WebbNation hashtag.

A run by Webb, who often manages his own social media accounts and has also used them recently to promote a petition in favor of his run and to deliver kudos to Bernie Sanders in his battles with the Democratic National Committee ("nothing more than an arm for the Clinton campaign," Webb tweeted), could further complicate the already unpredictable 2016 election.

It’s a bit of a risk because Webb doesn’t know who the GOP nominee is going to be, although he’s pretty sure the Democrat nominee will be Clinton. If Clinton doesn’t reach out to disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters, then it’s possible they could jump ship on the Webb bandwagon. Check out Webb’s stance on Foreign Policy from his campaign website.

Second, we will honor our treaty commitments. But we are not obligated to join a treaty partner if they elect to use force outside the direct boundaries of our commitment, as in Libya. Neither the United Nations nor NATO has the power to bring the United States into an elective war without the consent of our Congress.

The terrorist armies make no claim to be members of any nation-state. Similarly, it would be militarily and politically dangerous for our military to operate from permanent or semi-permanent bases, or to declare that we are defending specific pieces of terrain in the regions where the terrorist armies live and train. We already have terrain to defend the United States and our outposts overseas and we cannot afford to expand this territory in a manner that would simply give the enemy more targets."

And finally, a warning spurred by the actions of this Administration in places such as Libya. There is no such thing as the right of any President to unilaterally decide to use force in combat operations based on such vague concepts as "humanitarian intervention." If a treaty does not obligate us, if American forces are not under attack or under threat of imminent attack, if no Americans are at risk, the President should come to the congress before he or she sends troops into Harm's Way.

How does Sanders feel about it? His website shows it’s pretty similar.

Senator Sanders will protect America, defend our interests and values, embrace our commitments to defend freedom and support human rights, and be relentless in combating terrorists who would do us harm. However, after nearly fourteen years of ill-conceived and disastrous military engagements in the Middle East, it is time for a new approach. We must move away from policies that favor unilateral military action and preemptive war, and that make the United States the de facto policeman of the world.

Senator Sanders believes that foreign policy is not just deciding how to react to conflict around the world, but also includes redefining America's role in the increasingly global economy. Along with our allies throughout the world, we should be vigorous in attempting to prevent international conflict, not just responding to problems. For example, the international trade agreements we enter into, and our energy and climate change policies not only have enormous consequences for Americans here at home, but greatly affect our relations with countries around the world. Senator Sanders has the experience, the record and the vision not just to lead on these critically important issues, but to take our country in a very different direction.

But here’s where Webb pivots towards the Right (and possibly Trump supporters) a bit, with his stance on "Economic Fairness."

If you make enough money to buy stocks, you're probably doing OK these days. If you're working in a successful company that provides stock options or bonuses in stocks, you're probably doing pretty well. But if you're spending all your income paying rent and putting food on the table and clothes on the backs of your kids, you're probably living on the outer edge of the American Dream.

I would agree that we cannot tax ourselves into prosperity. But we do need to reconfigure the tax code so that our taxes fall in a fair way. It is possible to simplify the tax code, including reducing the corporate tax rate in exchange for eliminating numerous loopholes, and to examine shifting our tax policies away from income and more toward consumption. We did not even have a federal income tax in this country until 1913. The loopholes and exceptions that have evolved have made a mockery out of true economic fairness. I would never support raising taxes on ordinary earned income, whether it goes to a school teacher or a nurse or a doctor or a film star. But we need to find a better way.

Trump’s stance is almost a carbon copy, going back into the populist roots of the issue.

1. Tax relief for middle class Americans: In order to achieve the American dream, let people keep more money in their pockets and increase after-tax wages.
2. Simplify the tax code to reduce the headaches Americans face in preparing their taxes and let everyone keep more of their money.
3. Grow the American economy by discouraging corporate inversions, adding a huge number of new jobs, and making America globally competitive again.
4. Doesn't add to our debt and deficit, which are already too large.

Webb’s notion to meld both Trump and Sanders populism into his own actually isn’t a bad idea. It’s doubtful Sanders would go after an independent run when/if he loses to Clinton. Trump probably won’t be on any ballots, unless he’s the GOP nominee, unless he decides to challenge some of the sore loser laws in states. But Politico notes it’s not impossible.

Though any Trump bid could face obstacles erected by state elections officials, they are surmountable, according to experts.

Trump could compete in Republican primaries through late March when two-thirds of states will have voted and two-thirds of delegates will have been awarded before deciding to mount an independent run and still make the ballot in every or nearly every state if he is willing to pay the seven-figure price, according to Richard Winger, the editor of Ballot Access News. Ralph Nader's ballot access attorney, Oliver Hall, and Bill Redpath of the Libertarian National Committee concurred with that assessment.

The cost of getting a candidate's name on ballots in all 50 states and the District of Columbia without the backing of a major party would likely reach into the low seven-digits, according to Hall. Winger estimated a cost of $3 million for the process using paid consultants and signature-gatherers. Trump's campaign has already experimented with the use of volunteers to gather ballot petition signatures in the Republican primary, an approach that could lower the cost of an independent bid.

So a possible Trump independent run could be the biggest obstacle into a Webb independent run. It still doesn’t mean the latter might not happen, and it’s possible that could draw votes away from potential Clinton supporters. But it doesn’t mean it will. Ralph Nader ran to the left of Al Gore in 2000, while Ross Perot split the vote with George H.W. Bush in 1992. A Trump independent run will more than likely take away votes from both the GOP and the Democrats, but nothing is certain. Webb’s consideration of a 2016 independent run is interesting to say the least. It may not go anywhere, but at least it might give people more options next November.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2016presidentialrace; berniesanders; contender; demparty2016; donaldtrump; hillaryclinton; jimwebb
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

1 posted on 12/28/2015 6:36:35 PM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Run Jim Webb, run. I hope you draw several percentage points from the democrat.


2 posted on 12/28/2015 6:42:24 PM PST by truth_seeker (comKoufax, Drysdale, Marichal, Spahn and others are also on the satee with the outlws.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Arpaio court...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfL65EAys_U


3 posted on 12/28/2015 6:43:06 PM PST by biggredd1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

this guy would hurt us, not them.

I don’t want him to run.

from what I understand, besides the abortion issue, which SHOULD be enough for all republicans but isn’t, he is on the moderately conservative side.

I hope people know what’s at stake this time.


4 posted on 12/28/2015 6:43:10 PM PST by dp0622 (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A run by Webb would hurt the GOP more than the Dems. There aren’t enough moderate Dems to attract votes from the Dem party.


5 posted on 12/28/2015 6:43:49 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Run Jim, this will clear your conscience for jumping parties. Run and give the voters a chance to show support for you while dumping Hildabeast, a perfect storm. Don't be coy, Jim, run!
6 posted on 12/28/2015 6:44:44 PM PST by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dp0622

Yes, he’s an obvious spoiler.


7 posted on 12/28/2015 6:44:52 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Run Jim Run. It’s high time someone gives the Clinton’s a little of their own medicine.


8 posted on 12/28/2015 6:47:29 PM PST by Bullish (Face it, insanity is just not presidential.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Run, Jimmy run!


9 posted on 12/28/2015 6:52:13 PM PST by Redbob (#BlackCoffeeMatters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

i’m not sure why people on the board think this is a GOOD thing.

NO democrat, once they hear his positions, will vote for him. What was he polling in the primaries? a few percent?

not 10 or 15.

If you think Trump or Cruz is too over the top, Webb is your man.

that’s scary.


10 posted on 12/28/2015 6:53:11 PM PST by dp0622 (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: truth_seeker

“Run Jim Webb, run. I hope you draw several percentage points from the democrat.”

I don’t know. This could hurt Trump if he is the nominee. Right now polls show about 20-25% of Republicans who say they will not vote for Trump if he is the nominee. These could be prime voters for Webb. They might feel safe voting for a “not as liberal” or “moderate” Democrat.


11 posted on 12/28/2015 6:53:53 PM PST by Angels27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If Trump is screwed by RNC— I go straight to Webb.


12 posted on 12/28/2015 6:59:50 PM PST by WENDLE (Trump is not bought . He is no puppet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

He would be better than any of the other liberal filth, which means he has NO Chance.


13 posted on 12/28/2015 7:02:10 PM PST by mylife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Interesting.It could be argued that a few hundred (or was it thousand?) votes for Nader in New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) cost algore the White House.
14 posted on 12/28/2015 7:10:53 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (Obamanomics:Trickle Up Poverty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; All

This is Robert Sarvis all over again.


15 posted on 12/28/2015 7:11:01 PM PST by RKBA Democrat (Look closely at any evil and most times you'll find the unmistakable handprint of caesar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dp0622

An independent run by Bernie would do considerable more harm to the Beast.


16 posted on 12/28/2015 7:12:11 PM PST by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aquila48

it would DESTROY hitlery and make it a cake walk for us :) :0

he’s senile and hippy enough to do it.

probably be found in a river way before that.


17 posted on 12/28/2015 7:15:12 PM PST by dp0622 (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

HOORAY Jim Webb


18 posted on 12/28/2015 7:18:54 PM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dp0622

Bernie Sanders going independent will be far more valuable to us as Conservatives rather than Jim Webb entering the race.
Jim Webb could actually pull a few Republican votes away.
I agree that Jim Webb entering as an independent would be BAD for us while Bernie Sanders as an independent would be a GOOD thing.

19 posted on 12/28/2015 7:30:17 PM PST by Blue Jays (Rock Hard, Ride Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A third party run by Webb or anybody to the right of Hillary would hurt the GOP.


20 posted on 12/28/2015 7:30:21 PM PST by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson