Comrade Webb!

I have made it abundantly clear in several posts and comments that I am restless and dissatisfied with the Democratic presidential slate for 2008. Unfortunately it appears that it will come down to the unpalatable choice of "the lesser of the two undesirbles" for me - never a good feeling. But there is not much I can do.

I am increasingly fascinated by one Democratic politician whose Democratic credentials are of recent vintage and given his background and bio, I would have never figured on him capturing my attention, much less my admiration. Jim Webb, macho military vet, Reagan Republican and a man of mercurial temper ran on the Democratic ticket from Virginia on an anti-Iraq war platform and was swept into the US senate in 2006 largely riding the wave of anti-Macaca sentiment generated by his experienced sure shot opponent, Senator George Allen. Right at the beginning of his tenure, Webb delighted me with a populist editorial in the Wall Street Journal and a few months later, by offering to slug George W. Bush. In the editorial he said, among other things: (See more here)

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

A relentless critic of the Iraq war and determined to prevent further reckless misadventures by Bush-Cheney, Webb is ever vigilant. Worried that Bush might try and extrapolate the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing force in Iraq to justify invading Iran, Webb has introduced a bill to cut off funding for military action against Iran except under a very narrow set of circumstances. Webb has argued: [link]

"This presidency has shot from the hip too many times for us to be able to trust it to act on its own," Webb told reporters Monday. "It's not the way the Constitution was designed. We need Congress to be involved in any decision to commence military activities absent an attack from the other side or a direct threat."

"What I'm saying today is, clearly, that we should not give up any of our positions diplomatically, with respect to Iran, but I believe it is not in the power of the president himself to decide to take unilateral military action there," he added.

He is also extremely worried that given half a chance, Bush-Cheney might decide to begin in Iran what they couldn't finish in Iraq. On the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, a neo-con sleight of hand to facilitate the invasion of Iran, which passed the senate with overwhelming majority (Hillary Clinton's yes vote among them), Webb had this to say and he is right on the money: [link]

We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way that the United States views the Iranian military, and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war, although this cleverly worded sense of the Congress could be interpreted that way.

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach, because in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good. The constant turmoil that these sorts of proposals and actions are bringing to the region is counterproductive. They are regrettable substitute for a failure of diplomacy by this Administration.

I do not believe that any serious student of foreign policy could support this amendment as it now exists.

This proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream. It’s not a prescription for success. At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a back door method of gaining congressional validation for action with one hearing or without serious debate.

And here is Webb during an exchange on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews about Blackwater, Bush-Cheney's thuggish mercenary outfit in Iraq:  [link]                  

MATTHEWS:  What do you make of this Blackwater situation?  You‘ve been in combat.  What does it make sense to have these thousands of men over there, and women, I guess, fighting out of uniform on our side?  What do you make of that policy?

WEBB:  It is a very, very dangerous precedent for our country, and it‘s one that we have never been in before, this particular engagement.  The numbers that I‘ve seen were back even just in Gulf war 1, I think the ratio between the troops and the contractors was 50 to 1.  Now we have 180,000 contractors in Iraq against 161,000 actual troops.

They make a lot more money.  They have a different legal structure on them.  People are getting rich over this, the people who are running these companies.  And most importantly, we‘ve got a quasi-military.  Our country was founded on citizen soldier concept and on people stepping forward to serve, if there was an urgency.  It‘s a very dangerous thing.

Webb is not only concerned with foreign wars. He is worried also about wars at home caused by poverty, lack of education and a troubled society. He is set to conduct a hearing that will examine the incarceration rates in the U.S. criminal justice system: "Mass Incarceration in the United States: At What Cost?"

Wow! A breath of fresh air in the musty halls of the US senate and the back rooms of cowardly Democratic politics. No wonder the establishment Dems and the DLC don't like him. In 2004 and 2006 I made monetary contributions to several Democratic candidates in local and national races. I wrote a check to Jim Webb also. I didn't know much about him and the little that I did learn, didn't sit too well with me at the time. My contribution to his campaign was purely a token of protest against George Allen's cocky frat boy mouth. My feelings for the candidates I supported have been mixed in the aftermath of both those elections. Senator Webb has surprised me - he has turned out to be the best return for my money by far.

Comments

[Sujatha]

Howard Fineman of Newsweek thinks Webb could be VP material, assuming that Hilary Clinton clinches the Democratic nomination. Of course, he is listed as a possible only close to the end of the list and Fineman's assessment is : "James Webb. The Virginia senator may be a little too colorful for his own good, but he is sitting in a state that Democrats think they have a chance to crack in 2008—and the other Virginian who might be a good fit, former governor Mark Warner, is running for the U.S. Senate. Webb’s military bona fides are unassailable, of course, as a Vietnam Vet and former Navy secretary—and Hillary may need that kind of help."
But, given his totally in-your-face opposition to the Iraq war and the industrial-military complex, I doubt that he would even agree to take on a combined ticket should HRC get the nomination and consider him as a running mate (which I am pretty sure that she will not, being beholden to all the various powerful lobbies that are funding her.)
The only good thing that I see, is that despite the media's all but crowning HRC, the nomination is not a fait accompli and there still 4 more weeks to go. A lot can happen in 4 weeks.

[Ruchira Paul]

But, given his totally in-your-face opposition to the Iraq war and the industrial-military complex, I doubt that he would even agree to take on a combined ticket should HRC get the nomination and consider him as a running mate (which I am pretty sure that she will not, being beholden to all the various powerful lobbies that are funding her.)

Exactly. HRC plays "preventive defense." She is not going to take a chance with someone like Webb who has a mind of his own and is not afraid to show it. He has staked out his positions clearly and some of them clash with her careful "neither here, nor there" balancing act. (Gore-Webb OTOH, could fly) I suspect that Clinton might indeed pick a VP to boost the "military" credentials of her ticket. It is more likely to be someone like Wesley Clark than Webb.

[Andrew Rosenblum]

Great post. The Dems need more tough talking folk like Webb -- wasn't it one of the greatest Democrats who said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself"? As long as you're telling the truth, who cares if Joe Lieberman gets his feelings hurt?

[Ruchira Paul]

Spinal implant is what the Democrats have needed for a long time - ever since Reagan challenged their patriotism. All the Republicans have to do is insinuate that "criticizing the Iraq war = soft on terrorism," and the Dems start ducking into the nearest hidey hole.

So how does a Gore-Webb ticket sound to you? I know, I know - it is a pipe dream. The establishment Dems will see to it that such a possibility will be destroyed thoroughly. See how Rahm Emanuel, the Democrat power broker and dedicated Clintonite reacted to a possible Gore presidential run:

“Why would he run for president when he can be a demigod?” said Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, who was a top aide in the Clinton White House. “He now towers over all of us because he’s pure.”

[Sujatha]

Even demi-gods may decide to incarnate for a purpose (I'm crossing my fingers and hoping that Gore does so!)