Categories
News

Biden his time

cap p.17:Palin comparison: “I never attack the person,” Joe Biden said last Thursday in Virginia Beach, “I take issue with ideas,” distancing himself from the pit bull with lipstick that was Sarah Palin at the Republican National Convention.

Well, we know Sarah Palin can read a telepromter.

According to right-wing Republicans in the tank for the Alaska Governor, that should put to rest any questions about whether she is ready right now to be president of the United States.

The media feeding frenzy that took hold as Palin’s tabloid life began leaking into the public sphere created a false perception that Palin, almost completely unknown to the American public, was an empty-headed ditz out of the TV show “Northern Exposure,” so the bar for her acceptance speech last Wednesday night was set fairly low. No one should be surprised that Palin was able to step over it.

In fact, Palin’s speech was long on insults—she showed she is a charismatic fighter who is willing to mix it up—but empty of substance. Lots of bark, no bite.

A pit bull with lipstick? More like a Chihuahua with funky eyeglasses.

In the days following her being named to the ticket, any number of TV talking heads, bloggers and newspaper columnists mused over whether her Democratic opposite, Joe Biden, was so much more experienced and capable than the former beauty queen that he would come off in their lone debate, scheduled for October 2 in St. Louis, as a misogynistic bully. Rick Lazio’s invasion of Hillary Clinton’s personal space during a debate in Buffalo, New York, during their 2000 Senate race is often cited as the quintessential, if cautionary, moment that men running against women must avoid.
 
But following Palin’s pugnacious performance, Democrats were loaded for bear.

Biden was in Virginia Beach on September 4, the morning after Palin’s speech, to speak about foreign affairs and veterans’ issues in a region of this swing state with a large current and retired military population. Afterwards, he took questions from the audience on a wide variety of topics.

Given Palin’s aggressive speech, one female audience member, noting that it was “tough to debate a woman,” implored Biden, “Will you promise us you will go at her the same way you would a man?”

She was drowned out by raucous applause.

“I never attack the person,” Biden answered. “I take issue with ideas.”

Given the weakness of the McCain/Palin ticket, this is the smart play.

First, and most significantly, the McCain/Palin ticket has a fundamental problem that can be summed up in one letter: W.

Like it or not, the Republicans are the incumbent party this election, and as its nominees, McCain and Palin are saddled with Bush’s record.

Even to the extent that McCain is able to leverage his utterly fictitious, but widely accepted image as a maverick to bat back this line of argument, the fact is that on the two major issues of this election—the economy and the war in Iraq—McCain’s positions are mainly, if not completely, a continuation of existing Bush policies.

Second, notwithstanding her courageous speech delivered under a lot of pressure on a national stage, the jury is still out with respect to Palin’s competency to be the proverbial heartbeat away from the presidency, particularly with respect to national security.

“I haven’t really focused much on the war in Iraq,” Palin said as recently as 2007.

Palin’s speech included a reference to a pair of relatively obscure international situations, the oil pipeline in the Caucuses wrapped up in Russia’s recent scrape with former republic Georgia, and the terrorist attack on the Abqaiq oil facility in Saudi Arabia, clearly designed to suggest she is well versed in the minutia of international affairs and, by implication, the major issues as well.

Who knows whether Palin has knowledge of these events or was just reading a teleprompter, although I have a hard time believing that someone who has not thought much about Iraq said out of the blue, and on her own, “Hey, let’s put something about Abqaiq in the speech. I’m up on that issue,” but maybe she did.

More revealing was the suggestion Friday on “Morning Joe” by McCain spokesperson Nicole Wallace that the campaign saw no need for Palin to respond to reporters’ questions in an unscripted format. Wallace couched her suggestion in the context of the McCain campaign’s new anti-media jihad, but it betrays a concern that Palin would not be able to pass competency muster in an uncontrolled situation.

Third, the positions of Palin’s that are known, mainly concerning social issues, are both extreme and out of step with the majority of Americans. These positions went mainly unmentioned during the convention, but they are reasons the very conservative base of the GOP is so enthusiastic about Palin.

Among other things, Palin favors criminalizing all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest, and teaching Creationism in public school science classes alongside Evolution, a position that has been discredited both scientifically and legally.

I suspect that despite all the excitement of the past week, like most VP picks Palin will do little to significantly affect the race. McCain will likely see a bump in some polls coming out of the convention, reflecting the one benefit Palin indisputably does bring to the ticket—generating enthusiasm among conservatives who were previously lukewarm to McCain—and a short-term tactical benefit of quickly changing the subject away from Barack Obama’s historic nomination and acceptance speech in Denver.

Still, even that may not be the best thing for the GOP. The media tornado in St. Paul that the pick generated was a distraction, albeit an amusing distraction, from the GOP’s efforts to advance its agenda during the week when it had maximum public attention.

Instead, attention focused on a teenager’s pregnancy, a Down’s Syndrome baby and a parochial Alaskan scandal involving Palin’s former brother-in-law.

Given the Republican record, of course, perhaps this was not such a bad thing.

Still, over the longer term, the Palin pick will probably collapse under the weight of its own lightness, and Biden is entirely correct not to react to her in any significant way.

Alan Zimmerman is a Charlottesville-based writer.

Biden answers Palin in Virginia Beach

On the morning after the raucous Sarah Palin pep rally last night in St. Paul, Joe Biden sought contrast in Virginia Beach, where he came this morning to have a serious discussion on foreign affairs and veteran’s issues with several hundred current and former members of America’s military.
 
But it was the nastiness of last night—and Palin—who seemed to be on people’s mind during a wide-ranging Q&A session that followed his talk.
 
One questioner began by noting that it was “tough to debate a woman,” but implored Biden, in the wake of last night, “Will you promise us you will go at her the same way you would a man?”
 
The end of the question was drowned out by raucous applause.
 
A low-key Biden, however, didn’t rise to the bait. Instead, he damned Palin with praise.
 
“I never attack the person,” he answered. “I take issues with ideas,” slyly adding, “I will not do what she is able to do so well, those one-line zingers.”
 
Biden said he was impressed with Palin last night. “I thought she did an incredible job. She was good.”
 
“The thing I was most impressed by,” Biden went on, “was what she didn’t say. She didn’t say ‘health care,’ she didn’t say ‘education,’ she didn’t say ‘middle class.’”
 
But on substantive issues, Biden was more than willing to engage directly.
 
Discussing the inconsistency between McCain’s identification with his fellow veterans and his opposition to Sen. Jim Webb’s (D-Virginia) GI bill in the last Congress, Biden told the crowd, “Don’t tell me you love me, don’t tell me you respect me, don’t tell me you’re concerned about me, if you’re not willing to do something to help me.”
 
Asked how he and Barack Obama would convince middle class Americans that Democrats would not raise their taxes, Biden said, “Tell the truth,” before explaining that only taxpayers making more than $250,000 per year would see an increase under their plan.
 
Biden was short on time, a problem for a man known for his loquaciousness. When one questioner noted that it seemed as if Republicans were purposefully trying to damage the economy, Biden didn’t dwell on specific policies, but rather explained that Republican economics creates problems “not because they don’t care about people,” but because GOP policy is driven by their ideology of “Devolution of Government.”
 
Republicans, he said, “believe prosperity depends on the Federal Government providing national defense and raising money for that purpose only….What happens in your back yard is your problem and your problem alone.”
 
Biden added, “One of the mistakes Democrats make is they don’t believe what Conservatives say. It sounds crazy, what they say. But they mean it.”

Joe Biden said today that he’s impressed with Sarah Palin’s "one-line zingers," but noted her lack of talk about the middle class in Wednesday night’s convention speech.
Categories
News

Deeds explains early election launch

There is little doubt Democrats are riding a wave of success in Virginia, one that began in 2001 with the election of Mark Warner as Governor and which crested, most recently, with the party’s 2007 General Assembly gains.

While a wave can give you a great ride, however, it can also knock you over. And getting out of the way of some of the turbulence of that wave might explain why Democratic State Senator Creigh Deeds, whose hulking district includes Charlottesville and much of Albemarle, took the unusual step of announcing his run for Governor nearly two full years before the 2009 election.

In fact, given how unusual it is, Deeds’ explanation of his timing has arguably been oblique. Deeds, for example, explained his early announcement by saying he wanted to eliminate any confusion over whether he would run for governor, but given that Deeds’ run was widely expected, that explanation seemed to explain little.

"There certainly wasn’t any doubt on my part," Deeds says, "but there certainly were some people who weren’t sure until I made the announcement whether I was going to run for governor or attorney general. I thought it was important for me to dispel any doubt that this is what my intention is."

Deeds doesn’t specify which doubts he was responding to, but there had been growing chatter recently among some Democrats—at least as reflected on several of the state’s Democratic-leaning blogs—suggesting that Deeds ought to run for attorney general rather than governor so that the party could avoid a potentially divisive primary contest between him and Delegate Brian Moran of Alexandria. Moran has not yet declared he is a candidate, but he and Deeds are considered the leading Democratic contenders.

In this context, Deeds’ early announcement could be interpreted as an effort to kill any such speculation before it could gain any currency, especially given Moran’s strength in Northern Virginia.

As things stand now, the potential Deeds versus Moran primary will likely hinge on the issue of which candidate would fare better in the general election. It also mirrors the political and cultural rift between Northern Virginia and the rest of the state, which tends to be more socially conservative and rural in character.

With that in mind, population gains in Northern Virginia, which clearly helped drive the Democrats’ General Assembly gains last year, make the logic of a Moran candidacy numerically compelling. "Northern Virginia voters know Brian Moran and will turn out in large numbers if he chooses to run," a Moran spokesman recently told The Washington Post.

Deeds, who is from Bath County, maintains that as a "middle-of-the-road guy from rural Virginia," he’ll have wider appeal in the general election than Moran. Virginia, Deeds notes, is still a "right-of-center" state, despite its "purpling up." But Deeds is not oblivious to the obvious importance of Northern Virginia in any political calculus for the Democrats, and he says a benefit of his early announcement is that it gives him an opportunity to gain name recognition in Northern Virginia, where it’s "harder to get people’s attention."

"I think it was important for me to make the statement early in some regard because my home is Bath County," Deeds says. "I don’t have a huge population base. …To some extent, because I live out in the country, because of where I’m from, I’m going to have to shout a little bit louder."


State Senator Creigh Deeds officially announced his gubernatorial intentions two years before the election, perhaps to show the Dems that he won’t settle for another shot at attorney general. Deeds maintains that as a "middle-of-the-road guy from rural Virginia," he’ll have wider appeal in the general election than Brian Moran of Alexandria.

As for strategic disadvantages resulting from his early announcement, Deeds says, "you could make the case that you run the risk you’re going to peak too early, or people are going to lose interest in what you’re doing."

"But," he says, "that’s not my plan at all." He adds, "The announcement changes nothing about my campaign. It changes nothing about what I do," further supporting the view that immediate political concerns, rather than an overarching strategy, drove the timing of his announcement.

This article was amended on December 31, 2007: The original version included a photograph, now removed, that incorrectly identified Jim Moran as Brian Moran.

C-VILLE welcomes news tips from readers. Send them to news@c-ville.com.

Categories
News

Fox warns law school about Stark

Christmas came early this year for local blogger, political activist and UVA law student Mike Stark. His present? Last month, Fox News tried to stir up trouble for Stark at UVA law school in retaliation for Stark’s activism directed toward the conservative network’s prickly talk show host, Bill O’Reilly.

Previous coverage:

Stark raving mad
While the national media can sometimes be a lamb, Mike Stark, local left-wing blogger, is always a lion

No charges for Omni scuffle
Prosecutor says neither Allen heckler nor Allen supporter sought harm

Allen aides tackle heckling blogger
Media, blogosphere respond

According to the website Raw Story, Fox News VP Dianne Brandi recently wrote UVA law school Dean John Jeffries, saying Stark’s actions with respect to O’Reilly "may constitute criminal harassment" under New York law and that the school should investigate whether Stark violated the Code of Conduct.

Stark told Raw Story that Jeffries had shown him a copy of Brandi’s letter, but would not permit it to be distributed. Stark added that Jeffries told him he was taking no further action with respect to the letter.

Neither Brandi nor O’Reilly returned phone calls and e-mails.

While Stark has been a thorn in O’Reilly’s side for years by calling into his radio show, Stark’s activism took a more personal turn last summer.

Responding to what Stark felt was dishonest reporting by O’Reilly in seeking to depict the popular progressive online community Daily Kos, to which Stark is a regular contributor, as a "hateful" site, Stark and a fellow blogger, accompanied by this reporter, went to O’Reilly’s Long Island neighborhood in late July. There, Stark distributed to O’Reilly’s neighbors copies of a 2004 sexual harassment complaint filed against O’Reilly by Andrea Mackris, a former producer for his show.

The court filing includes allegations of both inappropriate conduct by and racy talk from O’Reilly to the producer, including his much-ridiculed desire to caress Mackris in the shower using a "falafel" (O’Reilly apparently meant to say "loofa"). O’Reilly denied wrongdoing, but Fox reportedly settled with Mackris for millions of dollars.

Stark also posted hand-drawn signs around O’Reilly’s home and on his street calling him, among other things, a "pervert." And when O’Reilly himself, dressed in a New York Knicks t-shirt, red gym shorts and flip flops, sauntered down his driveway to pick up his New York Times, Stark was there with his video camera to confront O’Reilly with what Stark told him was his "accountability moment."


Undaunted: Bring it on, O’Reilly, says Mike Stark.

O’Reilly calmly told Stark, "You’re on my property," picked up his paper and walked back to his house as Stark continued to shout questions, including, "How’d you keep the falafel together in the shower?"

Stark’s account of the incident, posted within hours of the incident, set off a vigorous online debate over whether he crossed the line, including Stark being named the second worst person in the world that evening on MSNBC by O’Reilly nemesis Keith Olbermann (Olbermann named O’Reilly the worst).

Stark is unapologetic about the stunt, pointedly noting that the style of "ambush journalism" in which he engaged is a frequent O’Reilly practice.

Shortly after, Stark wrote UVA’s Larry Sabato, a regular O’Reilly guest, as part of a "newly funded initiative called ‘Accountability Moments,’" trying to dissuade Sabato from appearing on O’Reilly’s shows. Sabato responded through staff that he appears on shows with hosts of all political stripes.

Brandi’s letter to Stark’s law school dean claimed that Stark’s e-mail to Sabato has interfered with Sabato’s ability to express his views on talk shows, according to Raw Story. Stark, meanwhile, has called on Sabato to explain why he shared his e-mail with Fox.

"Why is Sabato taking the side he’s taking?" Stark asks. "It’s not like Sabato is partisan."

Sabato—the most widely quoted man at UVA—declined to comment.

As for Stark’s battle with Fox and O’Reilly, however, just as politicians are sometimes said to be known because of their enemies, so can an activist be elevated by the notoriety of his. In the activism game, attention is the coin of the realm.

Thus, despite the letter to Jeffries, Stark is not concerned about what O’Reilly’s next steps may be against him. Quite the contrary, he welcomes them.

"To quote a hero of mine," Stark says, "’Bring it on.’"

C-VILLE welcomes news tips from readers. Send them to news@c-ville.com.

Categories
News

Democrats retake the state Senate

While Virginia Democrats celebrated their winning control of the Virginia Senate and picking up four seats in the House of Delegates, the practical effect the victory will have on the near-term legislative agenda appears modest.

"I don’t think you will see a great sea change on a variety of issues," says State Senator Creigh Deeds, explaining that despite currently being under GOP control, the Senate is fairly moderate.


"I don’t think you will see a great sea change on a variety of issues," says State Senator Creigh Deeds, explaining that despite currently being under GOP control, the Senate is fairly moderate.

More election features:

One seat could make all the difference
High turnout key to Mallek victory over Wyant

PAC-men pump coins into local races
Candidates get $48,900 from Monticello Business Alliance, $21,000 from Democratic Road Back

Challenging Dems for City Council: a fool’s errand?
Kleeman, Haskins reflect on campaign lessons

The race is over, let’s start the race
Fresh Goode challenger tries to get out the ’08 vote

Coloring in the constitutional races
Maps of the the voting trends for Albemarle County Sheriff and Commonwealth’s Attorney

Creigh Deeds or Daffy Duck?
Some voters opt for the ridiculous in uncontested state races

Quoth the voter
C-VILLE conducts exit interviews on election day

How low can you go?
The lessons of election ’07

Video from election night
Local Republicans and Democrats cheer on their candidates as the results come in

The results
Vote totals for Election Day 2007

Not that Deeds isn’t happy about the results or that they are not significant. Indeed, Deeds says a bigger change would have occurred if the GOP had retained control, because had they done so in the face of several moderate Republicans leaving the Senate, it would have meant a sharp ideological shift to the right. The election, Deeds says, "ensures the Senate will remain in moderate hands."

Deeds notes, however, that the more "ideologically driven" House, still under GOP control, remains a hurdle to the Democratic agenda. On specific issues, Deeds mentioned early childhood education, including Governor Tim Kaine’s proposal for pilot pre-K programs, as one that might see another push.

Republican Albemarle County Delegate Rob Bell predicts some tension. He looks specifically at the relationship between himself and the slated chairman of the courts committee, where he sees differences on capital punishment and sentencing. "Some of the things we can work out compromises on, and other things we’ll have to agree to disagree," says Bell. He particularly hopes to see compromise on mental health reform. "We’ve all been working on this mental health piece, so I think you’ll see most of that not be partisan bills. I hope not."

Like Deeds, Lowell Feld, founder and editor of RaisingKaine.com, Virginia’s largest progressive blog, says the Senate "already was pretty friendly to Kaine." According to Feld, the "most important" effect of the election is that Senate control guarantees the Democrats a seat at the table for the 2011 redistricting. Deeds called Senate control "critical for redistricting." Bell notes that redistricting is still three years away: "We have at least one intervening election, so we have a lot of water under the bridge until we get there."

Deeds said he is in favor of nonpartisan redistricting, and that "the only way to move that ball forward was [the Democratic Party] gaining leverage" in the process. "I’m convinced [nonpartisan redistricting] can happen," he says, although he acknowledges Senate Democrats may not be so quick to give up their newfound power.
Barring nonpartisan redistricting, Deeds is likely to play a major role in the process, whether as the second-ranking Democratic member of the Privileges and Elections Committee, or as governor, should he decide to run for, and win, the office in 2009.

Lastly, on top of recent victories by Democrats Mark Warner (governor 2001), Kaine (governor 2005) and Jim Webb (U.S. Senate 2006), the election provides further evidence that our once reliably red state is trending blue, which could have implications for the GOP’s fortunes nationally as well as within the Commonwealth.

Warner is heavily favored to win the 2008 Senate race. As for the presidential election, the last time Virginia voted Democratic was Lyndon Johnson in 1964, but the last time Virginia voted Democratic and the nation elected a Republican president was Calvin Coolidge in 1924. Therefore, chances are, if Virginia goes blue, so goes the country.

Even retiring Republican U.S. Senator John Warner called out the GOP following the elections. "In the past few years, the Republican Party of Virginia has drifted from the time-honored principle of the ‘big tent’ GOP," Warner said in a statement released on November 7. "In my judgment, yesterday’s election results demonstrate that Virginia voters value greatly political leaders who are willing to reach reasonable solutions and tackle big issues ranging from the budget to immigration to the environment and transportation."

Still, "anyone who says Virginia is Democratic hasn’t campaigned in Prince William County, in Stafford County…[or] in the Southside of the state," Deeds says. "Virginia is still a right-of-center state."

Although Feld characterized the state as "purple, almost shading into blue," practically his view wasn’t far from Deeds’. "These are Virginia Democrats," Feld says. "They are pragmatic and centrist."

Categories
News

Is John Warner a key to averting war with Iran?

I was once riding in the back of a shit-brown, late model Dodge Aspen station wagon that was rear-ended at high speed by a Mack truck.

The moment had a particular unreality to it. As adrenaline and endorphins flooded my brain to freakishly enhance my senses, physical events, including my own ability to move, seemed to slow down to a crawl. Both a participant and a spectator, I watched the accident with detached fascination, utterly helpless.

I felt the same way one night last week watching the Democratic presidential candidates argue who was best able to stand up to George Bush to prevent the coming war with Iran.

After all, they’ve been doing such a wonderful job on Iraq.

The discussion of the merits of war versus diplomacy with respect to Iran seemed beyond pointless. Bush and Cheney and their ilk have clearly moved beyond that dumb ol’ debate to how and when to wage the war. Indeed, 53 percent of Americans said in a recent poll they believed the U.S. would attack Iran prior to the next presidential election.


John Warner

Someone should tell the Democratic candidates.

If Bush holds true to form, the timing of military action will be determined not by the strategic situation on the ground, but the political calendar here at home. That suggests the Iran issue could be coming to a head in December for two reasons. First in order to force the tangible issue of war (in the abstract, everyone favors peaceful resolution of problems) into the early caucuses and primaries that will likely determine the 2008 presidential candidates, and second, to force moderate Republican senators and representatives to take a stand on the issue while they still face the potential of primary challenges from the jingoistic, militaristic, right wing of the GOP.

As an added bonus, what better time to highlight an Islamofascist threat than Christmas? 
The Administration is, after all, not interested in a serious, fact-based and reasoned public debate on this issue, but rather wants only to drum up support for its next holy war in an emotional, factually confusing and time-compressed context where speculative arguments appealing to irrational fear have a natural advantage.

A December timetable is suggested by other factors: the escalating rhetoric coming out of the Administration, the imposition of economic sanctions last week—sanctions that, given the price of oil, are unlikely to have much short-term effect, and possibly even the timing of the Defense Appropriations Bill, which could be voted on in early December.

The idea that the Democratic-controlled Congress—beset by timidity, ineptitude and Senate rules under which a determined minority can obstruct virtually anything—can stop Bush is laughable.

The late-September Senate vote on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution demonstrates their problem.

A "sense of the Senate" resolution that, among other things, declared Iran’s armed forces a terrorist organization, Kyl-Lieberman easily passed by a 76-22 vote with plenty of Democratic help, including Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY). Clinton and other democrats have hung their hats on the fact that since the resolution falls short of providing express authority for military action, Bush must come back to the Congress for further authorization before attacking Iran. Ha!

The resolution, however, is clearly part of an effort to create a public record against Iran to justify a military strike without the Senate’s further consent.

I don’t believe Clinton and other Democratic senators who voted for the resolution were either ignorant or naïve about its purpose or effect. Rather, they feared that had they voted the resolution down to defeat, their vote would be painted as an anti-troop, if not pro-Iranian, action. Ask former Senator Max Cleland about how that works.

Virginia Senator Jim Webb strongly opposed the resolution on both principled and practical grounds. In addition, as early as last March, Webb saw the writing on the wall and introduced legislation specifically to prohibit the Administration from using appropriated monies to launch military action against Iran without further Congressional approval. That bill, however, has gone nowhere.

The fact is that this coming war will not be stopped without significant Republican help. Only two Republican senators, Chuck Hagel (Nebraska) and Richard Lugar (Indiana), voted against the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, although Webb has pointedly noted that each is a senior member of the Foreign Relations committee and among the more knowledgeable senators on these matters.

Is our other senator, John Warner, who is said to have influence with GOP moderates in the Senate, willing to step forward?

Warner is a longtime member of the Armed Services Committee, and therefore, presumably, also among the better-informed senators on this issue. And while Warner did not join Hagel and Lugar in opposing Kyl-Lieberman, nor does he seem quite in concert with the Bush-Cheney program either.

For one thing, according to Warner’s Chief of Staff Carter Cornick and military advisor Sandy Luff, Warner’s position is that "anything short" of military action directly aimed at protecting America or American interests "would require an authorization from Congress." That is arguably a large loophole, but it is also recognition of a limitation on executive power, something seen all too rarely on the Republican side. More specifically, it suggests that Warner believes an attack aimed at Iran’s nuclear program would require legislative approval, though he might view action aimed at preventing harm to our troops in Iraq differently.

In any event, Warner doesn’t seem in much of a hurry to press matters with Iran. The U.S., Luff said, "ought to methodically…use all instruments of national power…before the last resort," meaning force, a subtle softening of the language used in Kyl-Lieberman.

"It is in our best interests at this point," Luff added, "to let things [in Iran] percolate and unfold in their own time."

Webb’s office did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Perhaps in attempting to divine Warner’s position on this complex issue, I’m interpreting the words of his staff with my heart and not my head, inventing a nuance that is not there, because to halt the march toward another disastrous war, to get us out of the way of the Mack truck inexorably bearing down on us, it will be up to senators like John Warner to stand up and do what is right.

Alan Zimmerman is a Charlottesville-based writer.

Categories
News

Score one for crass political calculation [Online Exclusive]

As both Democrats and Republicans cast about last week for an Iraq policy that was both acceptable to their respective bases and capable of passage, political courage, if not competence, was in short supply for both parties.

Impressively, however, Virginia’s senior Senator John Warner managed to stand out in both areas by pursuing a morally indefensible course of action to political perfection.

Warner ought to be called to account by the citizens of Virginia for torpedoing a badly needed bill to aid our troops that he admits he supports in principle in favor of crass political calculation.


John Warner originally supported a bill, sponsored by the other Virginia senator, James Webb, that would even the amount of time troops spend training with the amount of time they spend on tours in Iraq and Afganistan. But last week, he changed his mind, which killed Senate momentum to pass the measure.

On September 19, Virginia’s other senator, James Webb, reintroduced his “Dwell Time Amendment,” a measure that would require U.S. troops to have a 1:1 deployment-to-dwell ratio, or in other words, the same amount of time at home that they are required to serve in Iraq. According to Webb, the current ratio is about 5:4, while the historical ratio of deployment-to-home is 1:2.

Warner, who was a Marine, a former secretary of the Navy and a longtime chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was one of a handful of Republican senators to support the bill when Webb first introduced it in July. It fell only three votes short of the 60 it needed to break a Republican filibuster at that time.

When Webb reintroduced his measure for a second time last week, it looked like it might get enough additional votes from several GOP senators to pass.

That is, until Warner changed his vote at the last minute, providing enough political cover for his potentially wayward colleagues to withhold their support.

On the Senate floor, Warner said although he agreed “with the principles…laid down in [the] amendment,” he regretted that he had “been convinced by those in the professional uniform that they cannot do it,” leaving the high-minded impression that military impracticality took reluctant precedence over principle.

But Warner’s chief of staff, Carter Cornick, accurately, if inadvertently, explained that Warner’s vote reversal was based primarily on the political desire to avoid a presidential veto.

Warner, he said, had on “Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, been working with the Pentagon trying to forge a compromise, such that the Administration would not veto [the bill].” (Emphasis mine.)

By Wednesday, Cornick said, Warner had become convinced there was “no path to achieve a compromise,” and “it was clear to him that without that possibility,” he should oppose the bill.

Cornick, however, could not explain why.

It is not difficult, however, to discern the potentially devastating political impracticality of Webb’s bill from a GOP perspective.

First, even if you allow that people of good will can disagree about U.S. policy and strategy in Iraq, it is beyond dispute that the burden of fighting the war is falling disproportionately on a tiny minority of the country, and that burden is stretching the troops and their families to the breaking point.

Second, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has made clear that, given the state of the U.S. military and the desire to maintain an all-volunteer military, the current onerous deployment schedule is necessary if the U.S. is to maintain its current troop levels in Iraq.

And finally, more and more, the sole remaining basis for the President’s policy is the—there is no nice word for this—lie that opposing the President’s Iraq policy is equivalent to opposing the troops.

But Webb’s legislation is, if nothing else, troop friendly, and it would put the Bush Administration between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Indeed, this is why many Democrats support it, and it is also why, according to Webb, the White House “turned up the political heat” on Warner.

I think highly of Senator Warner. I actually don’t believe his actions last week were designed to protect either Bush or what Warner has strongly hinted he believes is a failed and unsustainable Iraq policy.

Rather, Warner’s political calculation was more likely aimed at helping several of his fellow GOP senators, particularly those in increasingly anti-war states facing elections in 2008 such as Susan Collins (Maine), Norm Coleman (Minnesota) and Elizabeth Dole (North Carolina).

Talking head Chris Matthews explained the politics. “[Congressman] Jack Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) knows a lot of members on the other side of the aisle,” he said on his TV show, “Hardball,” last week. “He says…that a lot of Republicans are acting very hawkish now.  They’re not going to go with any anti-war provision of any kind until after their primaries are over with next spring.  Then they are going to start acting.” 

The respected Warner’s ostensibly high-minded changed vote was the safety net they needed to vote against Webb’s amendment, placating the base without alienating everyone else.

So far, 3,800 Americans have died and 28,000 have been wounded in Iraq, along with what might possibly be as many as hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Those numbers grow every day, as do the numbers of devastated family members, wives, husbands, parents and children, grappling with these losses.

But at least there are a few GOP incumbents sleeping easier tonight thanks to the political acumen of our senior senator.

Alan Zimmerman is a Charlottesville-based writer.

Categories
News

Stark raving mad

For all the hand-wringing in the establishment media about the supposedly insidious influence of bloggers on the national political scene, little is known about who these people are outside of their online world.


You can hear me now: Mike Stark’s stock-in-trade is calling up conservative talk radio shows and calling the hosts on their factual distortions

Charlottesville’s Mike Stark is a case in point. The proprietor of the blog "Calling All Wingnuts," Stark is fairly well known in the "blogosphere," and he has a more significant impact, thanks to an online "butterfly-effect," on national politics than one might think.

Unlike most bloggers, who tend to be observers of and commentors on the political scene, Stark is an activist/videographer in the tradition of Michael Moore, as I learned when I witnessed Stark take on John Edwards after a campaign speech, and an active participant in many of the stories he covers. "I’m kind of an odd component in this new blogosphere," he says, "in that when I blog it’s because I’ve done something, whereas most people blog because they’ve thought about something."


At a George Allen campaign appearance last October at the Omni Hotel, Stark was, in his words, "tackled to the ground" by some Allen aides and supporters after Stark attempted to grill the Senator about his first wife. Allen has since disappeared behind the scenes, while Stark is still making waves.

Stark’s most well-known "something" occurred when, as he puts it, he "managed to get tackled to the ground" at a George Allen campaign appearance last October at the Omni Hotel. The videotaped incident shows Stark attempting to ask Allen about rumors that had been floating around that sealed court documents from Allen’s divorce detailed his abuse of his first wife. Several angry Allen aides and supporters pushed him into a glass wall and wrestled him to the floor. Stark was unhurt, but the videotape brought unwelcome attention to Allen’s campaign, and moved the rumors, whether true or not, into the mainstream media just a week before the election, and just as Allen was hoping to regain his footing in the wake of several self-inflicted wounds, most conspicuously the seminal "Macaca" incident.
 
The video was prominently featured on Yahoo and replayed on TV. Stark appeared as a guest on Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show, "Countdown," and the story got good play in the print press, including The Washington Post. Allen, of course, lost a very close election.

Even an ideological opponent of Stark’s, Byron York of the National Review Online, grudgingly conceded Stark’s effectiveness. "The incident shows what a dedicated activist…can do, with a little brazenness and a willing press," he wrote.

The name of Stark’s blog, "Calling All Wingnuts," encapsulates his approach. "Wingnuts" is a pejorative term used to describe the rabid, doctrinaire, ideologically driven segment of the conservative movement. Stark’s stock-in-trade is calling conservative talk radio shows, such as Rush Limbaugh’s and Sean Hannity’s, and aggressively challenging the hosts, typically on their factual distortions. He then posts recordings of the calls on his blog.

In addition to the Allen incident, Stark has had more success than many bloggers in breaking through the electronic curtain to reach audiences of print and broadcast media. It doesn’t hurt that, like Moore, Stark makes his points with a healthy dose of humor. For instance, Stark once positioned himself behind Alan Colmes, one of the eponymous moderators of the Fox News show "Hannity and Colmes," during a live broadcast, while holding a large sign reading, "Hannity Sucks Ass." The moment got wide exposure, including on "The Daily Show."

Although Hannity himself laughed it off, Stark’s many conservative critics in the blogosphere don’t find him so funny. Dan Riehl of "Riehl World View," for instance, wrote a post about Stark earlier this year as he was preparing to appear opposite Stark on a TV show. Riehl called Stark, among other names, a "clown," a "political hack," a "moonbat" and a "bug."

And then there is Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly is a sort of Moby Dick-like presence in Stark’s life, the personification of evil, a representation of the worst of the American political media. "He cannot stand accountability," Stark says of O’Reilly. "When you’re an asshole, you can’t stand accountability, and Bill O’Reilly is an asshole." Stark seems to particularly relish annoying the famously thin-skinned O’Reilly, like the time, Stark recalls, when he got O’Reilly so steamed merely by mentioning a website O’Reilly hated that O’Reilly threatened, on air, to form a mob and take it to Stark’s house.

To the extent, however, that Stark’s brand of activism leaves the impression that he is a heckler, obnoxious or rude, as critics like Riehl have claimed, he is anything but. About to enter his second year of law school at UVA, the former U.S. Marine is fairly low key. He is completely dedicated to his wife and two children. He doesn’t have enough time to play as much golf as he would like.

But when it comes to politics and what he believes in, Stark is passionate, even dogmatic. That said, he sees himself not as a crusader, but a citizen rightfully demanding accountability from his leaders and the media that report on them. He has to, he says, because traditional journalists have fallen down on the job. Take, for example, Stark’s efforts last fall to ask Allen whether he ever uttered the N-word, another Stark-inspired story that eventually found its way into the mainstream media. "He called a brown-skinned person ‘Macaca,’" Stark explains. "Asking him if he used the N-word was not disrespectful. I’m sorry, man. If you’ve used one racial slur, what other racial slurs have you used? If the rest of the media doesn’t have the balls to ask the question, and I do, I’m not disrespectful for that."

I recently attended a conference in Washington, D.C., with Stark in which John Edwards, as well as the other Democratic presidential candidates, spoke. I got to see Stark’s passion and dogmatism first hand. Following Edwards’ speech, Stark was determined to speak with him, and small obstacles like security and an army of aides around the candidate weren’t going to stop him. He high-stepped a rope line and blew past a stunned hotel guard to a back hallway at the Washington Hilton in pursuit of the former senator, where he was intercepted by an Edwards staffer—whom Stark later explained was a friend of his—concerned about what Stark might do. (It probably didn’t help that, at Stark’s request, I was videotaping all this for him.) Stark talked his way passed her, though, caught Edwards on a hotel escalator and enjoyed several minutes of his undivided attention, which Stark used to, among other things, pitch his idea for a centralized, umbrella government agency to investigate illegal and unethical corporate behavior.

Later, as we were discussing the chase, specifically the concern of the Edwards aide, I noted, "You and Senator Edwards had a respectful conversation." I meant it as a compliment, in the sense that Stark had defied the aide’s fears.

"No," Stark snapped, in a tone anything but low key. "Respectful conversation is phrasing it entirely wrong. It was a concerned citizen, two concerned citizens, talking to each other. When you say ‘respectful conversation’ as a member of the media, it almost implies that conversations that I’m going to have are automatically going to be disrespectful. Well, you know what? All I am doing is the job the media should have been doing all along."