TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | James Webb

No Harry Truman

By on 23 July 2010



[...] The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all “people of color”—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup. … Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end. Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes. … – Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege, by Senator James Webb

Oh, the irony. Pres. Obama blames the media for finding himself on his political heels. How perfect. His administration is the victim. Perhaps, but only of their own feckless incompetence and political stupidity.

“He jumped the gun,” Obama said of Vilsack, “partly because we now live in this media culture where something goes up on YouTube or a blog and everybody scrambles.” – Huffington Post

The whole thing has Josh Marshall very upset. Obama central is in a tailspin. His “analysis” always centered somewhere inside the Obama administration’s inner ego, after all it’s good for business to blow smoke up the boss, once again Marshall misses the story, but also the irony embedded in his own political analysis, if you want to call it that. It wouldn’t pass the smell test in junior high cub reporting class.

[...] as Josh Green ably notes, most of Breitbart’s scoops center on race and/or race-baiting…

Marshall inadvertently admits everyone knows Andrew Breitbart, who is now calling himself “public enemy number one,” focuses his “scoops” on race. Remember the ACORN take down? What Marshall can’t bring himself to admit is that not only did the White House political shop miss it, but why. They were too busy running Pres. Obama’s “the ideological battles that we fought during the ’90s that were really extensions of battles we fought since the ’60s” political strategy. The one that ducks ideological confrontations that matter at all cost, replacing Democratic principles with bipartisanship compromise no matter what, including when you have a majority in both houses of Congress.

Nothing to see here, says Josh Marshall. Recommence fluffing.

The wider media, including die hard Obama supporters Keith Olbermann, Ed Schultz and even Eugene Robinson, have sensed a seminal moment in the Obama presidency, and they’re freak. The Obama administration’s foundational moral cowardice revealing something even more distressing and recognizable if you’re a Democrat.

Having lost the job in Georgia she loved, Obama has found a new and bigger position for Shirley Sherrod, where photo ops can be grabbed and capital cashed in. There’s something stunningly patronizing about offering Ms. Sherrod a job in Washington, D.C. where she will be charged with expanding her reach to bridge the racial divide for all. Though it is a job that has remained unfilled since Pres. Obama was elected, because the man in the White House doesn’t want to fight the battles of the ’60s, even if it was those battles, which Sherrod herself fought, that helped put him in the presidency. Again, with the irony.

Thank the gods Martin Luther King, Jr. and Pres. John F. Kennedy didn’t operate like Barack Obama.

Instead of “changing the ways of Washington,” Pres. Obama and his administration have proved conclusively they are unequipped and unprepared to even recognize the ways of Washington. If they were they would never have fallen for Andrew Breitbart’s bait in the first place. “Changing the ways of Washington” first requires that you recognize them.

A vase in and of itself means nothing without the opening, the space it has in the center that can be filled to manifest its purpose. A leader isn’t a leader unless he or she is filled with purpose and the courage to take on the toughest issues when presented with a golden opportunity.

Pres. Obama, after first throwing Ms. Sherrod under the bus, has dragged her out only to pass the buck to her.

Read full story · Comments { 61 }

DADT Repeal Passes House – Senate Bill Out of Committee

By on 27 May 2010


via Huffington Post

This is nowhere near done, as the Republicans, led by John McCain, are looking for any excuse to turn this at Democrats in the 2010 elections.

From the New York Times:

… The House vote was 234 to 194, with 229 Democrats and 5 Republicans in favor, after an emotionally charged debate. Opposed were 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats.

[...] Separately on Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved a similar measure allowing the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

[...] Like the House amendment, the Senate measure would allow Pentagon leaders to revoke the ban 60 days after the military study group completes its report and Mr. Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, certify that it will not hamper military readiness and effectiveness or “unit cohesion.”

Mr. Obama and Mr. Gates favor repealing the ban, as does Admiral Mullen, who, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee in February, called for a repeal.

But chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have objected. …

Sen. James Webb, my senator, voted against the measure, with Sen. Joe Lieberman leading the charge to repeal DADT.

Ass of the hour was Rep. Mike Pence who said, “to advance a liberal social agenda” and demanded that Congress “put its priorities in order.”

Yeah, because giving men and women who are fighting and dying for their country equal rights and full freedoms it just, you know, whacked. Honestly, where do the Republicans get these cretins?

Thanks to Rep. Patrick Murphy, who muscled this one through for the troops, along with Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s leadership. That it’s happening near Memorial Day weekend makes me weak in the knees.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Meeting in Mexico Revives Talks on Assault Weapons Ban

By on 16 April 2009

A prerequisite for all Dems should be to first run their theories on guns past Jim Webb (or some equally qualified gun expert) to see if their notions pass the smell test. They rarely do.

Backdrop: Mexico.

As Obama lands, President Calderon is calling for our Congress to reinstitute the assault weapons ban in the U.S., though this doesn’t address the million (plus or minus) assault weapons already in circulation. What Calderon is doing is passing the buck to the U.S. because he thinks that politically, with Obama in office, the Democrats will bite. We shouldn’t.

As with all my posts dealing with firearms, because I’m not an expert on the subject, I turn to my gun expert husband, Mark, a good Democrat who is easily infuriated when uninformed Democratic politicians run amok on the subject of guns. (He considers himself a Jim Webb type Dem – as do I.)

Segue to Gov. Ed Rendell, of whom I’ve always been a fan, who was interviewed by Andrea Mitchell today talking about re-instituting the “ban” on assault weapons. In the middle of his harangue I heard footsteps coming towards my office. Uh-oh. No doubt Mark heard what Rendell was saying and wanted to see the person attached to the comments.

“Who is this bozo?” Mark asked. Well, he’s not a bozo– then I was interrupted, with Mark adding, “He is if he’s saying things like that.” Talking politics for votes, because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, he continued.

“An assault weapon is not made for long-distance firing. The Navy Seals who killed the pirates would never have used an assault weapon.” – Ed Rendell

Not even close.

Earlier this year a team of Marine Scout Snipers were deployed to the region for counter piracy work. They are armed with the SR-25 (Mk 11) 7.62×51mm semi-automatic, an AR-10 style rifle. They may well have been the men that were deployed to take out the pirates. (source)

Translation: 308 semi-auto was likely used, which looks and works exactly like an M-16.

There is a lot of guessing as to what weapon the Navy Seal snipers recently used to take out the pirates, with one of the best accounts coming in the form of an essay: Details will emerge, but I’m guessing the three SEALs were each equipped with a rifle called the SR-25, said to be the choice of SEAL snipers. It’s a semiautomatic, for fast follow-up shots, and looks like an M-16 on growth hormones.

Another review, staying with the Navy Seals since Rendell chose to use this situation, is that the “DevGru” team, which is considered the Navy version of Delta Force, likely used the MK-11, which is the 308 semiauto rifle: Poole figures the DevGru frogmen removed the “overpowered” standard-issue Leupold scopes and opted for the Aimpoint CCO augmented by the PVS-14 night vision monocular. Though the SEAL version of the MK-11 Mod 0 is issued with suppressors, it’s unclear whether the operators used them, but I’d bet a million bucks they did.

I realize we’re in the weeds for some of you, but the point is that an “assault weapon” is exactly what the Navy Seals used, unbeknownst to Ed Rendell who went on MSNBC to flatly state the opposite of what was true.

“It is for short distance firing and they can spray out a ton of bullets at one time…” – Ed Rendell

Mr. Rendell, really, now you’re talking about a full auto, which even I know. These are extremely difficult weapons to get and incredibly expensive, that is if you possess the right paperwork.

As for Mr. Rendell talking about the cop killers piercing a cop car door, quoting my husband, “most pistol bullets would do that and so would any rifle.” Again, even I knew that.

I’ve said it before, but an assault weapons “ban” doesn’t necessarily ban assault weapons. For instance, during the “ban” people were only prohibited from buying certain configurations. The Brady Bill didn’t stop the importation of all assault weapons, it only banned folding stocks, bayonet lugs, magazines over 10 rounds, and other variations on the theme. However, you could still get an assault weapon; they just couldn’t have the banned features.

Tell me how that’s “banning” assault weapons.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Dodd: Obama Administration ‘Insistent’ Bonus Language be Changed

By on 18 March 2009

I’ve been in D.C. all afternoon, but I listened to quite a bit of the testimony on C-SPAN radio while traveling. But there is a lot stirring on what Sen. Chris Dodd said today. From CNN:

“The administration had expressed reservations,” Dodd said. “They asked for modifications. The alternative was losing the amendment entirely.”

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with adding the language, which has been used by officials at bailed-out insurance giant AIG to justify paying millions of dollars in bonuses to executives after receiving federal money.

… “I agreed reluctantly,” Dodd said. “I was changing the amendment because others were insistent.” [...]

President Obama has been doing a town hall in Costa Mesa, California for quite a while, which is being televised. He’s also taking questions in an open forum. As an aside, the White House has also announced a primetime news conference next Tuesday. He’s in full court press campaign mode on his budget.

That leads me to something I wrote yesterday when the A.I.G. bonus issue was exploding. I said A.I.G. was big, but the story about a group of moderate Democrats led by Evan Bayh was bigger. Well, that gang of 15 has come together, called the “Practical Caucus.” Ahem… Their mission might be righteous, but boy is that one lame. But if Obama wants to pass anything he’ll have to get them on board because they can derail anything if they stand together. Sen. Reid no doubt also took notice. We’ll see what develops. From the New York Times:

The new coalition includes six Democratic freshmen, Mark Begich of Alaska, Michael Bennet of Colorado, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mark Udall of Colorado, and Mark Warner of Virginia. Other members of the group are Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bill Nelson of Florida. Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut independent, is also part of the group.

Sen. Webb is not among them, but Sen. Mark Warner is.

But for now, Obama’s on fire, and you have the floor.

Read full story · Comments { 186 }

Obama Absent from Webb Iran Letter to Bush

By on 01 November 2007

updated below & bumped

Via
Sam Stein:


Thirty senators sent a letter to the White House on Thursday warning President Bush not to take offensive military action against Iran without the consent of Congress. Noticeably absent from the list of signatories is presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL. … ..

…According to its authors, the letter was designed to clarify the ambiguity
of the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard
as a terrorist organization. Obama has been critical of that amendment as
well as the Bush administration's aggressive rhetoric towards Tehran. Yet
the senator from Illinois turned down a request to sign on to the White House
letter.

“I was surprised and disappointed,” John Isaacs, president of the
Council for a Livable World and one of the catalysts behind the letter, told
the Huffington Post. “I contacted virtually every office and to me it
was a no-brainer that Obama and [Sen.] Biden [whose name was also not on the
list] would both sign on. Neither did.”

The letter, which was spearheaded by Sen. Jim Webb, D-VA, was signed
by presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, who voted for the Kyl-Lieberman
provision, and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CT, who opposed it. The text reads:

“We are writing to express serious concerns with the provocative statements
and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S.
military action in Iran. These comments are counterproductive and undermine
efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy.”

Sources knowledgeable with the crafting of the letter said there were two
general arguments offered by those who did not sign on in support: that Congress
already has the power to declare war, and that the letter text was too vague
about defensive and/or covert action against Iran. Notably, Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) also declined to attach his name.

Staff for Obama and Biden did not return requests for comment by the time
of publication. A list of the signatories is below. … ..

New '08 Iran Rift: Obama Refuses To Sign Dem Letter To White House

As vocal as Obama has been against Clinton on her Kyl-Lieberman vote, as well
as other matters relating to Iran, it's troubling he again chose to walk away
from an opportunity to get on the record on Iran.

I've got emails out to the Obama and Biden camps. I'll let you know when they
reply.

UPDATE: While I was at the MSNBC gig, Obama and Biden's camps emailed me their statements. Also breaking on the AP is that Obama will offer his own legislation on Iran, competing with Webb who was going to re-introduce his Iran bill in the next weeks.


OBAMA camp…

“Senator Obama admires Senator Webb and his sincere and tireless efforts on this issue. But it will take more than a letter to prevent this administration from using the language contained within the Kyl-Lieberman resolution to justify military action in Iran. This requires a legislative answer and Senator Obama intends to propose one.” – Bill Burton, Obama spokesperson

BIDEN camp…

“Sen. Biden voted against the amendment urging the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. He strongly opposed it because he believed it could be used by this President to justify military action against Iran. He has also made clear many times his view that the President lacks the authority to use force against Iran absent authorization from Congress. He didn't need to clarify that position – he's been clear from the start.” – Elizabeth Alexander, Biden spokesperson

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton’s Iran Gambit

By on 26 October 2007


more at C&L



“Well, the Cheney element of the administration is well represented in the United States Senate.” – Senator James Webb

On “Hardball,” James Webb said he was about to try again with
his Iran bill, which now has Clinton as a co-sponsor. It couldn’t come soon
enough for Clinton. With Mr. Bush burning rhetoric on Iran, her Kyl-Lieberman
vote may yet turn into her biggest liability and vulnerability. Bush’s designation
of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a WMD proliferator, topped off with his
naming the elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism, is the hardest line
we’ve taken on Iran since Carter. The first time we’ve designated a military
force attached to a state as a supporter of terrorism. The Kyl-Lieberman legislation,
coupled with Bush’s latest moves, remind everyone of 2002 and how we got into Iraq, which is a place Clinton doesn’t want to be. Omens
are popping and it’s making people nervous.


“The president does not want to be stuck — and doesn’t want his successor
to be stuck — between two bad choices: living with an Iranian nuclear weapon
or using military force to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons,”
said Peter D. Feaver, who recently left a staff position on the National Security
Council. “He is looking for a viable third way, negotiations backed up
by carrots and sticks, that could resolve the Iranian nuclear file on his
watch or, failing that, offer a reasonable prospect of doing so on his successor’s
watch.”

Even so, the administration’s actions yesterday immediately rekindled fears
among Democrats and other countries that the administration is on a path toward
war. Bush’s charged rhetoric in recent months, including a warning that Iran
could trigger a “nuclear holocaust,” and his close consultations
with hard-liners — such as former Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz — have
led many outside the White House to conclude that the president will order
airstrikes to eliminate any Iranian nuclear capability.

War with Iran is absolute madness, especially given our vulnerability in Iraq
and the strength of Iran’s nationalist population, not to mention the current state of our armed forces. But I’m not convinced Bush wouldn’t lob a cruise missile
or two if the situation turned sour. It always worries me when tensions are
high, language is careless, and troops and weapons are all poised near the fault
line. That the Senate is willing to offer up careless legislation that props up the president’s favorite pastime doesn’t engender much security.

Of course, Clinton is sure her vote was the right move. But with people like Webb, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Edwards and Barack Obama lined up on the other side she doesn’t have much primary cover, especially as Bush sharpens his sabers. Wesley Clark is beloved in Iowa so that helps and he should be utilized at every opportunity. That Clinton was playing for the general election is the reality. As for
Obama, something I’ve been thinking about for quite a few days is the more I
picture Obama being in New Hampshire when the vote took place the less and less
I’m believing it was an accident or scheduling problems. It’s the best of both
worlds for him, especially looking out over the long run.

So if the status quo reigns on Iran through the next several months into the
primaries and nothing serious happens on Iran, Clinton won’t be harmed at all
by her vote on Kyl-Lieberman. But if anything serious develops or if tensions
continue to rise, with Iran taking center stage in the press, the primary gamble
Clinton made could backfire. If it starts to look like Iran is in Bush’s crosshairs,
anyone who voted to give him more battle space to ponder a move on Iran is going
to be hurt. On the other hand, if Clinton snags the nomination her vote on Kyl-Lieberman
will serve her very well in the general, which is their play. She’ll be seen
as strong, sending a message to Iran and their allies, as well as our friends,
including Israel, that she’s not afraid to do what’s necessary, portraying her
as a serious player in foreign policy who can stand down the bad guys and do
whatever it takes, even if it’s not popular with progressives. That’s Clinton’s gambit. With her
commanding lead nationally, the campaign is obviously hoping it solidifies perception
enough in Iowa that she’s going to win that more people move into her column to solidify her Iowa poll numbers even further. Everyone likes to vote for a winner. However, as Mike Lux writes, she’s
vulnerable on the second choice angle, which matters a lot in Iowa, something
Chase Martyn has talked about as well.


I e-mailed multiple folks on the Hillary campaign staff how they were doing
in terms of the second choice, and got radio silence back, which I’m pretty
sure is a bad sign.

That this would be the case makes logical sense to me. If you are for the
wildmen, Kucinich and Gravel, Hillary isn’t going to be your second choice.
If you get behind Dodd because of his strong stand on FISA, or Richardson
because of his strong stand on residual troops, Hillary’s probably not your
backup choice. And with most frontrunners, the people not with them are looking
for somebody else in general, and tend to coalesce behind whatever alternative
is still in the game.

Iowa
Caucus Report: Second Choice Politics

But the real danger for Clinton right now is that there’s quite a few weeks
until Thanksgiving, which gives Mr. Bush and his pal Dick Cheney plenty of opportunity
to talk tough on Iran, keeping the sabers rattling loudly, reminding people
again and again of how we got into Iraq, which isn’t what Clinton wants people thinking about. It’s clear Putin is happy to play his
part in this drama as well. Also don’t forget that Ahmadinejad
has Jalili now in place, replacing Khamenei’s man Larijani on the nuclear
front. The hardliners are headliners on both sides now.

James Webb’s legislation demanding Bush come to Congress before engaging in
war with Iran, with Clinton now as a co-sponsor, offers a huge opportunity and
cover for Clinton that could innoculate her from the nervousness her Kyl-Lieberman
vote has caused many.

In the end it all depends on George W. Bush and what plays out on Iran before
the primaries. Watch the Iran news and what rhetoric comes out of the White
House. People are sick of the Iraq war and they don’t want to hear talk of another. That Clinton may have inadvertently tied her fate to Mr. Bush’s wildly eratic militant mood swings is not a place I would want to be this far out. It’s a long time until January.

Read full story · Comments are closed