Posted on 09/15/2006 5:44:12 AM PDT by steve-b
It is a ticklish thing for Sen. George Allen, a Republican running for reelection in Virginia, that his Democratic opponent, James Webb, once worked for President Ronald Reagan. And it is especially awkward for Mr. Allen that the Gipper seems to have admired Mr. Webb, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, and said so. But the fact remains that Mr. Webb did serve Mr. Reagan, both as Navy secretary and as assistant secretary of defense, and that the late president once lauded him publicly before a large crowd at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. So it is easily within the bounds of fairness that the Webb campaign is airing an advertisement that includes 10 seconds or so of Mr. Reagan paying tribute that day to Mr. Webb's "gallantry as a Marine officer in Vietnam."...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
An electronic raspberry to the Washington ComPost.
Gollly. I wonder what side of this the WaPo is on?
Question: was Webb a Democrat when he served Ronaldus Magnus? Somehow I doubt that he was.
Is it OK to remind people that Webb called Reagan "a pompous, ignorant fool"?
Allen's been hitting back. The past few days, I've seen his campaign ads about Webb's service in the Reagan administration and Nancy Reagan's request for Webb to stop running the ad with her husband in it.
Do you have video???
Worth repeating! Is is OK to point out that Nancy Reagan has asked that Webb not use her husband's name?
I've read one of Webb's books ("Born Fighting") and it was terrific. From his description of the Scots-Irish people as deeply spiritual individualists who hate having a distant government tell them what to do, it would never have dawned on me that the guy would go off and become a Democrat. It's just so incongruous.
Hmmm...actually, it makes perfect sense, but only in a sane world. Once upon a time, the Democratic Party really did represent the individualist, and was the natural home of feisty Presbyterian Scots-Irish loners. That boat has sailed (before I was born 52 years ago), but the concept can still resonate. Around here (central NC) there are any number of really good people who are life-long faithful Democrats who would spit on the current leadership's grave.
Sad thing is, and here is where Webb's disconnect arrives, the two are never put together. This is NOT our grand-dad's Democrat Party. It's our sissy cousin's and our wallflower sister's.
Yes, and the ComPost story is [BIG SHOCKER] somewhat incomplete. Did President Reagan make those statements? Yes. Did or would he repudiate them? Probably not. Given Webb's position on the issues now, would he endorse Webb in this race? Almost certainly not. The only reason Webb would bring that quote out now is to imply that he would have Reagan's support today. Somewhat disingenuous, in my opinion.
Disingenuous? Abso-freaking-lutely. No question. He's counting on people who loved Reagan to not pay attention to anything else.
Washington Post, knocking down a straw-man.
Nobody has said that it is improper for Webb to note that Reagan said nice things about him, in the abstract.
The argument is threefold:
1) Nancy Reagan objects to the use Reagan's videos in TV Ads, even republicans, and anybody who actually felt Reagan's approval was WORTH SOMETHING would respect that.
2) The commercial, as the Washington Post admitted in their NEWS COVERAGE, implies Reagan endorses Webb. Further, a Webb campaign leader SAID that Reagan endorsed Webb.
3) After Reagan appointed Webb to Secretary of the Navy, Webb quit after only 10 months, and parted with harsh words for the administration, and eventually Reagan's policy -- a policy which turned out to be the RIGHT policy.
Allen put out a commercial that makes those very points, without saying ANYTHING about whether it's OK for Webb to note that Reagan said nice things about him.
So now the Washington Post makes it sound like Allen is trying to deny the facts, when in fact it is the Washington Post that is misleading it's readers. But this is not a NEWS ARTICLE, so I guess that's OK for the Post.
The Post spent 4 weeks trying to take down Allen over the m-word incident, and they just watched their efforts go to waste in the past week as Webb stuck a finger in the eye of Nancy Reagan, opened the door to the revelation that he parted poorly from Reagan's administration and his campaign staff thinks Reagan is a fool, and had to answer charges from female naval officers that his offensive words about women in the military actually caused them physical and mental anguish during their time at the academy.
So now they are trying to do his damage control, because apparently they don't trust him to be able to defend himself. (they are right -- his "apology" to the women he offended wasn't much of an apology, as it didn't even say he was WRONG to say what he said. In fact, he actually defended his words by saying a lot of people felt the same way at the time, and that the senate comfirmed him so it must have been OK).
I guess that also means that the Washington Post would heartily approve of George Allen running a commercial of James Webb endorsing George Allen for Senate.
After all, he really did say it, and it was only 6 years ago.
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.