#1 Comment By gabriel On August 17, 2006 @ 11:06 am
No, no he doesn’t. Reason and intellect are undoubtedly needed. But what is needed still more is men & women of principle & virtue.
Frankly, I’m at a loss to why Webb’s status as an unabashed social liberal doesn’t give you at least some pause in endorsing him.
#2 Comment By Daniel Larison On August 17, 2006 @ 11:16 am
Mainly because I’ll take a veteran who seems to understand the national interests of this country over someone who seems like a clueless party line hack. But mainly the reason why I said “vote for Webb” was simply because anyone as snide and condescending towards an honourable man like Jim Webb as Allen was ought to be kicked out of office on general principle. I agree with your assessment. Perhaps I should have said Webb speaks the truth, rather than Webb says it all. Principle and virtue are important. Now, compare the two men and tell me who you really think has more of those two: the one who buckled and went along with Mr. Bush’s war, or the man who has actually served his country and has come back again to stop a ruinous war? I’m not trying to make this into a single-issue campaign. In my view, anyone who still supports the Iraq war at this point, knowing all that we know, is not a good public servant; he is a presidential yes-man. We could stand to have fewer of those in Congress.
Frankly, I’m a little puzzled by the priorities of people who keep voting the GOP line in the vague hope of overturning Roe v. Wade someday rather than holding them accountable for betraying every other principle they’ve ever espoused. Allen and the rest need to be held accountable. That Jim Webb isn’t perfect on a lot of things doesn’t make him a worse bet than George Allen. But, again, I don’t live in Virginia, so I probably shouldn’t have intervened by endorsing anybody. But in my view anybody who grew up comfortably in NOVA and wants to lecture a Vietnam vet on “the real world” has no business representing the people of Virginia.
#3 Comment By gabriel On August 17, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
Well, I’m to your right on the question of withdrawl from Iraq, but I largely agree with your critique of Allen. Still, this is a question of the least bad, which leads me to a point I made at [2] blog, which is that who we elect can have a far greater impact on the outcome of who gets on to the Supreme Court than what the outcome is in the Middle East.
If you favour immediate withdrawl, then the point is moderated somewhat. But still, a million children are killed in America every year. The Supreme Court is (probably) one vote away from both a pro-life and a sane-interpretation majority. Now, if Roe is overturned, we don’t win- but I’d bet about 100,000 children will live per year on account of it. So, yes, I’d vote for Allen.
Of course, it’s even more academic in my case, as I’m Canadian.
3 Comments To "Webb Says It All"
#1 Comment By gabriel On August 17, 2006 @ 11:06 am
No, no he doesn’t. Reason and intellect are undoubtedly needed. But what is needed still more is men & women of principle & virtue.
Frankly, I’m at a loss to why Webb’s status as an unabashed social liberal doesn’t give you at least some pause in endorsing him.
#2 Comment By Daniel Larison On August 17, 2006 @ 11:16 am
Mainly because I’ll take a veteran who seems to understand the national interests of this country over someone who seems like a clueless party line hack. But mainly the reason why I said “vote for Webb” was simply because anyone as snide and condescending towards an honourable man like Jim Webb as Allen was ought to be kicked out of office on general principle. I agree with your assessment. Perhaps I should have said Webb speaks the truth, rather than Webb says it all. Principle and virtue are important. Now, compare the two men and tell me who you really think has more of those two: the one who buckled and went along with Mr. Bush’s war, or the man who has actually served his country and has come back again to stop a ruinous war? I’m not trying to make this into a single-issue campaign. In my view, anyone who still supports the Iraq war at this point, knowing all that we know, is not a good public servant; he is a presidential yes-man. We could stand to have fewer of those in Congress.
Frankly, I’m a little puzzled by the priorities of people who keep voting the GOP line in the vague hope of overturning Roe v. Wade someday rather than holding them accountable for betraying every other principle they’ve ever espoused. Allen and the rest need to be held accountable. That Jim Webb isn’t perfect on a lot of things doesn’t make him a worse bet than George Allen. But, again, I don’t live in Virginia, so I probably shouldn’t have intervened by endorsing anybody. But in my view anybody who grew up comfortably in NOVA and wants to lecture a Vietnam vet on “the real world” has no business representing the people of Virginia.
#3 Comment By gabriel On August 17, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
Well, I’m to your right on the question of withdrawl from Iraq, but I largely agree with your critique of Allen. Still, this is a question of the least bad, which leads me to a point I made at [2] blog, which is that who we elect can have a far greater impact on the outcome of who gets on to the Supreme Court than what the outcome is in the Middle East.
If you favour immediate withdrawl, then the point is moderated somewhat. But still, a million children are killed in America every year. The Supreme Court is (probably) one vote away from both a pro-life and a sane-interpretation majority. Now, if Roe is overturned, we don’t win- but I’d bet about 100,000 children will live per year on account of it. So, yes, I’d vote for Allen.
Of course, it’s even more academic in my case, as I’m Canadian.