Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Virginia Senate: Webb's Uphill Battle

The 24 hours after Jim Webb won the Virginia Democratic Senate primary Tuesday night were filled with a classic war of political spin.

Jim Webb
Sen. John Kerry showed up to personally congratulate Jim Webb, right, for his win in Tuesday's Virginia Democratic primary. (Bill O'Leary -- The Washington Post)

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) called a press conference Wednesday afternoon to pronounce that Virginia is the 8th Senate seat his party will target this year.

"George Allen's sweating," Schumer said, pointing out that Allen launched a $900,000 television blitz in the days before Tuesday's primary. "Jim Webb is not going to be bored in the U.S. Senate. He has a mission and has a job to do," Schumer said, alluding to reports that Allen isn't happy in Congress and is actively exploring a 2008 presidential run.

Dick Wadhams, who is managing Allen's campaign, yesterday sought to slow any perceived momentum for Webb by noting the dismally low turnout in Tuesday's primary election, just more than three percent of registered voters. "If there is this wave of discontent you would have had a much higher turnout," argued Wadhams.

Sen. George Allen
Sen. George Allen, center, speaks to troops over breakfast during a trip to Baghdad earlier this month. (Getty Images)

The crux of the debate between the two sides is over what Webb's strong primary showing in Northern Virginia means as he prepares for the race against Allen. The cities and counties outside of Washington, D.C., provided Webb with more than one-third of his vote total.

Wadhams said that Webb's strong showing among northern Virginia voters, who are traditionally more liberal than those in other parts of the state, undermines the idea that the Democratic candidate is a conservative who will appeal to so-called Reagan Democrats and those living in the commonwealth's more rural areas. In other words, Republicans say Webb is just another liberal Democrat, and the fact he outpolled liberal Harris Miller in liberal Northern Virginia proves it.

Not so, said Steve Jarding, a leading strategist for Webb. Jarding said his candidate's strong showing in Northern Virginia was the result not of his ideological positioning but because of a belief among the voters that he is the only candidate who can beat Allen in the fall.

As for Webb's sub-par showing in traditional Democratic strongholds like the Tidewater area, the hub of the African American community in the state, Jarding explained that the Webb campaign simply did not have enough money to communicate with voters there -- something that won't be a problem in the fall campaign. "Jim will sell extremely well in Hampton Roads," said Jarding. "Where Jim went [during the primary race] and where he was able to meet and talk to people he did extremely well."

Jarding, who was intimately involved in Mark Warner's gubernatorial victory in 2001, said Webb can win the Senate race because he will create a hybrid between the rural strategy that led to the Warner win and Gov. Tim Kaine's strength in previous Republican strongholds in the outer Northern Virginia suburbs of Fairfax and Loudoun counties.

In an attempt to cut through the spin, The Fix went back to the results of past Virginia statewide elections to see whether the voting coalitions that elected Warner and Kaine are repeatable in this race.

In the 2001 race between Warner and state Attorney General Mark Earley, the Democrat won 52 percent to 47 percent, carrying the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th and 11th congressional districts. Last year, Kaine took a similar 52 percent to 46 over state Attorney General Jerry Kilgore by winning the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 8th, 10th and 11th congressional districts.

The differences between the two races? Warner won the 9th District in southwestern Virginia thanks to his heavy emphasis on his rural bona fides (a strategy cooked up by Jarding and Dave "Mudcat" Saunders). President Bush carried the same district with 59 percent of the vote in 2004 and 55 percent in 2000.

Warner also won the Tidewater-area 4th District in 2001, which has a significant -- 33 percent -- black population. While Kaine lost the 9th convincingly in 2005 (Kilgore was from that part of the state) and the 4th narrowly, he carried the 2nd District, which has a substantial military population, and the 10th -- a northern Virginia exurb that includes fast-growing Loudoun County.

Take those results and overlay them onto Allen's victory over Chuck Robb in 2000. Robb carried the 3rd, 4th, 8th and 11th districts while being swamped in the 9th (57 percent to 43 percent) and the 10th (59 percent to 41 percent.)

Together, these three races tell us a few things. First, there are six congressional districts not likely to be heavily contested: The 1st, 6th and 7th went for the Republican candidates in 2000, 2001, and 2005, while the 3rd, 8th and 11th went for the Democrat each time in those same elections.

The battleground, therefore, comes down to the five congressional districts that have provided a mix of results over the past three elections -- the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th.

It's easy to conclude that Webb's rural roots (he is from Gate City in the state's southwestern reaches) and his military background should make him viable in the 9th and 2nd districts, respectively. But it's important to remember that federal races are an entirely different animal than state races. Many Democrats who have been elected with overwhelming margins in GOP-leaning states struggle when they seek a federal office where the campaign issues and tone are necessarily more partisan. Recent electoral history is littered with examples of this phenomenon, including Inez Tenenbaum (S.C.), Tony Knowles (Alaska) and Nancy Farmer (Mo.) in 2004 alone.

The Allen camp is already working to tie Webb to the national Democrats who "dragged him across the line" in the primary, according to Wadhams. His endorsements by Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) is "totally contrary to the image [of Webb] they have been trying to project as some new Reagan Democrat," Wadhams said.

Jarding believes that Webb's military background and his credentials as a Republican appointee in Ronald Reagan's Pentagon will insulate him from charges that he is nothing more than a tool of national Democrats. "Jim is somebody this party needs," said Jarding. "He is somebody who has that profile on military issues and has the capacity to bring millions of people back into the Democratic party."

The Fix's take: Webb can win this race, but he remains largely unproven at the moment. On paper he looks strong, but he has to prove he can raise the money to compete against Allen, a worry given the whispers we hear about Webb's disinterest in dialing for dollars. Then there's Allen's charisma on the campaign trail compared with Webb, who still seems to be getting used to the backslapping performances demanded of any political candidate.

The 2001 and 2005 wins by Warner and Kaine should give Democrats hope, as should Webb's showing in Northern Virginia this week. But unlike the primary, simply winning big in the Washington suburbs and exurbs won't be enough. Webb certainly has a chance here, but Allen starts the general election as the favorite.

See also: Webb Faces Large Hurdles Against Allen (from today's Post).

For more information on Webb and Allen, see washingtonpost.com's profile of the Virginia Senate race.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 15, 2006; 12:29 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dean Defends the 50-State Strategy
Next: George Pataki's Iowa Mojo

Comments

New Virginia US Senate Poll

Rasmussen
June 14
Webb (D) 41%
Allen (R)* 51%

Posted by: RMill | June 20, 2006 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Political Wire talks about what Warner may or may not do now:

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/06/16/webb_victory_poses_dilemma_for_warner.html

Posted by: Anonymous | June 16, 2006 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Rob -

I can see how you would compare Webb to Chaffee. I should have made it clearer that I was really more interested in how you compare Webb to Dewine.

Lincoln Chaffee is definitely an old-school, libertarian republican - the kind of repub I can respect and get along with. He is true to his beliefs and principles. Pro-choice, pro gay rights, pro-environment, voted against Alito, gang of 14 member - the point is he frequently breaks with the repub leadership. I can't imagine Chaffee letting himself be strong-armed by Frist into voting a certain way. I definitely have heard repubs call Chaffee a liberal many, many times.

Conversely, Jim Webb is also very moderate - somewhat liberal on social issues (abortion, gay rights, anti wiretapping w/out a warrant), but also conservative in that he is a lifetime military man, probably more hawkish than anyone in the Senate, an enforcement-first approach to immigration (I am liberal and that is my position as well), and I'm guessing just from the type of guy he is that he is very fiscally conservative. I think when Jim Webb votes he will decide solely on his own beliefs and principles and will not be influenced by either political pressure from the right or by Harry Reid from the left.

So I see how you can draw the comparison between Chaffee and Webb.

Dewine, on the other hand, I don't get. I guess I don't see how he is a moderate who votes his mind and not due to political pressure.

The most recent example I can think of is the flip-flop Dewine pulled in regards to gay marriage. In 2004, he did not support Ohio's ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage. Fast forward to 2006 - Bush's approval rating are in the low 30's, roughly 70% of the country thinks we're headed in the wrong direction, the political atmosphere for repubs in Ohio is even worse than it is nationwide, it is not a good thing to be up for reelection and have an 'R' next to your name, and Sen. Mike Dewine, who was once expected to cruise to reelection, is facing a very serious challenge from a very strong Democrat in Sherrod Brown.

All of a sudden, Dewine sees he is in serious trouble and will lose if he repub base dosen't turn out strongly for him, and they are already mad at him b/c he was part of the gang of 14.

So what does Dewine do? He starts the gay-bashing. Yes, Dewine folds like a deck of cards and suddenly decides to become one of the co-sponsors of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. No better way to turn out the crazy base he needs than to "protect" marriage. He then has the nerve to criticize Brown for not supporting DOMA, claiming his support shows he "represents the mainstream values" of his constituents.

Brown pointed out that Dewine has "had an election year conversion".

I like politicians who know where hey stand. I know where Brown stands on equality - I don't with Dewine. This is just one example of Dewine's flip-flops in order to stick his nose up the rear end of the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson during an election year.

Chaffee and Webb, on the other hand, I do not believe would ever cave in to an interest group and change their vote.

Chaffee voted no on the confirmation of Samuel Alito even though he knew he was going to face a tough primary challenge and a 'no' vote would only hurt him. But he stuck to his guns and voted his conscience.

Jim Webb fully supports civil unions, which will not help him in a Senate race in Virginia. He could have played it safe and taken a position similar to Allen's, but he didn't b/c he has that libertarian vein in him that says it is unconstitutional for the government to regulate personal behavior and stick it's nose into the bedroom.

What it comes down to is Chaffee and Webb will break with their party when they believe their part is wrong, while Dewine will sell his soul every day and twice on Sunday in return for votes.

I do not believe Chaffee or Webb would ever have an election year conversion, even if they thought it would cost them reelection. They would rather keep their self-respect than their office.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 16, 2006 1:51 AM | Report abuse

I draw the comparison with Webb to Chaffee and DeWine very simply.

Conservatives complain that Chaffee and DeWine are liberal. Liberals call them conservatives. They fall into the moderates category because they aren't liberal or conservative, but since they hold views on both sides of the aisle. Both sides like/hate them at certain times.

Jim Webb will be the same way. He is more of a conservative mold that has some liberal leanings (anti-war, pro-choice). Liberals have been calling him conservative, Conservatives, on this very blog, have painted him as a liberal.

As has been said many times, liberals will not work in red states, they will not get elected, just as Conservatives don't get elected in blue states, unless they run as moderates ala Romney. Chaffee wins in RI because he is a moderate, he picks up enough Democratic votes to win. Mark my words, if Laffey wins the primary, Whitehouse WILL win in RI. Webb holds enough conservative values to win over conservative voters in Virginia and is liberal enough to get the Dems out. Even if Webb wasn't pro-choice and had no other liberal view aside from being anti-war I think the liberals would come out for him solely to get rid of George Allen.

In order to win in the red states, Democrats must find candidates like Jim Webb who are more moderate-conservatives than they are liberal to run in these states. They may not agree with all of their views, but their views will be better than Conservatives views and the conservatives won't be able to paint them as liberal.

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 15, 2006 11:00 PM | Report abuse

A local Washington, DC station which carries Laura Ingraham this morning had as a promo for the show a long, repeat long, audio clip of George Allen speaking about the Border problem. It may as well have been a campaign spot for Allen.

This would be an an "in kind" contribution to the Allen campaign by Ingraham for whatever the commercial cost of the promo was, wouldn't it?

Oh, and it came during the Imus In The Morning time slot, so the station's fees at that time are probably higher.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | June 15, 2006 7:32 PM | Report abuse

As for abortion or "Choice", we have had a series of articles about young women who purposefully got pregnant in order to force young men to marry them. There was a talk show recenty where some feminst actually cited a statistic where 19% of the men being forced to pay child support weren't even the father of the child in question. I simply find that wrong. If I woman can choose to have a child or not, a man ought to be able to choose whether he is the father of record or not and ought not be forced to support a child they did not wish to be brought into the world. THAT is real choice. And that is REALLY getting the government out of the picture.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 15, 2006 7:29 PM | Report abuse

"Jim Webb is not much different from either DeWine or Chaffee, but I think I speak for all Dems when I say I'd rather have him in the Senate than I would George Allen."

Rob - I'm curious as to the similarities you see between Webb and Dewine/Chaffee. Not attacking you at all - would just like to know why you think they are similar.

Aside from that, I pretty much agreed with your whole post. Except I would point out that Lieberman's continued support of the Iraq War is not the only reason he is being challenged - if that were true, Dems like Clinton, Cantwell and the Nelsons would have challengers. There are many, many reasons why Lieberman is being challenged, but that's not the topic of this thread so we'll dicuss it another time.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 15, 2006 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, maybe liberals and moderates aren't all that far apart, then. But you really need to include moderate conservatives, too, in order this movement to work. As for guns, every moderate I know who flat out ban any gun that had no legitimate sporting use. That would include fully automatic weapons, of course, and stupid things like those 50 caliber sniper rifles the gun nuts all want. I would exclude, however, things like semi-automatic target pistols like the Glock Model 22 and even some so-called assault rifles that are used (even required) by sport shooters competing in events like the 300 meter Internationa Freestyle events. That was the prob;lem with the dumb Brady Law. I don't really care about their "good intentions". The law was written by people that had absolutely no background with guns and was so broad it prohibited things like the venerable Browing Semi-Automatic shotgun and that pretty standard GLock Model 22 target pistol is referred to. Maybe you limit peopl to owning one or two of these sorts of guns. Maybe they need some sort of easy to obtain special permit. I don't know. But they do have a legitimate sporting use and people who love that sort of thing ought to be able to have them. Now, I don't shoot own those sorts of guns and I don't participate in those sorts of events, but I sure want they right to be able to do that if I ever had they time and money to do so and I certainly want my law abiding fellow citizens to have that same right.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 15, 2006 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone name for me the psychological condition that causes wingnuts to compare Democrats to Ann Coulter?? Would that be projection?

Posted by: Drindl | June 15, 2006 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Mike Brooks-- I agree with you in a lot of what you say. However, there are fine points. I believe people should be able to own guns, too-- I used to hunt. But not arsenals full of automatic weapons that are useful only for murdering large numbers of people -- like kids in a schoolyard, or shoppers in a mall. That isn't a scare tactic, it's just a reality.

It's difficult for me when you talk about a man being involved in an abortion decision. Should he be able to force a woman to have a baby? What if it's the result of a rape? It's happened. Or should be able to force a women to abort a baby she wants? Either way, ot puts the government in a position of enforcing something really ugly.

Only change I'd make to y our health plan is have it administered by either the Veteran's Administration or Medicare--both do a very efficient job with minimal administrative expenses.

So-called liberals have far more moderate positions than you probably think. But the constant barrage of attacks and smear campaigns by the right has probably convinced you otherwise.

Posted by: Drindl | June 15, 2006 6:08 PM | Report abuse

>>Y'all,
We're overlooking one basic point in the Allen-Webb debate (I hesitate to say the elephant in the room...), namely Iraq. For those of you who have forgotten/failed to notice/refused or downplayed the significance of/ we got Zarqawi the other day. Some poll numbers show Bush out of the 30s in the approve column for the first time in I don't know how long. There is a continued stream of information coming out of the country, including Amir Taheri's brilliant article in this month's Commentary Magazine, that says the mainstream media is intentionally painting a deceiving and negative image of the Iraq situation, a situation that is daily improving. Should things noticeably improve between now and November, and/or should Bush's approval numbers rise accordingly, Webb's one trick pony act will no doubt prove insufficient to wrest the seat from Allen's hands. ("Smart" GOP)<<

I really hate the intellectual laziness that comes with claiming a media conspiracy about one thing or another (also applies when liberals - and I'm a liberal - do it too). It's really kind of pitiful to see someone delude themselves into thinking that an entire industry of highly competitive people and media outlets all suddenly decided - en masse - to do whatever the conspiracy theorist alleges.

Honestly, if anyone write and actually BELIEVES that there is some sort of intentional deception going on by the media, they are just reflecting their abject stupidity.

"Smart GOP"? That sure was an ironic handle, given the insipidness of the post.

Posted by: Gaithersburg, MD | June 15, 2006 5:48 PM | Report abuse

KoZ-

"Ever notice how my arguments are substantive, logical and flowing with no attacks on individuals and often with outside sources. and the rest of you - name-calling, banter, feeble attempts at humor, stupid played-out talking points, class warfare and the usual playground mentality. Hate, bile and invective."

Because spitting "I don't listen to moonbats" certainly indicates your respect for reasoned arguments and invective-free debate. Give me a break, you give as good as you get. I don't care what names you call people because it doesn't bother me... up until that point where you start crying about how others call you names.

If you don't want to treat people respectfully then don't expect others to bend over backwards to extend you the courtesy. If you really want to dial down the rhetoric here then lead by example, not false moral authority.

Posted by: Will in Texas | June 15, 2006 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Time to return to your Bat Cave, Zouk!

Other posters, please don't feed the bat!

Posted by: Duh! | June 15, 2006 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"but don't make me dig up your predictions about the last congesssional race to use against you."

Go ahead and dig, zouk. Seriously - do it. Or were you just full of hot air as usual? I never MADE any predictions about the last congressional race. EVER. In fact, I haven't MADE a single prediction about the Webb-Allen race either. All I've done is say I think he can do well given a certain set of circumstances. Unlike you, I not not regularly predict the outcomes of predictions five months away b/c I do not consider myself a know-it-all like you do.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 15, 2006 5:38 PM | Report abuse

"And then you go off about Global Warming and how you are owed an apology when you make inflated, demonstably false claims."

Will in Texas -

there was a thread where global warming came up a couple weeks ago, and needless to say zouk was in the "global warming is a big Liberl Media Lie" camp. Surprised? He didn't present any facts to back up his claims, and ignored all the evidence and opinions of thousands of scientists on the matter who know more about the reality of global warming than we do. It was like trying to reason with a four-year-old. Truly pathetic. Then today zouk goes and says this:

"Ever notice how my arguments are substantive, logical and flowing with no attacks on individuals and often with outside sources."

Hmmmm.....no, I never noticed that. Maybe b/c they are'nt.

Statements like these just show the frightening level of king of hypocrisy's wingnuttery. Why frightening? Frightening b/c someone this out of touch with reality is allowed to vote.


Posted by: Ohio guy | June 15, 2006 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Bob Ney has not been indicted. He voluntarily stepped down from his leadership position and voluntarily complied with subpeonas. compare this to Jefferson if you like. you can look it up. This is how the Dems and Repubs handle potential corruption in their ranks.
I tried to give Ohio the benefit of the doubt but you are clearly in the Moonbat category.
Back to ignoring moonbats. Serves me right for trying.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 15, 2006 5:30 PM | Report abuse

SmartGOP-

Thank you for your valuable contribution. Webb has a position on Iraq. Either public opinion will sway in favor of Iraq. Or it won't.

So constructive.

Posted by: Will in Texas | June 15, 2006 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Ohio - you may have some points hidden in there but like Ann Coulter, you have alienated the audience with your tone.

but don't make me dig up your predictions about the last congesssional race to use against you. shouting louder doesn't mitigate a losing position. GW Bush will raise boatloads of money as he always has.

I don't think Mark Warner is as popular as the MSM thinks he is. He really didn't do anything as Governor to hang your hat on.

And I firmly believe that Kaine won because he ran a better campaign and resisted name-calling. something you should consider if you want to be more persuasive.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 15, 2006 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"Fact averse Ohio guy. I guess you didn't look at the website. No need. you are probably content in your ignorance.
Ever notice how my arguments are substantive, logical and flowing with no attacks on individuals and often with outside sources."

HAHAHAHAHAH.....this statement coming from the wingnut that stated "Bob Ney was indicted only on the grounds of a whisper campaign"!? He was indicted b/c four people - FOUR - have all pleaded guilty to corruption charges and have fingered Ney as being involved, including his former aide and chief of staff. Just ONE example out of a million of how Zouk makes up some crazy idiotic statement and ignores all the facts.

Just one more example of why he is called the King of Hypocrisy.

People who live in reality - 8,652,934
zouk - 0

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 15, 2006 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Y'all,
We're overlooking one basic point in the Allen-Webb debate (I hesitate to say the elephant in the room...), namely Iraq. For those of you who have forgotten/failed to notice/refused or downplayed the significance of/ we got Zarqawi the other day. Some poll numbers show Bush out of the 30s in the approve column for the first time in I don't know how long. There is a continued stream of information coming out of the country, including Amir Taheri's brilliant article in this month's Commentary Magazine, that says the mainstream media is intentionally painting a deceiving and negative image of the Iraq situation, a situation that is daily improving. Should things noticeably improve between now and November, and/or should Bush's approval numbers rise accordingly, Webb's one trick pony act will no doubt prove insufficient to wrest the seat from Allen's hands.

Posted by: SmartGOP | June 15, 2006 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Zouk-

"your assumption about the demographics of doners is mostly wrong and my point was valid."

MY assumption? What? When in this thread did I claim any such assumption about the demographics of donors? You're thinking of someone else.

"I urge you to look deeper into that website and investigate the bundled money (all Dems), the total highest donors (all DEMS) and more. It will challenge your pre-conceived notions. Unless you don't want to do that."

I'm looking at the website and it doesn't support your broad claims about the Democratic party and how it generates revenues.

"Democrats the party of the fat cats who wish they could buy offices to steal elections from the little guy. as they say - you can look it up."

Those "fat cats" generated 48 million in 2001-2002 which is only 1 million more than the 200-999 crowd. Which means the super rich, giving 1,000,000.00 donations accounted for *GASP* about 12% of that cycles political contribution for Dems. Oh me oh my! It's a "scare" tactic because you offer no context with your ludicrous percentages. 92% vs 8%??? Oh golly the Demos must be a bunch of fat cats who are totally funded by the super rich!

Or not, as it turns out.

I have already conceded, consistent with the title of this blog entry, that Webb has a tough fight ahead of him.

And then you go off about Global Warming and how you are owed an apology when you make inflated, demonstably false claims.

That's disrespectful.

Posted by: Will in Texas | June 15, 2006 5:17 PM | Report abuse

getting back to the subject of Jim Webb......

If MArk Warner makes getting Webb elected his #1 priority, I think Webb can pull this off. Warner has a lot of star power in Virginia, and with Tim Kaine campaigning for him as well, he will have the fundraising help he needs (not to mention the money the DSCC will give him). and he can focus on spreading his message. Who is Allen going to have campaign with him?? George Bush?? Mr. 33% approval rating? HAHA! Why don't all of you wingnuts ask Jerry Kilgore how calling Tim Kaine a "liberal" a million times and having George Bush stump for him worked out? LOL.

I think the mere fact that the usual cast of wingnuts is on here today screaming about how Allen is going to destroy Webb (in their opinions) shows just how worried the republicans really are. Do you ever hear any Dems these days ripping on Katherine Harris? No - b/c she is a joke and we are not worried about her one bit. Challengers are only given attention when they are a threat, and all the republican spin doctors are proving that Jim Webb is a HUGE threat.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 15, 2006 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Compromise??? I don't see any moderate stuff coming out of Congress. The bankrupcy laws that ruin individuals and allow banks and credit unions to skate are not moderate. Neither are those tax breaks for the very wealthy. Nor the tax breaks for investors who just encourage outsourcing and corporate lawlessness. Nor the fact that we are still in Iraq when the overwhelming majority of American's want us out RIGHT NOW! Nor, the rulings allowing oil companies to ravage wilderness areas in Alaska and elsewhere. Nor the Busb Administration's executive orders allowing long term leasing (essentially selling) public lands, riverfront property that has been used for years by fishermen, to their wealthy friends. A very famous river in Oregon, the Fall River, is being decimated as we write. All of the headwaters has been leased to rich folk, who are building fancy homes there, bulldozing their rubbish into the river. They have destroyed the spawning grounds of the native redband rainbow trout, many of which grew to 24 or more inches long. Along with that, they have run off fishermen at gunpoint, claiming they are tresspassing by wading and fishing in "their river". THIS is NOT moderation. This is government for the rich, by the corrupt, and for the greedy. This is a conservatives dream amusement park...and a nightmare for everyone else. So, Zouk, please! Wher is there some sort of moderation in the steady steam of excrement we have coming out of Congress these days?

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 15, 2006 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Fact averse Ohio guy. I guess you didn't look at the website. No need. you are probably content in your ignorance.
Ever notice how my arguments are substantive, logical and flowing with no attacks on individuals and often with outside sources. and the rest of you - name-calling, banter, feeble attempts at humor, stupid played-out talking points, class warfare and the usual playground mentality. Hate, bile and invective. no wonder you keep losing elections. but Peggy Noonan printed that up this morning so despite what this website may think, that is the reality. get over it or keep losing.

Oh, for a worthy adversary!

Posted by: king of zouk | June 15, 2006 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Compromise??? I don't see any moderate stuff coming out of Congress. The bankrupcy laws that ruin individuals and allow banks and credit unions to skate are not moderate. Neither are those tax breaks for the very wealthy. Nor the tax breaks for investors who just encourage outsourcing and corporate lawlessness. Nor the fact that we are still in Iraq when the overwhelming majority of Amercian's want us out RIGHT NOW! Nor, the rulings allowing oil companies to ravage wilderness areas in Alaska and elsewhere. Nor the Busb Administration's executive orders allowing long term leasing (essentially selling) public lands, riverfront property that has been used for years by fishermen, to their wea;lthy friends. A very famous river in Oregon, the Fall River, is being decimated as we write. All of the headwaters has been leased to rich folk, wjo areuilding fancy homes there, bulldozing their rubbish into the river. They have destroyed the spawning grounds of the native redband rainbow trout, many of which grew to 24 or more inches long. Along with that, they have run off fishermen at gunpoint, claiming they are tresspassing by wading and fishing in "their river". THIS is NOT moderation.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 15, 2006 5:10 PM | Report abuse

We seem to have an issue here where KoZ is trying to say that Dems throw their beliefs out the window when they need to win.

This is simply not the case just as it isn't with Repubs and Chaffee.

Naturally, there are lunatics on both sides of the aisle. I support Leiberman, sorta like both Chaffee and DeWine, and personally like Webb.

Now, am I supporting Chaffee or DeWine, no. I would definetly like to see Whitehouse and Brown win. Even though they are both more liberal than the incumbants, I tend to side with the liberals on social issues more than I do with conservatives and it is clear to me that neither party is controlling spending. Repubs want to give tax cuts and spend, Dems want to raise taxes and spend. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have higher taxes and know that I have the money to pay for these endevours than I would to have lower taxes and rack up a massive debt like we have now.

The only reason I support Whitehouse and Brown is because the Repubs have clearly failed and they need to be stopped.

Jim Webb is not much different from either DeWine or Chaffee, but I think I speak for all Dems when I say I'd rather have him in the Senate than I would George Allen.

Thats the difference between Republicans and Democrats. We allow differences in opinion on many things. Casey is pro-life, Webb is pro-gun, Leiberman is Pro-War and that is one topic we will not vote for. Hence the support behind Lamont. However, if Leiberman wins the primary, Democrats will support him. Something DeWine coyuldn't have counted on if Blackwell hadn't won the primary.

You criticize Dems for trying to get rid of Leiberman with Lamont. I don't see you criticizing Republicans for trying to get rid of Chaffee with Laffey. Double Standard anyone??

Posted by: Rob Millette | June 15, 2006 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"Result - Democrats the party of the fat cats who wish they could buy offices to steal elections from the little guy. "

Republican Micheal Bloomberg spent $100 million of his own money to buy the office of mayor of New York, and then $70 million of his own money to get reelected. This is a record for the amount of personal wealth ever spent by any candidate to ever win office. And Democrats are the "rich fat cats" who buy office? Just so everyone know, the little guy does not donate to George Bush - his largest lifetime contributor is Ken Lay - you guys might have heard of him, he's going to federal prison. The money he donated to Bush(millions) was probably dirty or stolen as well, but Bush has not returned it. The #1 contributor to his 2000 campaign was the oil giants.

Posted by: Ohio guy | June 15, 2006 5:03 PM | Report abuse

It certainly muddies the waters but the point is still, your assumption about the demographics of doners is mostly wrong and my point was valid. I urge you to look deeper into that website and investigate the bundled money (all Dems), the total highest donors (all DEMS) and more. It will challenge your pre-conceived notions. Unless you don't want to do that.
I originally used this idea as a throw away line to indicate that the National party would have to come to Webb's aid if he wants to be competitive, nothing more but the moonbats chose to challenge it because it doesn't fit with thier world view. From the same website you will see that about 8 M is raised by a Senate incumbant and about 900K by the challenger. you can try to fight about the details but the overall message is that Webb has his work cut out for him. not a scare tactic - mathematical facts. I know you Dems are fact-challenged (global warming et al) but occasionally it would be helpful if when slapped in the face with one, you concede. Or are you always right (I mean correct) about everything?

Posted by: king of zouk | June 15, 2006 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Mike Brooks - Hooray for you. finally some substantive ideas with a rationality behind them. I commend you on your approach. One thing though, where are all those extremists in Congress you mention? I haven't seen much come out of either house lately that is anything but a big moderate compromise.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 15, 2006 4:43 PM | Report abuse

KoZ-

From your website:

2004 cycle:

Donors giving $200-$1,999
D: 41% R: 42%

Donors giving $2,000+
D: 41% R: 49%

Donors giving $10,000+
D: 43% R: 48%

Donors giving $95,000+
D: 36% R: 57%

Donors giving $1,000,000+
D: 0 R: 0

Nice scare tactic from 2002. That D: 92% and R: 8% reflects 23 donors.

Posted by: Will in Texas | June 15, 2006 4:42 PM | Report abuse

RMill is a fine individual, but the only honest citizen here? Why do you hate America, zouk?

Will in Texas -- I greatly apprciate your knowledgeable explanations and your patience, but do you really think someone who says that 'Democrats are the party of the fat cats who wish they could buy elections and steal them from the little guy' is worth it?

I mean, considering that republicans ARE the party of fat cats who actually DO steal elections from the lttle guy?

Posted by: Drindl | June 15, 2006 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Gun control has been an issue with the left for quite some time. Gun crime statistics have been fudged, the possibility of children getting guns and doing harm to each other, and suicide with guns have all been raised as issues by the DNC on their national platform. It has been used as an issue to frighten the soccer moms. Indeed, he first "Million Mom March" was on this issue. So, the right co-opted the NRA and turned it and it's members into virtual political captives and we have another one of those "wedge issues" used by the extrmes to divide the public. (Before guns, by the way, it was drunk drivers, leading to MADD.)

Moderates actually usually for some sort of mild form of gun control, allowing hunters and target shooters the right to own guns and allowing people to purchase and use them to defend themselves and their families, but also welcoming laws that keep guns out of the hands of genuine violent criminals, and willing to allow for sane regulations about magazine capacity, automatic weapons, caliber, etc.

Moderates also believe in "choice", but with parental notification, the man's input into an abortion decision (I mean, why on earth should a woman have an absolutely right to "choose", with the father having no inout whatsoever, when he can be made a virtual slave for 20 or more years.). We agree that homosexuals deserve some sort of protection, too, but not at the expense of forcing a church to hire them when it runs against everything they preach from the pulpit on Sunday morning. Likewise, we don't want propaganda from either side making our schools, work places, or government a part of their battleground. On illegal immigration, in all seriousness, we know that most of these people are simply here to feed their families and our hearts to out to them. But, we cannot, simply cannot, afford to suddenly legalize all 20 million of them without doing gravre harm to the citizens workers of this country and, so, we want the "debate" and politcial hot air ended and this issue studied rationally (How many illegals can we actually handle financially? Is there any way to mitigate the impact of suddenly adding millions of legal new workers to the semi-skilled and unskilled workforce? What is the cost to schools, hospitals and other institutions and how do we reimburse them for the added burden? How much will this cost and how much can we afford?)

We understand that moderate taxes are necessary to support community social needs, schools, and government, but we actually KNOW that public employees are overpaid and have benefits that private sector workers can never dream of. We want those public employee salaries and benefits to rise and fall with those of the average private sector worker and we want less government, not more.

We know that some sort of national healthcare is going to be needed simply to allow this country to be competitive in the world. Asking employers to bear that burden is asking too much. Likewise, allowing employers to cut the basic right to health care, using it as a barganing chip is just plain obscene. So, we want a national health insurance program that everyone MUST participate in, public and private sector workers, the unemployeed, seniors, politcians, business executives, everyone with the same benefit and access to health care. I, and others, have proposed a simple national HMO that will replace ALL private health care plans, replace Medicare, replace Medicaid, replace all of the various state plans. It could be administered, on a local or regional level, by the same organizaions that adminster HMO's right now. We DO NOT want Hillary Clinton's Byzantine government plan and we do not want Bush's plan which bases care on the ability of the indiovidual to pay. Both plans are absurd, but they are part of the extremes we are talking about here.

Moderates believe in "Live and lt live" wherever possible. We want this country to work and we want to end the tyrrany of the extremes that have been running us into the ground. And, Rush Limbaugh aside, you WILL be reading about great moments in moderation. Ths is the beginning of a revolution, where the people take this country back.

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 15, 2006 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Fact check - please try to check your facts before you go off spouting inaccuracies. Is this your way? Oh yeah I forgot, it is. those pesky inconvenient truths again. It's called research. try it sometime.
From open secrets - results of FEC reports
http://www.crp.org/bigpicture/donordemographics.asp?cycle=2002
summary: percentages
donation 200-999 39% D 61% R
1000 + d - 49% R - 51%
10,000+ D - 55% R - 45%
100,000 + D - 67% R - 33%
1,000,000 D - 92% R - 8%

the total amount raised was about the same 361 vs 328 M

Result - Democrats the party of the fat cats who wish they could buy offices to steal elections from the little guy. as they say - you can look it up. now don't you feel silly?

RMill, I am not chastising you. you seem to be the only honest citizen of this location. You may have forgotten to include outside spending which can really add up. Ask Soros.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 15, 2006 4:22 PM | Report abuse

King of Zouk-

"Will in TX. you have simplified the race for governor down to the abortion issue."

We frequently disagree about a great number of things but I am grateful for your attempts at jocularity. Seeing you accuse someone else of simplifying an issue was truly comical and much appreciated.

Oh you were serious?

"Kaine ran as a very centrist and failed to mention his party in many instances. Kaine ran a good campaign and Kilgore was pitiful. I don't think many people would want to outright eliminate abortion and this is actually a national issue not a local one."

The point I was making was NOT that pro-choice candidates always win, or win because of their pro-choice stance, but that they can demonstrably win state wide elections in Virginia. You seem to think Webb is at a disadvantage because he is "pro killing babies". That's fine. So was Kaine, and he still won. So ultimately I think the abortion issue does not kill a centrist candidate. Rather Kaine won a lot of exurb votes because he was pro choice.

On a personal level I think the center approach to abortion is the correct one. Unbridled access to abortion at all stages is less justifiable then early term, life saving, or rape related abortions. Absolute removal of abortion access represents too much government invasion into a woman's womb, as far as I'm concerned.

So I support a pro-choice candidate. I think many Virginians do as well. I KNOW that many Virginians have elected for a pro-choice candidate in the past.

"those visas are interesting, and I don't know much about them, but aren't those highly qualified, desired individuals with technical degrees? Does that constitute a giant threat to our country and our jobs? I don't think most software developers are hurting right now."

The debate over H-2B or H-1B visas is really immaterial to me. But I will inform to be nice.

H-1B Visas are for non-immigrant foreign nationals to enter the country and preform jobs that require a Bachelor's or better typically. These are specialty positions: architects, engineers, health, education, etc. etc. etc.

H-2B are temporary non-agricultural workers. Think: Katrina.

I am not taking a firm stance on increasing either... yet. However, some argue that increasing the number of H-1B puts a strain on American professionals seeking those jobs. It has been argued that an increase in H-1B visas supresses wages for other professionals competing with these foreign nationals (NON IMMIGRANTS).

A similar argument is furthered for H-2B visas in those fields.

Those are not my arguments, I'm simply pointing out that this could be a potential disagreement between the candidates Re: Immigration.

"but I am still puzzled by the immediate attraction to Webb, when he could be fairly compared to any other contrary politician - like Lieberman or Bush, who are standing up for thier values. Is it just the war thing?"

I'm sure everyone has their own selfish reasons for supporting Webb which is why his candidacy has made strange bedfellows out of moderates like me (just kidding, I'm a big scary liberal, right Koz) and Kossacks. For me it is a war issue. I look forward to seeing Webb change the national dialogue on Iraq. I also greatly respect his work as an author and his public service to this country's military as both a serving officer and in civilian command.

I also support enforcement first on immigration. AND I do support the fact that he is a Democrat, because I believe the separation of powers in this country has been greatly deteriorated by One-Party rule and would like to see an end to that.

And he is a moderate, despite your best efforts to paint him otherwise.

"Why have Dems adopted a DINO according to most measures. Are the principles out the window when you really "need" to win?"

I want DINOs and RINOs. I've already explained why.

If the Democratic party can only get elected if they "abandon" certain values, then maybe those values aren't reflective of the American electorate. In that case, shouldn't you, as much as anyone, welcome that change? Has the Republican party NEVER given up on a "value" because it ceased to reflect the needs of this great nation?

Why do you think the current Republicans don't ever agree with your extremist views on eliminating the DoE, DoT, and Social Security? Is it because they have "abandoned" their EXTREMELY SMALL government values or because they have accepted that the DoE, DoT, and social security are entrenched in the American psyche? Did Arlen Specter "abandon" conservative values because he is pro-choice? If Chafee wins in Rhode Island has the Republican party "abandoned" values?

No. You win elections locally by representing the people who actually vote for you. Both parties understand this, why can't you?

"Certainly he should know what he's talking about, but he needs to convince people who don't know what he's talking about. Many with strongly held pre-conceived notions about what's wrong and right."

I promise you that Webb is more articulate on this issue than Kerry and Murtha combined. He writes military essays for www.military.com among others. He is a strategic genius and outclasses virtually anyone in this country on the subject.

"If he breathes the words "raise taxes", he's toast."

I've read nothing to suggest he wants to raise taxes. What he will likely do is vote against eggregious tax cuts for the super rich, which is one reason I support him.

"He will certainly be called liberal in Allen's TV ads. and with no money to fight back, the label will stick. But why do you liberals not like being called liberal? I don't mind being called conservative."

You would if you were a conservative Republican running for office in Massachusetts.

But Conservatives have made the word "liberal" a bad one. Which is fine really, because it's just a label. At some point a voter has to realize that liberal just means they vote a certain way on a number of issues, and no amount of labeling Webb a "liberal" will change his public statements in support of enforcement only immigration or the right to bear arms.

I will concede Allen has a large financial advantage and will likely win the race. I will still financially support Webb and I urge others to do so as well.

Posted by: Will in Texas | June 15, 2006 4:19 PM | Report abuse

MikeBrooks, I'm puzzled. You said:

'the left was using flat out lies about guns to frighten them into voting for you. There really is a moderate middle in this country and many of us are mad as hell and mean to take it back. The discussion about Senator Webb after my post identifying him as a moderate says it all -- both the left and right wing "lurkers" here attacked it and him as being too liberal or too conservative.'

I'm middle-aged and I don't remember anything about the left using guns to scare people... could you tell me what you mean? I honestly don't know. Also, I didn't see anyone attack Webb as being too conservative. And the only person who attacked him as too liberal was a wackjob. Also, what do you mean by 'lurker'? Anyone who posts a comment is by definition not a lurker.

Posted by: Drindl | June 15, 2006 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Sorry that posted twice.

Posted by: RMill | June 15, 2006 3:52 PM | Report abuse

KoZ

You have gotten a little mixed up with regards to political fund raising. Sounds nice to "raise you fuds from regular folks" but the GOP is not known for that. To be fair, neither are Dems anymore.

Incumbants pull larger portions of funding from PAC's (generally twice as much) so they are even less dependent on individual contributions. As far as disparities of small and large donations, it all averages out (between $700-$1000) per contribution, with neither side being able to claim any moral high ground. Challengers tend to have a larger average donation to make up for the lack of access to PAC funds that give incumbants an edge.

Some examples I have pulled to illustrate (I tried choosing competitive House races, with equal number of R and D incumbants, and roughly equal fund raising amounts):

TX 22

Lampson (D)
Raised $2,229,555
PAC $388,200 (17%)
Individuals $1,626,830
Individuals from TX $757,348 (879)
Avg, indiv. contribution $861.60

DeLay (R)*
Raised $3,716,250
PAC $1,347,992 (36%)
Individuals $2,228,226
Individuals from TX $1,248,140 (1266)
Avg. indiv contribution $985.89

FL-22

Klein (D)
Raised $1,859,351
PAC $265,500 (14%)
Individuals $1,579,360
Individuals from FL $1,404,384(1470)
Avg. indiv contribution $955.36

Shaw (R)*
Raised $1,920,137
PAC $750,940 (39%)
Individuals $1,058,591
Individuals from FL $789,614(976)
Avg. indiv contribution $809.03

CT 4

Farrell (D)
Raised $1,199,635
PAC $156,370 (13%)
Individuals $1,039,003
Individuals from CT $759,390(792)
Avg. indiv contribution $958.83

Shay (R)*
Raised $1,788,734
PAC $530,845 (30%)
Individuals $1,215,801
Individuals from CT $997,673(1152)
Avg. indiv contribution $866.04

PA 6

Murphy (D)
Raised $1,418,998
PAC $260,350 (18%)
Individuals $1,152,069
Individuals from PA $458,776(711)
Avg. indiv contribution $645.25

Gerlach (R)*
Raised $1,796,872
PAC $927,465 (52%)
Individuals $793,980
Individuals from PA $610,556(791)
Avg. indiv contribution $771.88

IL 8

Bean (D)*
Raised $2,316,766
PAC $775,278(33%)
Individuals $1,513,994
Individuals from IL $641,709(823)
Avg. indiv contribution $779.72

McSweeney (R)
Raised $2,627,766
PAC $88,200(3%)
Individuals $519,274
Individuals from IL $342,820(332)
Avg. indiv contribution $1,032.59
largely self-financed $1.948 M loan.

LA 3

Melancon (D)*
Raised $1,262,920
PAC $706,203(56%)
Individuals $540,889
Individuals from LA $433,710(615)
Avg. indiv contribution $705.22

Romero (R)
Raised $783,834
PAC $2,500(* less than 1%)
Individuals $775,558
Individuals from LA $728,848(531)
Avg. indiv contribution $1,372.60

GA 8

Marshall (D)*
Raised $977,815
PAC $371,860(38%)
Individuals $519,388
Individuals from GA $424,936(487)
Avg. indiv contribution $872.56

Collins (R)
Raised $958,343
PAC $295,375(31%)
Individuals $653,668
Individuals from GA $523,403(687)
Avg. indiv contribution $761.87

TX 17

Edwards (D)*
Raised $1,628,561
PAC $832,983(51%)
Individuals $716,810
Individuals from TX $640,544(569)
Avg. indiv contribution $1,125.74

Taylor(R)
Raised $1,175,828
PAC $79,145(* less than 1%)
Individuals $615,567
Individuals from TX $394,004(354)
Avg. indiv contribution $1,113.01
partly self-financed with $475,000 loan

Posted by: RMill | June 15, 2006 3:45 PM | Report abuse

KoZ

You have gotten a little mixed up with regards to political fund raising. Sounds nice to "raise you fuds from regular folks" but the GOP is not known for that. To be fair, neither are Dems anymore.

Incumbants pull larger portions of funding from PAC's (generally twice as much) so they are even less dependent on individual contributions. As far as disparities of small and large donations, it all averages out (between $700-$1000) per contribution, with neither side being able to claim any moral high ground. Challengers tend to have a larger average donation to make up for the lack of access to PAC funds that give incumbants an edge.

Some examples I have pulled to illustrate (I tried choosing competitive House races, with equal number of R and D incumbants, and roughly equal fund raising amounts):

TX 22

Lampson (D)
Raised $2,229,555
PAC $388,200 (17%)
Individuals $1,626,830
Individuals from TX $757,348 (879)
Avg, indiv. contribution $861.60

DeLay (R)*
Raised $3,716,250
PAC $1,347,992 (36%)
Individuals $2,228,226
Individuals from TX $1,248,140 (1266)
Avg. indiv contribution $985.89

FL-22

Klein (D)
Raised $1,859,351
PAC $265,500 (14%)
Individuals $1,579,360
Individuals from FL $1,404,384(1470)
Avg. indiv contribution $955.36

Shaw (R)*
Raised $1,920,137
PAC $750,940 (39%)
Individuals $1,058,591
Individuals from FL $789,614(976)
Avg. indiv contribution $809.03

CT 4

Farrell (D)
Raised $1,199,635
PAC $156,370 (13%)
Individuals $1,039,003
Individuals from CT $759,390(792)
Avg. indiv contribution $958.83

Shay (R)*
Raised $1,788,734
PAC $530,845 (30%)
Individuals $1,215,801
Individuals from CT $997,673(1152)
Avg. indiv contribution $866.04

PA 6

Murphy (D)
Raised $1,418,998
PAC $260,350 (18%)
Individuals $1,152,069
Individuals from PA $458,776(711)
Avg. indiv contribution $645.25

Gerlach (R)*
Raised $1,796,872
PAC $927,465 (52%)
Individuals $793,980
Individuals from PA $610,556(791)
Avg. indiv contribution $771.88

IL 8

Bean (D)*
Raised $2,316,766
PAC $775,278(33%)
Individuals $1,513,994
Individuals from IL $641,709(823)
Avg. indiv contribution $779.72

McSweeney (R)
Raised $2,627,766
PAC $88,200(3%)
Individuals $519,274
Individuals from IL $342,820(332)
Avg. indiv contribution $1,032.59
largely self-financed $1.948 M loan.

LA 3

Melancon (D)*
Raised $1,262,920
PAC $706,203(56%)
Individuals $540,889
Individuals from LA $433,710(615)
Avg. indiv contribution $705.22

Romero (R)
Raised $783,834
PAC $2,500(* less than 1%)
Individuals $775,558
Individuals from LA $728,848(531)
Avg. indiv contribution $1,372.60

GA 8

Marshall (D)*
Raised $977,815
PAC $371,860(38%)
Individuals $519,388
Individuals from GA $424,936(487)
Avg. indiv contribution $872.56

Collins (R)
Raised $958,343
PAC $295,375(31%)
Individuals $653,668
Individuals from GA $523,403(687)
Avg. indiv contribution $761.87

TX 17

Edwards (D)*
Raised $1,628,561
PAC $832,983(51%)
Individuals $716,810
Individuals from TX $640,544(569)
Avg. indiv contribution $1,125.74

Taylor(R)
Raised $1,175,828
PAC $79,145(* less than 1%)
Individuals $615,567
Individuals from TX $394,004(354)
Avg. indiv contribution $1,113.01
partly self-financed with $475,000 loan

Posted by: RMill | June 15, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Will in TX. you have simplified the race for governor down to the abortion issue. you may be correct but I suspect it was more complicated than that. transportation and taxes seemed to be big ad buys on TV here. Kaine ran as a very centrist and failed to mention his party in many instances. Kaine ran a good campaign and Kilgore was pitiful. I don't think many people would want to outright eliminate abortion and this is actually a national issue not a local one.
those visas are interesting, and I don't know much about them, but aren't those highly qualified, desired individuals with technical degrees? Does that constitute a giant threat to our country and our jobs? I don't think most software developers are hurting right now.
but I am still puzzled by the immediate attraction to Webb, when he could be fairly compared to any other contrary politician - like Lieberman or Bush, who are standing up for thier values. Is it just the war thing? Why have Dems adopted a DINO according to most measures. Are the principles out the window when you really "need" to win? the military background does not give him a pass on military issues. He can present them and have them evaluated, just like anyone else. Certainly he should know what he's talking about, but he needs to convince people who don't know what he's talking about. Many with strongly held pre-conceived notions about what's wrong and right. Open-minds seem to be in short supply these days. If he breathes the words "raise taxes", he's toast. It is not up to me to decide if he is liberal, it is up to the press and the voters. He will certainly be called liberal in Allen's TV ads. and with no money to fight back, the label will stick. But why do you liberals not like being called liberal? I don't mind being called conservative.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 15, 2006 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Mike Brooks -- I agree with you that Webb is a moderate, as did Will and several others. that's why we think he's a good candidate. Most Democrats are actually pretty moderate buddy - I certainly am. I'm just a "raging moderate," as Al Gore used to say. Sounds like you are too - which you should be proud of IMO.

Posted by: Colin | June 15, 2006 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Drindl, Oh please! What the right is doing, engauging in personal attacks, using fear, etc., etc., is no different than what you on the left have been doing for years. A long time before Rove and Bush used the yellow-orange-red-green idiot "terrorist alert lights" to scare the bejesus out of them and cause them to come runnning to "daddy" Bush, the left was using flat out lies about guns to frighten them into voting for you. There really is a moderate middle in this country and many of us are mad as hell and mean to take it back. The discussion about Senator Webb after my post identifying him as a moderate says it all -- both the left and right wing "lurkers" here attacked it and him as being too liberal or too conservative. When the lunies from both fringes attack, you have to know you are in the right place!

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 15, 2006 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Funny how downstaters couldn't prevent two Dems in a row from winning the governorship of the state. Yep, too bad us NoVA moonbats pushed Kaine into office last year. Perhaps it will have to be up to NoVA to elect Webb; certainly NoVA allowed Kaine to be sitting in the governor's seat in Richmond, and not Zoukster's wingnut candidate.

Funny how Zoukster's version of liberal includes most of what's left of the moderate wing of the GOP. To paraphrase Frasier from Cheers: "Zoukster, what color is the sky in Zoukland?"

Posted by: vienna local | June 15, 2006 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"Dems typically raise their money in large chunks from wealthy patrons. Rs get thiers from normal citizens in smaller amounts."

Are you kidding me? Howard Dean ring a bell? I believe George Bush has made a killing on big money donations.

Webb will have a chance, but I think Allen is probably too good of a campainger and fundraiser for Webb to win. Mark Warner would need to help big time in order to get Webb elected.

Posted by: H.L. | June 15, 2006 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Zouk-

"gun control is irrelevant, but I wouldn't call that a Dem stance for good reason - NRA ($$) is based here in Fairfax."

I absolutely agree. That's why Webb's position on gun control would not hurt him, as it would if he were pro gun control. As Noonan points out in her article that's largely a dead issue nationally; it's definitely one in Virginia. This is one reason I like Webb, he is not beholden to the Democratic Party Platform. He is an independent thinker who can hold "left" and "right" views on issues. I like that.

"enforcement on immigration - same as Allen I suppose."

Has yet to be seen. As with gun control, Webb has the electable position (as well as the right one, in my opinion).

What might distinguish the two is that Webb established himself in the primary as protectionist towards American jobs whereas Allen has cosponsored two bills to increase the amount of H-2B Visas. He also cosponsored S2109 to increase H-1B visas. I'm not making an evaluative statement about these votes, I'm pointing out that Allen has a history of increasing the amount foreign-workers in the country. We'll see if this is truly a distinction. I think it might be.

"women's right to choose (to kill her baby) is a dead issue here, we have enacted constraints on this and most voters are not all riled up about this."

It wasn't "dead" when Kaine, who explicitly said he would not sign a bill outlawing abortion, defeated Kilgore, who would have signed such a bill. So the voters were presented with a clear choice on abortion and, gasp, they chose the pro-choice candidate.

I think Webb will do very well among military voters.

Posted by: Will in Texas | June 15, 2006 3:24 PM | Report abuse

king of zouk wrote, "Dems typically raise their money in large chunks from wealthy patrons. Rs get theirs from normal citizens in smaller amounts."

Funny, funny, thank you for that kofz; a little laughter is good for the heart!

Posted by: Jason | June 15, 2006 2:57 PM | Report abuse

KOZ -- Name one Democrat, other than Joe Lieberman, who you don't consider a "liberal." Just one. I dare you. Anyone at all? And they have to still be alive. After you realize you can't think of any, maybe you'll start to realize why your opinion regarding whether a candidate is or is not a liberal doesn't mean much.

On a more substantive front, this was a very interesting post CC. I hadn't actually broken down what the battle-ground districts in the state were, but looking at your analysis I am even more encouraged about Webb's chanced - if he can raise the $ he needs. Should be interesting...

Posted by: Colin | June 15, 2006 2:54 PM | Report abuse

That level? You mean like actually discussing the issues? See what I mean, folks? Faced with the facts republicans attack and call names and invent distractions.

You are a phony, zouk, a hopeless liar.

Webb is a military hero, Allen is a psychotic. I guess Viriginians will choose which of those they prefer.

Posted by: Drindl | June 15, 2006 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Ignoring moonbats! not getting drawn down to that level anymore. give ann coulter a try.

RMill - Doesn't NJ always say that and then end up electing a DEM. they have such a high tax rate it is a no win situation for anyone to go in there. Can't provide the services without raising taxes. Can't get elected if you tell the truth.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 15, 2006 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Funny how republicans never respond to questions. All they do is attack the questioner. Let me ask again, how is Webb a liberal? Here's a bit of his bio:

'In government, Mr. Webb served in the U.S. Congress as counsel to the House Committee on Veterans Affairs from l977 to l98l, becoming the first Vietnam veteran to serve as a full committee counsel in the Congress. During the Reagan Administration he was the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs from l984 to l987, where he directed considerable research and analysis of the U.S. military's mobilization capabilities and spent much time with our NATO allies. In 1987 he became the first Naval Academy graduate in history to serve in the military and then become Secretary of the Navy. He resigned from that position in 1988 after refusing to agree in the reduction of the Navy's force structure during congressionally-mandated budget cuts.'
'
Now, tell me again that he's a 'classic liberal,' zouk. Are you clinically insane?


Posted by: Drindl | June 15, 2006 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Will in TX, please contribute the maximum, it will drain your potential to effect a race elsewhere that might be close.
the candidates need to differ on an issue to make it a deciding factor. gun control is irrelevant, but I wouldn't call that a Dem stance for good reason - NRA ($$) is based here in Fairfax.
and actually Va has the wealthiest and most educated suburb in the country. the median house price in NOVA is about 500K. we are traditionally anti-tax here. we elected a governor solely on his promise to eliminate the despised personal property tax. We stopped the new governor (who promised not to raise taxes and immediately tried - typical d) from raiding our bank.
enforcement on immigration - same as Allen I suppose.
women's right to choose (to kill her baby) is a dead issue here, we have enacted constraints on this and most voters are not all riled up about this. It will boil down to a one issue race. But we have a very heavy military population here (home of the Pentagon and Newport news shipyard). Northrop Grumman is the biggest private employer. Now there are certainly some ex-military and currently serving who may vote for Webb. but there is the rest of downstate which will never, ever go D. so it is up to NOVA if webb will purvail. a tall order. allen was pretty well-liked as a governor and is rolling in dough. this is not Seattle and as far as I know Kos doesn't have a PAC. It is not the cost of raising the money that is the issue with fundraising, it is the individual limitations. that's why its called hard money - hard to raise. allen will turn on the corporate and PAC machines and coast to victory after much silly speculation. Dems typically raise their money in large chunks from wealthy patrons. Rs get thiers from normal citizens in smaller amounts. Are the national Dems going to pick this as their battleground? I hope they do. It will be the like the third battle of Manassas (bull run to you oppressive Yankees). Being up the hill and dug in works well.
Prediction 3 - Allen will win in a walk 55%
Score so far:
Zouk 1
Moonbats 0
funny how your middle is most people's uber-left. a matter of perspective I suppose.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 15, 2006 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Re liberalhawk's comment: I find it interesting that unlike Ned Lamont, Lieberman can't find it in himself to pledge to support the Democratic nominee in November. That's not the kind of Democrat I'd want in my party.

Posted by: Brad Johnson | June 15, 2006 2:16 PM | Report abuse

I just read the village idiot's take on it. What a laugh. Webb is a 'classic' liberal. Personally chosen by Ronald Reagan to serve in his administration. So was Reagan a 'classic liberal' too?

My how they love their historical revisionism.

Posted by: Drindl | June 15, 2006 2:12 PM | Report abuse

There sure is a lot of bizarre misinformation out there...
'Mr. Webb's primary opponent was a left wing ideologue '? No, he was a corporate lobbyist.

You see, what we 'left-wing lunatics' want are non-corrupt, competent candidates who won't pick our pockets and put cameras in our bedrooms.

A lot of us are pretty flexible on positions, but less government intrusion and more accountability are key.

Posted by: Drind; | June 15, 2006 2:10 PM | Report abuse

New Jersey is repeatedly called the most endangered Democratic incumbant in the US Senate for mid-term 2006 (Rothernberg, Sabato).

I don't know, there are lots of Dems in NJ. They are far from enamoured of Menedez (or Gov. Corzine for that matter) but the alternative doesn't seemingly excite either.

Posted by: RMill | June 15, 2006 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Fortunately, Zouk doesn't appear to be able vote in VA. My wife and I didn't vote in the primary either. One of us voted for Bush in 2000. Both of us supported the invasion of Afghanistan, as well as the invasion of Iraq, until we found out we were duped, along with the rest of the country. All been downhill from there, I'm afraid. Count 2 more for Webb.

Posted by: vienna local | June 15, 2006 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Fortunately, Zouk doesn't appear to be able vote in VA. My wife and I didn't vote in the primary either. One of us voted for Bush in 2000. Both of us supported the invasion of Afghanistan, as well as the invasion of Iraq, until we found out we were duped, along with the rest of the country. All been downhill from there, I'm afraid. Count 2 more for Webb.

Posted by: vienna local | June 15, 2006 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Zouk-

Noonan highlights one of his conservative positions: support for the 2nd amendment. Webb also supports enforcement first on immigration, which is a conservative (and important) issue.

He supports a woman's right to choose. Did this hurt the current Virginia Governer?

He is against tax cuts for the super wealthy. You might think this makes him a super liberal, but I'm of the opinion that when Webb gets out and speaks on the issue he's going to demand a lot of respect seeing as how the vast majority of Virginia, and this country, are not super wealthy.

I cannot wait for Webb to speak out on Iraq. He truly will outclass any and all opposition on this issue. It's going to be very entertaining.

Go Webb.

I'm contributing to the Webb campaign from Texas because it represents a potential victory for the middle. This race has implications outside the great state of Virginia and I urge you all to treat it as such.

Posted by: Will in Texas | June 15, 2006 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Liberalhawk - please take your party back, we can use the honest competition.

RMill - does anyone think Kean stands a chance? doesn't look like it will be easy for him. Mendacious will probably win reelection, an easy thing to do these days, thanks to those paragons of speech rights - McCain and Feingold.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 15, 2006 1:48 PM | Report abuse

So, if Webb is backed by Kos, that means he can outraise someone with more traditional fundraising, since web-based fundraising and email-based fundraising brings in far more money for little cost, especially if it's a GOP seat likely to tip Dem.

Does that mean the GOP are going to surrender?

Posted by: Will in Seattle | June 15, 2006 1:47 PM | Report abuse

FYI

Quinnipiac Poll
NJ US Senate
June 7-13, 2006
Menendez (D)* 43%
Kean Jr. (R) 36%

This is up slightly from a 40% - 34% lead Menendez held in an April 18-24 Quinnipiac poll.

Posted by: RMill | June 15, 2006 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Another classic Lib takes a shot at the brass ring. Whoever said he is a moderate? Read Peggy Noonan, she is much more literate than I.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110008516

Allen will clean his clock. Just look at the money disparity for one. Even the WaPo, bastion of liberal efforts, is timid about this one. Of course they will eventually endorse him. We don't elect libs here in VA. those tired old Dem ideas have worn very thin. Exactly what do you all stand for now? Minimum wage, big G, more taxes and losing wars. no wonder you keep losing elections (2 this year, OH and CA). so much for gaining back a house of Congress.

Posted by: king of zouk | June 15, 2006 1:35 PM | Report abuse

"The future Senator Webb is, in fact, a moderate and deserves to win out over the fruitcakes from the left and the right"

Do people actually believe this? Maybe this misinformation is why Webb won on Tuesday.

Harris Miller was no fruitcake of the left, but sound, Democrat with sensible programs, very much in the Clintonian mold. Webb on the other hand, is a one issue candidate, who is backed by Kos and his followers, the same folks who want to purge Joe Lieberman from the Democratic party.

Taking one deeply held left position, and pasting it on to right wing beliefs, and then leavening with the support of Leftwing bloggers, doth not a moderate make.

At this point I dont think I will cast a vote for Senate in November. Count the Dems down 1.

Posted by: liberalhawk | June 15, 2006 1:31 PM | Report abuse

The future Senator Webb is, in fact, a moderate and deserves to win out over the fruitcakes from the left and the right. Senatir ALlen is a right wing fanatic and Mr. Webb's primary opponent was a left wing ideologue. Maybe, just maybe, the American people are waking up to the fact that the fanatics and lunatics that run both major politcial parties are not healthy for this country and this may be the beginning of a movement to be rid of them. Now, if we can just find some way of getting Bill Richardson to run for President....

Posted by: Mike Brooks | June 15, 2006 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Interesting take but where are the polls? Also If Webb doesn't want to do the whole fundraising thing (Not that I blame him) then he should call Warner and get him to make some in-roads for him.
Another thing is if the DSCC has all this money we keep hearing about, then why don't they start using it.
The fact that Allen is already spending 900K is very telling on how his campaign really feels about a Webb challenge.

Posted by: Andy R | June 15, 2006 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company