U.S. Senator Jim Webb gives the Democratic response to tonight’s State of the Union
address. This is Webb at his pre-inaugural party, footage by a campaign backer.
** WEBB SURGE. New Virginia Senator James Webb, the former secretary of the Navy and acclaimed novelist who was one of the most highly decorated Marine combat officers of the Vietnam War, delivers the Democratic reply to President George W. Bush‘s State of the Union address tonight. With Bush embarked on his latest rejiggering of a failed Iraq policy and Webb’s son a Marine now serving in Iraq, it promises to be quite interesting.
Webb is also setting up a political action committee to promote his views. Called the Born Fighting PAC, Webb’s new group will, as he puts it, “seek to re-orient our national security posture and to fix the out-of-control economic inequality that threatens the very nature of our country.”
Webb’s dramatic come-from-behind win over George Allen gave Democrats their majority in the U.S. Senate and ended the hopes of conservative Republicans’ most favored presidential prospect for 2008. It’s only natural given all this that Webb should figure as a vice presidential prospect for the Democrats. I asked a top national Democrat what he thinks of that last night. He said he thinks Webb is extremely impressive but could be “too independent.”
Webb says his favorite presidents are Andrew Jackson and Ronald Reagan, and that his model senator is Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
** CLINTON AND MCCAIN CLASH. Two frontrunning presidential candidates, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton and Republican Senator John McCain, crossed swords to a certain extent today at a Senate hearing on the likely confirmation of America’s new commander in Iraq, Lieutenant General David Petraeus. While personally friendly with the general, Clinton called the Bush strategy “a dead end.” Petraeus himself had called the situation in Iraq “dire.” For his part, McCain, who didn’t seem to get an answer to his question about how long the surge strategy can be sustained, was critical of Clinton’s dark view, saying it is not good for the troops’ morale. Clinton countered by noting that she’s not saying anything they haven’t already heard, that they “spend a lot of time on the Internet” and are well aware of the political situation. As clashes go, this one was pretty genteel. But the night is young.
** CROCKETT AND TUBBS. (KHAMENEI AND AHMADINEJAD) Not long after Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, erroneously reported to be dead early this month, signaled his apparent displeasure with the fanatical rhetoric of increasingly unpopular Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Israeli-baiting young hardliner, until recently a mayor of Tehran, was back at his provocative ways today saying after a high-level meeting with the Syrians that Israel and America will soon be dead. It’s a patently ludicrous thing to say, since no one thinks Iran’s nuclear program is nearly ready enough to produce a weapon to threaten Israel, and the destruction of the United States is utterly out of the question. Yesterday, Iran barred a few dozen nuclear inspectors.
Is this a kabuki play by the very much alive Khamenei and the very much still-in-office Ahmadinejad to confuse us? Is it a good cop/bad cop routine by the two men, as this Israeli publication suggests? Is it a defiant response to economic pressure from the US and UN, and to somewhat bellicose rhetoric emanating from Washington, along with the recent dispatch of the USS Stennis aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf? Iran is also undertaking a highly publicized missile launch exercise, as it did also in November.
Iran looms large in political calculations now, though most of the public doesn’t know it yet, because many of the advocates of the original Iraq policy, now in thoroughgoing disarray, are now pointing to Iran as the next target, saying that is how to finally get it right. And it looms large because Iran, as discussed here on several occasions, is a major and frequently deadly mischief maker whose strategic interests — preeminence in the Middle East — are largely opposed to those of America.
Iran is also a country prone to pressure, with a somewhat vulnerable economy. The recent sharp decline in oil prices hurts the Islamic republic more than some other major producers, as Iranian oil costs more to produce. Much of the oil is used in the domestic market, for fuel oil. It also heavily subsidizes the price of gasoline, for which it has remarkably little refining capacity. Ahmadinejad, elected as something of an economic populist promising a revival of Persian power, is, like Bush, hurt badly by the collapse of his own policies, in his case economic. Saber-rattling is a time honored ploy for a weakened politician.
Of course, this is all Kremlinology, dealing with a somewhat murky regime. One thing that does seem clear is that pressure on that regime is good.
** BUSH DISCOVERS FUEL EFFICIENCY. After years of laissez faire energy economics, President George W. Bush discovers CAFE. Not so latte. Although he won’t call for caps on greenhouse gas emissions, he will in the State of the Union tonight call for increased fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles. Perhaps America is too dependent on energy from volatile regions of the world containing powerful interests inimical to America. Perhaps.
** MCCAIN RIPS CHENEY AND RUMSFELD. With his popularity among independents and more liberal Republicans taking a hit from his championing of a “surge” strategy for Iraq, another Navy man, this one a presidential frontrunner, Senator John McCain, has ripped Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for their central roles in the collapsed Iraq policy. McCain scores Cheney for contributing to a “witches’ brew” in the Middle East and Rumsfeld as “one of the worst defense secretaries” in American history.
** SCHWARZENEGGER HEALTH CARE WEBCAST TODAY AT 2:30 PM. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, anything but unmindful of the fact that business opposition led to the defeat of the state’s last major health care measure three years ago, is holding another business-oriented roundtable today. This will be an interactive Internet webcast. You can submit questions now.
** Monitor computer memory prices on a daily basis. Prices are stable.
** Track global and national energy prices in near real time via Bloomberg. Crude oil prices are up to $51 to $53 per barrel on the kidnapping by guerillas of oil workers in Nigeria and colder weather forecast for the easternmost two-thirds of the US.
Read 
| Comments (0) |
Hooyah, Webb!
“McCain also for the first time opened the door to the possibility of a U.S. troop pullback to the borders of Iraq should the president’s planned troop surge fail.”
This is VERY important to me, it shows a distancing from the ideologues at AEI. I am DTS and someone who would seriously consider voting for him if Hillary is the DEM nominee…but I won’t if I think he is taking his foreign policy/security cues from the Kagan brothers and/or Kristol…actually, I heard Hagel discussing the need for us to do that NOW i.e., only he advocates no surge, downsize and pullback remaining troops to the borders …
I am looking forward to hear Senator Webb tonight..
I’ll bet W is intimidated.
I’m pretty certain that McCain is not a neoconservative.
… They seem to have some hopes for Rudy Giuliani.
He is really from Kazakhstan. lol
“I’m pretty certain that McCain is not a neoconservative”
I agree…however, Cheney and Rumsfeld are not either neo-cons as the term is traditionally used…and look where we are…they relied on neocons because it served their agenda…McCain explained his position on the surge (w/Lieberman) in a major presscon at the AEI at the same day and time that AEI’s Frederick Kagan and co. rolled out their neo-con plan for Iraq..They were covered back to back in depth on C-span…my heart sunk as it appeared that they had their hooks into him…that was a big mistake…it raised my antenna….He needs to walk over to the New America Foundation and hear some divergent views
If you are saying the Neo-cons have pinned their hopes on RG …I can see them doing that, along with the reasons they are and the “political reasons” why he might be receptive…However, I think the neo-con choke hold is basically coming to an end…I just hope their money people understand that soon…and then we can all breathe a sigh of relief
If Cheney is not a neoconservative he is an awesome mimic.
not really …he is somewaht closer than Rumsfeld but ideology and Israel’s security is not really driving him..Cheney and Rumsfeld are more about power…their own in this administartion and the US in regard to the rest of the world Cheny wanted to make a “statement” in the ME about US power in the world…to China and Russia especially…he liked what the neo-cons had to sell…
Mr. Webb should prove most intriguing this evening.
Cheney is clearly the ideologue of the administration. I would be fascinated to meet and talk with the guy.
He may not fit the original neoconservative template as you view it, but operationally … Well, operationally he helped eviscerate Rockefeller and marginalize Kissinger in the Ford Administration and clearly no one has done more to advance the neoconservative agenda in the Bush II Administration.
briefly, Kristol and a few others …but certainly he understood for them to be a force they needed to marry their ideology to some key “realists” thus they began courting Reeps… especially reeps with oil and defense interests via The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a nonprofit chaired by Kristol created in the late 1990′s …Baker had their number…but Cheney and Rumsfeld also saw the marriage as a means for power …especially over a President with limited if no grasp of security and foreign policy issues
Right. Poor President Ford, who incongruously insisted in his debate with Jimmy Carter — who merely launched the intervention in Afghanistan that led to the Soviet Vietnam — that Eastern Europe was not under the yoke of Soviet-dictated Communism.
Yes, a somewhat limited grasp there.
actually, I was referencing Bush …those guys (Cheney and Rumsfeld) in the 90′s were longing
for a comeback…his role in knocking out Rockefeller and Kissinger are interesting ….but it’s is latest evisceration that leaves you with jaw dropped….he won out over Baker and W’s father! It is a sign of the power Cheney wields and how weak and easily led the President is…
Well, my understanding is that Bush I and Bush II are not especially close.
That said, I think it would be a mistake to assume that Cheney won out over Baker in the long term of this equation …
Actually Cheney and Rumsfeld are neo-cons.
There was a recent NY Times or WA Post piece that talk about Cheney and it was fascinating insight into the man.
all right wingers to NY Times and Wa Post are neo-cons…in fact it has become interchangable with right wing…that is a mistake..Buchanan and Robert Novak is right wing too but they ar enot neo-cons the neo-con movement is much more nuanced than typical right wing ideology…Mr. Bradley is correct… of the two cheney is the closer…but neither meets the template…in fact if you look closely at neo-cons you will see very early on they were critics of Rumsfeld…they wanted more troops and they all want to tak eon Iran…regardless of who is and who is not a neo-con..they certainly have held sway in this administration to the detriment of our country and I could make a good argument that they are destroying Israel too.
Mr. Bradley:”That said, I think it would be a mistake to assume that Cheney won out over Baker in the long term of this equation”
Well, from your mouth (or should I say post!) to God’s ears!
Actually, Barbara, that is not really accurate.
Richard Perle, the quintessential neocon, wanted FEWER troops in Iraq, not more troops.
The people who wanted more troops were the professional generals, like the Army chief of staff who argued for more and was shunned for his efforts. He’s not a neocon in the slightest. He probably didn’t even want to invade Iraq at all, the wimp.
>in fact if you look closely at neo-cons you will see very early on they were critics of Rumsfeld…they wanted more troops and they all want to tak eon Iran…
Watch what is actually happening. The neoconservatives are already starting to dump all over Bush’s NEW strategy. Which is not so new.
>Barbara :
Mr. Bradley:”That said, I think it would be a mistake to assume that Cheney won out over Baker in the long term of this equation”
Well, from your mouth (or should I say post!) to God’s ears!
Exactly…as I wrote yesterday in our discussion on WSJ …the jig is up …they know it…even sweet, always trying to sound reasonable Kristol is losing his cool on FOX…and look at the wretched and hysterical piece Ledeen wrote yesterday…but if you are saying the Baker Hamilton plan is back for serious consideration …that is very hopefull news…
The US itself is launching Arab/Israeli diplomacy. The Iraqi government just summited with Syria and Iran. The “surge” is in the smaller range of the dimensions recommended by Baker. It’s being made clear it has to show results by late this year. Etc.
I bet after Webb’s speech, the White House will consider for next year reviving Thos. Jefferson’s precedent (that lasted until 1913) and just mail the state of the union address to the Congress to be read by the House Clerk. Since announced here last week that Sen. Webb would respond to Bush, I have felt like a tourist in Thailand high in a hotel perceiving a tidal wave approaching the Potomac.
Mr. Bradley: Richard Perle, the quintessential neocon,
True and Kristol Kagan argued for more..obviously they are not in lock step on every tactical means of achieving their ideological objectives….but there is a “neo-con” and there is a movement and there are people are in sympathy with it an there are also people who see it as a means to achieve and protect their own agenda/ambitions and economic interests and then there are profiteers of conflict who move among them …as at the heart of neo-con ideology you will find conflict
Mr. Bradley, I have no expertise on state politics and even politics in general and I am just offering up an opinion based on a layperson’s knowledge of current events …but I assure you this is different… these people. the movement is something I have an EXPERTISE in..I know many of them and I know what they have been doing for some 20 years … I know what I am talking about …I shall say no more…except to say .I hope this is the beginning of their end.
Very nice, Sullihan.
I was going to blow off the Prez’ speech as usual and just catch a highlights reel and spin show, but now I may have to take it in, to set the table for Jim Webb, whose performance and message does interest me. Very intriguing decision by the leadership to give him the nod on this play.
James Webb is an interesting guy.
I first became aware of him many years ago, watching a film of his boxing match with Oliver North.
But that, as they say, is another story.
The pajamistas ought to take a permanent nap. lol
Bravo for Webb. I felt like he was talking to me.:)
I agree with Carole!….he talked about what is important and he really connected!…Sounded strong, a reassuring voice of authority and know-how …very much needed now…
Gosh! The Financial Times published just analyst comments on the Presidents’s speech BUT THEY PUBLISHED THE ENTIRE TEXT OF SENATOR JIM WEBB’S SPEECH!!! This is wonderful… everyone in Britain,Europe,and Asia and the Middle East will be reading it! I have my treo world clock set to Brussels time… it’s 6:35 am 1/24 ,I hope it made the print version!!!
Webb was fantastic — his delivery and poise have improved by an order of magnitude since his early days as a candidate. He strongly reinforced my sense that, if our top-of-the-ticket is somebody who has relatively little foreign policy cred, he would be an excellent VP candidate.
Re: Arnold’s healthcare plan. I haven’t much liked the individual mandate concept from MA, but after seeing what Bush is proposing, suddenly it doesn’t seem so bad. Bush’s idea is, essentially, dismantling the remaining employer-based risk pools and dumping everybody out to deal with insurance companies as individuals or households — giving the insurers yet more ability to cherry-pick, deny coverage with no fear of getting sued (a large group can afford lawyers that a single family can’t), and ensuring that those with “pre-existing conditions” like Type I Diabetes (which my brother has) will never have coverage (since the only way they get it now is by belonging to a group within which the insurer can’t discriminate).
This would, in a rather twisted manner, achieve single-payer healthcare: Healthy people would be paying the insurers to do nothing, and all actual healthcare, for sick people (whose insurers would find ways to cancel their policy), would be covered by taxes.
At least under the MA system and the CA proposal, the insurers have some meaningful function, even if they fulfill it haphazardly, inefficiently, and with great reluctance.
Bush would appear to have discovered the single worst possible way to achieve “universal healthcare”. It’s like he’s some sort of Anti-Zen Master.
The 2008 Democratic ticket will probably need a VP with a military, even better a combat, record which is Swift Boat Proof. And if Webb is thought to be too independent for some, the national GOP party bosses opposed Theodore Roosevelt for McKinley’s VP for the same reason. But the NY State bosses wanted TR out of the Governor’s mansion because of that same independence. Just so, Webb might be too independent for Club of the US Senate. If Webb became VP his spot would be filled by Mark Warner or some other more conformist Democrat.
Re: Nancy & Dick….After watching the State of the Union a 2nd time, I noticed that Nancy blinked 60-80 times a minute throughout the speech;
If you are wondering about her suit, I heard on Fox that she changed the suit she was going to wear because she got chocolate on the sleeve;
If you are wondering if light green was appropos, ask yourself what you would think if Dick Cheney showed up in a green suit;
Who is older, Nancy or Dick? A: Nancy by over 10 months;
As they sat there, no eye contact, in fact no effort to communicate in the slightest way, Grant Wood’s “American Gothic” came to mind and I realized they were acting as if they had been married 40 years;
Funniest moment: After delivering the line about fighting “global climate change” the camera cut to the applause of the audience, when the camera returned to the rostrum it caught both Bush and Cheney gulping water at the same time as if they both needed it to help wash down the words they had just eaten.
Stupidest moments: When Dennis Kucinich elbowed his way to the aisle to shake Bush’s hand twice, once as he entered and once as he exited the chamber.
Oddest momoent of the State of the Union coverage–the picture of John McCain sleeping. Bush would have put me to sleep, too.
Fashion question–why was Cheney wearing a purple tie?
First thought after hearing Jim Webb–when was the last time I heard an American poliitician give an intelligent speech, informed by history, with a memorable conclusion? Has it happened in the 21st Century?
He did pretty well. Kinda botched the last line, though.