Newsweek Inadvertently Exposes Hapless Dems

In a fit of rapture over newly elected Democrat Jim Webb, going so far as to speculate that he might be presidential ticket material for team D, Newsweek's Johnathan Alter left the lede at the bottom of this piece. Too bad those who might appreciate it most will likely never get to the bottom of Alter's little Webb romance.

A Powerful Response
Jim Webb tore up his party's playbook—and helped point the Democrats in a new direction.

Alter also failed to point out that a poll Webb used to claim the military doesn't support the war actually favors increasing troop numbers, as proposed by Bush - that item at bottom.

You can almost hear Alter's breathing grow heavy as he pants his way through a half dozen longish paragraphs on the heroic and suddenly presidential Jim Webb. Unfortunately, perhaps lost in admiration, Alter made the critical error of allowing just a bit of reality to slip in at the end.

Could this help land Webb on the 2008 ticket? Maybe, though he was a stiff and unsmiling candidate in Virginia and he's been married three times. The problem with the populist theme is that Democrats have no real remedies for the effects of globalization on the middle class. And they are not yet entirely clear on what should be done in Iraq. But at a minimum, Jim Webb offered a timely reminder that great political parties can recover if they strike the right tone.

Four years into a war they've practically opposed from the start and still no alternate plan. Ten or perhaps twenty years into globalization, and again the Democrats have no plan. But don't worry America, they may have finally found the right tone? How grand!

Tone is great if you're an musician, but eight years of Clinton sounding the right tone while America drifted lackadaisically through an increasingly economically challenging and militarily dangerous world didn't get the job done. And despite his inability to control his slobbering over Webb, even Alter was forced to admit that the Democrats who have been running everything in America down for 6 years have absolutely nothing to offer America as an alternative for running America at all: not the right tone, not even a plan.

No wonder Alter buried his lede at the end.

Alter also might have pointed out that his new Webb flame turns out to be something of an obfuscater when it comes to the truth. He claimed a majority of the military doesn't support the effort in Iraq, that's untrue.

Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now.

Either way, Webb's claim is false based upon the disclaimer with the poll.

The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole;

Pity that with age Webb has turned into one of the spineless types he denounced in his youth, going so far as to protest amnesty for draft dodgers during Vietnam. Like most, I've heard old soldiers never die. I guess it's possible that some who don't fade away, simply lose their nerve.

The majority of the American people never truly bought the antiwar movement’s logic. While it is correct to say many wearied of an ineffective national strategy as the war dragged on, they never stopped supporting the actual goals for which the United States and South Vietnam fought. As late as September 1972, a Harris survey indicated overwhelming support for continued bombing of North Vietnam – 55 percent to 32 percent – and for mining North Vietnamese harbors – 64 percent to 22 percent. By a margin of 74 percent to 11 percent, those polled also agreed that “it is important that South Vietnam not fall into the control of the communists.”

Comments

[Bill Adkins]

"Republicans have no real remedies for the effects of globalization on the middle class. And they are not yet entirely clear on what should be done in Iraq." And they've been in charge for six long miserable years with a record of failure and incomptence unparalleled in American History. Four years into a war Bush lied us into from the start and still no plan but for the stuck on stupid/stay the failed course plan.

If not for George W. Bush, Carter would still be the worst president in American History.

[seekeronos]

Jim Webb would be the Hugo Chavez of the USA: A big, fat, rude, populist pain in the neck. But unlike Hugo, he is without the sex appeal*.

No way would he be on field for 2008, especially with competition in the field like Hillary. A long stretch for 2012, assuming Queen Hillary doesn't make her second term, and quite possible for 2016.

*Disclaimer: But then again, he likes writing novels with bizzarre sexual references... so he just might invite Hugo on over to Blue Room and do the nekkid jello dance with Hugo whilst they wear tiger-striped thongs. He seems kinda freaky like that.

[Bill Adkins]

Jim Webb - American hero, Vietnam Veteran, former Republican, now true to Reagan Democrat, attended Annapolis on merit.

George Bush - American disaster, ran from Vietnam and Alabama, would be reason Ronald Reagan would return to Democrat party today if he were still alive, attended party school as legacy and received Cs as such.

Wow. Which one is most impressive? To thinking individuals, Webb is superior. To idiots and Republicans, they sign up with Bush. They hope Bush will share his blow with them.

[Artie]

You sheep just cant get over Macaca imploding, huh? You 28% asshats are truly laughable.

[seekeronos]

Some general once said that you try to win a war with what you have, and not with what you wish you had...

Applying that to 2000 and 2004, Bush was the best bet. I won't debate the particulars of Gore and Kerry, other than to say that they probably would have left the USA a far more dangerous place for us (with regard to terrorists bullying us about) than Bush, or rather, his advisors and statesmen, have left us.

But this is 2008 - I do not see how the Bush/Webb comparison is relevant.

That said, I would be deluded if I said that Bush hasn't made some grade-A mistakes.

What exact mistakes he made, we would differ on greatly... yet, he has some acumen that both you and I do not have in order to be POTUS, and where he lacks, he has selected talented advisors to help.

However, if I had to choose one fault at the expense of another, I'd much rather have a moderately intelligent President who knew how to communicate well.

Reagan _was_ that president.

Concerning the Webb-Reagan comparison...

Is Webb "smart"? I'd say so.

Is he a "hero"? By my definition of the word, he would be - serving during war time in a combat zone.

Is he a "Reagan Democrat" ? This is subjective, but I do not think his views are in line with mny ideals. He is a big government statist; he espouses a number of liberal talking points I disagree with; he would probably like to tax me until I bled white.

Is he "superior"? Only in his own mind. In fact, I'd say he has some serious moral issues:

I fear a man who writes nasty little stories about fathers doing perverted, sickening things to thier sons that should never see print, much less light of day. "As a man thinketh in his heart, so he is" - a paraphrase from the Bible, but terribly true.

[Legalize]

It's good to see that while the car, driven by the administration, is still falling over the cliff, said drivers are still asking the backseat passengers: "so, what's your plan"?

"Pity that with age Webb has turned into one of the spineless types he denounced in his youth, going so far as to protest amnesty for draft dodgers during Vietnam. Like most, I've heard old soldiers never die. I guess it's possible that some who don't fade away, simply lose their nerve."

Or in your case, never had spine, never had nerve, never lifted a finger to fight for what is the most "important cause since WWII." But just for the sake of argument, who has more credibility on this issue:

(a) A military man, WHO HAS ACTUALLY SEEN COMBAT; who served as secretary of the Navy under Reagan; who comes from a distinguished line of Marines; coupled with a LAUNDRY LIST of men and women with similar credentials, on both sides of the aisel; OR

(b) An administration, utterly devoid of members who have EVER served (except Colin Powell who was shouted down, and who has stated in public that escalation is a disaster); and a group of dishonet and incopetent, sanctimonious and smug, lazy and grossly out of shape, bloggers, who have also never served, and have no demonstrable experience / credibile commenting on or analyzing military affairs.

The fact that you would decry ANYONE as being "spineless," while you yourself will never sacrifice ANYTHING is obscene. Apologize to the troops you have insulted and hate.

[Crust]

seekeronos: On Bush v. Gore in 2000. If Gore was president, he wouldn't have invaded Iraq and would have done something about reducing energy dependence (and therefore terrorist financing). Just think how better off we would be in terms of our fiscal position and America's credibility, to say nothing of lives lost, if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Who knows for sure, but my hunch is Gore would have said no to the useless ceasfire at Tora Bora and gotten bin Laden rather than let him escape. Gore was one of very few people right on both Iraq Wars from the get go (for the first one, against the second), which is part of what gives me confidence in his judgement here. I also think Gore would have cottoned on to the pre-9/11 intelligence (bin Laden + planes memo, etc.) much more than Bush; so there's a chance 9/11 would have been prevented in the first place. He also would have taken revenge for the Cole attacks, unlike Bush.

Kerry in 2004, less of a radical difference. The damage was largely already done or set in motion by then. Still, we wouldn't be pulling troops away from Afghanistan (where they might still make a difference) to send them to Iraq (where they won't). And of course, my comments on judgement above would lead you to the opposite conclusion than for Gore.

[TheSpartan]

Why is Webb writing about something her saw such a big deal? Much ado about nothing.

[Stormy70]

Gore did diddly squat for the 8 years he was Vice President. All he does now is fly around the world preaching his enviro-religion and refusing to debate anyone on it. All of you must be voting for McCain for President as he is the one who served in active combat, or will you change the goalposts again?

Poor little lefties, noone takes you or your facile arguments seriously. We just laugh at you. But keep posting your 1000 word comments on a blog you despise, because you are cracking me up.

The Senate will kill all your legislation, anyway. For example, the minimum wage bill will have tax cuts attached to it, and the Dems will be dragged into it kicking and screaming. It is fun to be the minority, when you can stick it to such stellar people as Woman-killer Kennedy and Hang-em High Byrd. I am making popcorn.

[Michael Douglas' Ghost]

Speaking of killers, boyfriend-murderer Laura Bush looked particularly demented last night. That permasmile really makes her look like The Joker! Wow!!

[TheSpartan]

Webb is a former Marine, not a soldier. Get it right or he'll come for you next.

[scarshapedstar]

Tone is great if you're an musician, but eight years of Clinton sounding the right tone while America drifted lackadaisically through an increasingly economically challenging and militarily dangerous world didn't get the job done.

As opposed to a man with a fake accent and a 4-hour workday who threw our military to the carrion birds and let a bunch of inbred yokels, who think Jesus carved out the Grand Canyon last Tuesday with the help of his pet dinosaur, demolish the foundation of our scientific prowess.

Let's not forget his decision to take a pile of money the size of the moon -- enough to fund the National Science Foundation for over a thousand years, by the very most ludicrously conservative (heh) estimate -- which could very likely have funded a Manhattan Project style initiative to make it so that we never have to look at some piece of shit Saudi kleptocrat again, much less send them hundreds of billions of dollars... and set it on fire.

Yes, he got the job done. And it was a job that everyone said was impossible! I certainly remember hearing throughout my childhood that nobody could ever destroy this country because we were the greatest democracy in history. Oh well.

Mission Accomplished!

[Legalize]

"All of you must be voting for McCain for President as he is the one who served in active combat, or will you change the goalposts again?"

Which goal posts? Oh, you mean that argument that chickenhawks aren't especially qualified or credible when it comes to proffering arguments about "moral courage" in the face of the greatest threat this generation has ever known? No, genius, the point that you are clearly missing is that non-cultists don't tend to fetishize militarism or paint themselves as participants in a "war," while, you know, sitting behind our keyboards in our parents' basements between shifts at Wendy's.

"Poor little lefties, noone takes you or your facile arguments seriously."

Except for, like, 75% of the country, professor. Last time I checked, you lost - big time. But by all means, pretend that you have a mandate, and please do so loudly and in public.

"We just laugh at you. But keep posting your 1000 word comments on a blog you despise, because you are cracking me up."

That's good news; hopefully you will remain distracted by your deluded sense of self-importance and hypocrisy for the next two years. If posting on an irrelevant blog helps acheive that goal, I for one, am happy to do my part. And yes, I would like fries with that.

[Stormy70]

But you see, the chicken hawk argument has been beat into the ground and only exposes someone who brings it up as a self-important poseur. It is a tired and trite point. Get thee to Afghanistan if you are so concerned about being intellectually pure. The rest of us see it as the distraction it is, used when a liberal has no leg to stand on in a debate.
You do get 6.5 points for creative use of liberal condescension. I've had better, if you must know. You couldn't handle my milkshake by the way.

[nova]

Lets hear some comments on this fact. If Hillary Clinton is elected Prez she will be following a Bush who followed a Clinton who followed a Bush. Am I the only person who see something terribly wrong with this.;
I mean is this USA an oligarchy or what? I dont think it is right and I wish more people would begin to talk about this as a major concern.

[nova]

Also let us not forget that there has not been a terrorist attack like 9-11-01 in the USA since 9-11-01. That is what is important to me. I will vote for whoever is the best at keeping the terrorists out of this country and thwarting their efforts to plan and carry out another 9-11 type attack. I think that person would be John McCain. Who do you think it would be?

[larry]

aaaaand, just to recap, webb is still a no-class ass who thinks he's a badass. ("i'll kick the president's ass!") the contemptible lefty vermin still seek and are actively working for defeat in iraq & all other points - just as they were instructed to do back in school - and 'legalize' continues droning ever onward, rather like one of those 'white noise' machines people use at night to help them sleep. nothing new here. situation normal.

[MikeW]

Legalize,

You mentioned a few things above in your 12:56 post. I don't know you, so I don't know if you've served in the military. If so, thank you. If not, then maybe your negative commentary about other bloggers not being willing to do their part is particularly snide. Either way, let me inform you that I am certainly one soldier to whom previous posters supporting our efforts in ALL facets of the GWOT do not have to apologize. Let me correct that on one point. I am a retired soldier now, and I was at various times in my career assigned to positions that called for me to do wartime planning, etc. So, I do know a bit about military tactics, operations, and strategy. Do you? If you do, we can debate that. If not, then your previous comments about characterizing others here as a "group of dishonet (sic)and incopetent(sic), sanctimonious and smug, lazy and grossly out of shape, bloggers, who have also never served, and have no demonstrable experience / credibile (sic) commenting on or analyzing military affairs." have ZERO merit. BY the way, I still maintain affiliations with military business, so I am current with those matters.

While I believe that mistakes have certainly been made, these operations are, as many have stated before, complex. We always commented about wartime operations plans thusly: a plan is good right up until the time it is implemented. Then all hell breaks loose and you have to shift gears on the fly. Anybody not understanding that, especially in terms of wartime operations, is an idiot. This isn't being done in a pristine environment, nor an area completely in peace. Go figure; somebody doesn't want Iraq to succeed, lest it upset their plans - the nature of the conflict, you know. I believe that given a change in the ROE, with support from (and/or no interference by) the Iraqi government, will work. The insurgency and AL Qaeda cannot beat our military in a head to head matchup. Even with all going well, it is still going to take time to ensure the government there is on its feet. Whether you want to believe it or not, we had to endure the same growing pains (comparatively) when we were a young nation - with a lot of space and time separating us from our antagonists.

As to your comments about an administration devoid of members who have EVER served, one need only look to the previous administration. I do recall so many that stated that lack of service wasn't a disqualifier for the Commander in Chief. Why would it be so terrible for others who didn't have responsibility to prosecute a war? Besides, our Commander in Chief did serve in the military, despite the snarky comments by a lot of people.

Those members of Congress who have publicly castigated strategy (which for me has the effect of absolutely NOT SUPPORTING the military men and women doing their missions) and who have, in doing so, effectively supported the propaganda mill for the enemy, should shamefully depart the Congress. The time to debate troop deployment is before it is done. Once troops are committed, however, that debate (at least publicly) needs to cease. If there are disagreements about strategy, they need to be discussed or dealt with outside the public forum. You always provide a united public face to your enemies. I certainly believe that the current majority party in Congress has exploited our military in their pursuit of political gain. In that pursuit, I place Mr. Webb as an opportunist. I care not that he believes as he does excpet that it is clearly exploited by ourenemy. I care more about how his son sees things.

Have I a connection to this conflict (actually a declared war, if you ask Senator Biden)? Yes. My younger brother returned from Ramadi, Iraq this summer, and I have a nephew who will surely be going this year. I was already retired prior to 9/11; however, I would go their without any hesitation or reservations if called upon to do so. You may not think so; but then again, you aren't me and you don't know me. Therefore, you can't legitimately comment against that. Have a good day all.

[Terry Gain]

Did Jim Webb try to deceive an entire nation about whether he has hair?

[nova]

We really need to have two years of some kind of "service' for all. If not military then some other form of service to the country. No exceptions.

[Scrapiron]

I'll agree with only one thing Weeabb has ever said. He wants President Bush to end the Iraqi war the way Eisenhower ended the Korean War. That would require the president to immediately send a high ranking official with the power to carry out the promise to visit Iraq and Syria. He would deliver only one message as Eisenhower did to China. You have 72 hours to remove all of your people (terrorists) out of Iraq and also stop all support of the terrorists. If you fail to comply with this request and we see one shipment of weapons cross the border the Nuclear missiles and bombs will start falling at 0800 Monday morning. Streight forward and exactly what Eisenhower promised China. Maybe he gave them 96 hours.

How many of you agree with Weeabb and me on this?

[Charles Warren]

Riehl whines that the Democrats don't have a plan for taming globalization. Actually he is wrong. Some very good stuff is coming out of the Economic Policy Institute.

But of course he misses the point entirely. The majority party is the party that perceives and responds to the security anxiety of the time. The party that tries to condescendingly blow off people's security anxieties is punished for it. Just as the GOP only responded to the Great Depression with Horatio Alger sermons, just as the Democrats responded to crime and cultural anarchy with lectures about 'racism' and 'root causes', so the cheap labor/perpetual war WSJ editorial page Bushist agenda is an inadequate response to the pervasive economic anxiety and ceaseless downwards wage pressures created by free trade globalism. In all three cases, the winning party made Americans feel that even if they did not have all the answers to the problem, they at least acknowledged its existence and were on the side of the victim, which is a lot more than can be said for the party that sings praises to offshoring, outsourcing globalism.

[TheSpartan]

"Did Jim Webb try to deceive an entire nation about whether he has hair?"

Did George W. try to deceive an entire nation about whether he has balls?

[Terry Gain]

TheSpartan

GWB has more balls than surrender monkeys who don't have the intelligence to understand that what is at stake in Iraq is more important than their petty partisan ambitions or the cajones to admit that "redeployment" is a euphemism for surrender (to al Qaeda)

[Stormy70]

Bush has balls, that is what has been pissing off the Left. The Congress can't do anything but bitch and moan, since trying to cut off funding will be political suicide.

[Bill Adkins]

Bush has never had balls - he's always used someone else's - it started in the 'nam era and it continues to today. Bush has balls? And pigs fly Stealth bombers.

[Phoenix]

Mike W,

Thank you for that sanity.

[Terry Gain]

What was more dangerous:being a test pilot or a member of a Swift Boat crew.

[scarshapedstar]

Larry:

"webb is still a no-class ass who thinks he's a badass."

Shorter Larry:

"Marines are pussies."

Can we get that one on TV?

[TheSpartan]

The only time W even has the appearance of balls is when he's wearing his flight suit cod piece. Mary Cheney has more balls than he does.

[larry]

ah, ah, ah, scarshaped. this is yet another reason why liberal democrats are rightly mocked as mouth-breathing functional illiterates; whose intellect can support only what teacher tells them to believe. (and sadly lacking the balls to ever challenge or even question teachers dogma, btw).

*larry* never said "marines are pussies". that's what YOU said, actually. no doubt it's what you *wanted to believe* i said, so using your pea-shaped 'brain', you figured that was reality. have someone smart read it to you, dumbass: i've said *webb* is a pussy; i've said *liberal swine* are pussies; i might even someday say *you're*....well, i'm sure even you can puzzle that one out.

never once said a disparaging word about marines; or the usmc. i know teacher told you that all your wishes would come true - if you'd just vote as he instructed you to - but it hasn't happened here.

just like the tv you watch waaay too much of, right?

[scarshapedstar]

Okay, Larry, that's some very impressive pedantry. Now explain to me how a decorated combat veteran is less badass than yourself.

[TheSpartan]

Larry, you should have considered listening to what teacher had to say. If you had you might be able to string together a coherent sentence.