Don't Underestimate Jim Webb

In some ways, I find Jim Webb a fascinating throwback of a politician.  He's a Democrat through his populism, but really his overiding philosophy is an odd hodgepodge of old-fashioned populism with a streak of conservative, muscle-flexing foriegn policy.  He is perhaps the last true Reagan Demcorat who is still a Democrat. 

I see so many of us writing him off, assuming he doesn't want to be in the Senate.  I wondering if its not the opposite.   I think Webb actually does enjoy the Senate, he just doesn't enjoy campaigning.  Webb's politics are hard to campaign against in many respects, because he's pro-gun and doesn't come across as particularly strident in any positions.  His military background and sterling accomplishments in Vietnam give him a built-in credibility with a lot of Virginians that its hard to fight.

I see George Allen going with the tried and true "he votes with the Washington liberals" line, but I think that is lazy and I hope Sen. Allen, should he be the nominee, consider a different course of attack.  The contrast between the two in 2006 was startling and its still there.  While Allen certainly made big mistakes, when voters looked at Webb they were impressed I think by his past.  He's hard to really campaign against.  Rather than campaigning against Webb as a typical "Washington liberal," which he is not, our candidate must articulate a competing vision of the role of government in our lives and use that to hammer Webb with.  Yes, we must hang the four years of Democrat overrule around his neck, but that can't be it alone. 

Senator Webb will be a formidable candidate if he runs again.  I hope all Republicans realize this.

Comments

[Shaun Kenney]

Well put.

[The Donkey]

Naw.

Y'all should take him for granted.

[local gop]

I agree, and I hope someone runs that actually stands a chance...the current slate is not very impressive.

[novasucks]

Webb is weak, but so is the rest of the Democrat bench. (Please, Democrats, bore us with Tim Kaine or Creigh Deeds again--or nominate that kid Perriello. Wanna nominate your other one-termer Nye? How about Massachusetts liberal Gerry Connolly? Go for it! I don't suspect
Rick Boucher would fare much better.)

Webb hasn't raised much money, he hasn't accomplished much in the Senate, and neither he nor his staff have tried to connect with voters. Because he voted for ObamaCare, it won't be that difficult to tie him to Obama/Pelosi/Reid.

I have twice contacted Webb's office, and both times I have received completely generic email responses that did not even mention the issue I raised. But my emails did achieve one thing: I now receive his spam, which, of course, I did not request. By way of comparison, I previously contacted Republican John Warner and got a two-page letter in the mail from him on the issue I raised. And, it should be noted, that I contacted him late in his last term--when his office had no need to court my support.

But Webb, should he run, should also be attacked for being an opportunist. He was a Democrat when that was popular, then he became a Republican when that was popular, then he switched back to being a Democrat when it served his purpose. I'm only surprised that he hasn't tried to claim to be a Republican again.

I do appreciate Webb's service to the country, but military service alone isn't sufficient to merit elected office.

[Not Dick Cheney]

So much for not underestimating Webb. If novasucks' attitude is widespread among Republicans and George Allen is the Republican nominee I would bet on Webb winning a second term,

[novasucks]

NDC, if Webb is so strong then why did he barely win against Allen in a massively anti-Republican year? Webb's poll numbers are well below 50%, and his favorability is at 43%. Furthermore, Webb, if he runs, will have to run with Obama at the top of the ticket. Of course, Obama is polling at well below 50% in Virginia now too. I think it's pretty clear right now that the 2008 Virginia elections were a fluke that won't be repeated again in 2012.

Although I'd prefer another candidate, I do think Allen has a good chance of reclaiming his seat if he wins the nomination and runs a strong campaign. Had Allen run a strong campaign in 2006, the WaPo wouldn't have been able to derail him with their crusade against him.

[Not Dick Cheney]

"NDC, if Webb is so strong then why did he barely win against Allen in a massively anti-Republican year?"

novasucks, is that a serious question? Really? Are you seriously saying that Webb's margin of victory in 2006 was a sign of weakness? You must be kidding.

Yes, 2006 was a terrible year for the Republican Party. A year in which one expected many vulnerable Republicans to go down to defeat. But absolutely no one considered Allen to be vulnerable. Quite the opposite. Allen was considered a shoo-in for re-election. No one saw him losing.

Allen had more then ten million in the bank and 100% name recognition and had won two previous statewide campaigns. Webb had never run for elected office before. He didn't get into the race until February and he had no money whatsoever to challenge a massively well financed incumbent. By no objective standard should this have been a competitive race.

It is hard to understand how you could interpret Webb winning by 10,000 votes as somehow a weak showing. Hell, if Webb had won by only ten votes rather than ten thousand it would still have been a stunning victory. And it is a huge miscalculation to attribute the outcome to macacca or the Washington Post or other tangential factors without being hardheadedly realistic about the main factor in the outcome which was the relative quality of the two candidates.

Webb won because the people of Virginia decided that Webb was the better man for the job. You can argue that macacca may have caused some of them to take a closer look at Webb which gave them the opportunity to like what they saw and might not have otherwise paid attention to. And certainly macacca gave Webb the chance to raise sufficient money to define himself to the voters rather than having only Allen's depiction of Webb which he had millions of dollars to disseminate. But there is no denying that Webb had strong support because people looked at him and liked what they saw.

I think you are making my point. And doing exactly what Chris is cautioning against in his post. You are underestimating Jim Webb and making all sorts of excuses for Allen's poor showing that completely ignore the core reason for his defeat in 2006.

[local weeny]

Webb just macaca'd his future with his vote to support ObamaCare.

[Not Dick Cheney]

"Webb just macaca'd his future with his vote to support ObamaCare."

Hardly. Step out of the right wing echo chamber for a moment and take a few breaths of objective air.

For anyone other than those cherry picking polls to support their position and those creatively wording polls to achieve a result that supports their position it is pretty clear that the country is pretty well split on the health care law. And repeal clearly doesn't have majority support.

Objective voters who are persuadable in next year's Senate election tend to be the type who pay attention to issues rather than just drink in one sided sources that reinforce the opinions they currently hold. This type of voter probably understands that the status quo was completely unsustainable and that something needed to be done. They may not be crazy about the law, but they may see it as better than continuing with the status quo. And since the Republicans haven't provided any idea what the "Replace" portion of their "Repeal and Replace" rhetoric might look like (other than standard blather about tort reform as if that is a significant answer) these voters have little reason for enthusiasm about repealing the existing law.

Obviously not voting for the republican political theater of "Obamacare Repeal" is not going to hurt Webb with the voters who would be expected to vote for him in any event. And while the whole repeal thing is nothing more than an attempt to create an issue for the next election I think it is doubtful that this will be a major issue in 2012.

The bulk of voters are still very much concerned with economic issues. So far the priorities of the Republicans in Congress have been the repeal of health insurance reform and redefining rape so that women who are raped when drugged or are underage when raped or are mentally deficient when raped won't have their abortions paid for or subsidized in any way by tax dollars.

in other words, the Republicans are ignoring the concerns of the voters who increased their numbers and are behaving like idiots without a clue.

If elected Republicans keep behaving this way i am afraid 2012 is going to be a very disappointing year.

[Chanel Replica Watches]

There is no mechanism to resolve strategic disagreements between Mr Huang and Bain Capital, or clarity over his ability or desire to retain his Gome holding

[chloe]

Chloe Handbags affect most women’s feeling. Chloe Bag is catching with soft leather and elegant style. Chloe is a brand of well-deserved reputation and there is no question about it. http://www.discountchloe.com

[Jordan Shoe]

Do i really have the sense of mourning the loss of my youth and confusing about my future?