The Allen-Webb Debate
If you didn’t see it, there was a good (if you’re a Republican) debate on Meet The Press today between incumbent George Allen and his Democratic challenger James Webb. Jon Henke live-blogged it here; it’s actually still on-going in my time zone, but I do want to share a few impressions.
First, Webb is not a Ned Lamont; he does have a brain, and he does know how to speak in public. Second, George Allen is clearly a cut above Webb, both in presentation and substance. I was very impressed with his answers on Iraq, and his clarity regarding Iran and Hezbollah, calling terrorists terrorists without any obfuscation. I was also impressed with his idea to share oil profits across the entire population of Iraq, in the manner of Alaska.
Some other quick impressions: Allen could have done a better job answering whether he would support the Warner or Bush approach on terror detainees (the substance of his answer was fine, but he should have been more direct and succinct: “I’m considering the merits of both approachs and you’ll know my final decision when I reach it” would have done nicely).
Webb had a number of, while not disastrous, harmful stumbles. One was regarding the issue of ‘permanent U.S. bases in Iraq’, where he frankly was engaging in beating a strawman, as Allen clearly showed.
The bigger problem for Webb was not a single moment, but an overall impression. One of the knocks on Webb is that he is running on a decision that has already been made, by continually campaigning on the idea that we should not have invaded Iraq, while offering no competing vision about what to do about it now. Indeed, the accusation has been that his vision is not substantially different from the path we are currently pursuing, and he did nothing today to dispel that (though he did offer up the feable ‘international conference’ idea, a response I have also resorted to in moments of weakness, though it’s hard to see it accomplishing anything of note). In other words, on his signature issue, he offers no compelling reason to support him over his opponent.
Webb’s response to his sexist Washingtonian piece was, frankly, infuriating. He refused to apologize for his backward views on the leadership capabilities of women, and he clearly stands by his views he expressed 20+ years ago, or he would have taken the advice I gave to Allen earlier and just said, clearly and succinctly: I was wrong, and I apologize. Webb’s views on women are retrograde and harmful for a person who aspires to the U.S. Senate.
Finally, Russert brought up the ‘macaca’ incident and other race-based allegations against George Allen. Allen handled this about as well as could be expected; without a doubt, it’s a hard issue and a self-inflicted wound, and he did a good job of explaining why he was wrong and how it does not reflect the person he really is, providing a nice contrast with Webb’s dodging on women in the military (incidentally, Webb did a good job of explaining his calling affirmative action ‘state-sponsored racism’, an issue I happen to agree with him on)…
Allen’s in a fight, but I think he’s going to pull it out and keep an (R) next to this seat…
UPDATE 2:28 p.m.: As commenter HenryH notes below, Dean Barnett had a radically different take on the debate than I did…makes you wonder if we were watching the same show! Honestly, I didn’t think Allen hit a home run, but I would have given him the debate on points, whereas Barnett seems to think Webb just slaughtered him. Different strokes for different folks, I guess – just goes to show how people perceive things differently.
Barnett particularly takes aim at Allen’s assertion that he just made up the word ‘macaca’ on the spot. I didn’t find that particularly convincing, either – but I do believe Allen when he says that he had no intention of being offensive. Regardless, I’m more concerned with how the two men responded when presented with statements they should have never made; Webb didn’t even acknowledge his was offensive, and Allen said he made a mistake and he was sorry.
Far more important is Iraq and the War on Terror, and on these issues, I thought Allen was by far the better of the two. Not spin, as HenryH thinks, but my honest opinion freely given…
UPDATE 5:10 p.m.: John Dickerson of Slate is quite good on the debate here…
I’m not a Ned Lamont supporter, but I wouldn’t say that he “doesn’t have a brain” — he has a BA from Harvard, an MBA from Yale, and he started and grew a large cable television company — saying that he is brainless is no better than those on the other side saying that Bush is brainless (and if you want to compare the two: Bush went to the same schools but was not as successful in business as Lamont).
Fine, fine…he does have a brain for business, but he doesn’t have a single good idea that makes him worthy of inclusion in the U.S. Senate…if Ned Lamont’s name was Not Joe Lieberman, it would capture his entire political reason to exist. Well, guess what: 6 billion people on this planet are Not Joe Lieberman; give me a reason to vote for YOU…
There are a few points of difference between Webb and Allen with Iraq.
Webb would like to see the administration work with countries in the region to build stability in the country. He also calls for a declaration that we do not intend to stay in the country for a very long time. Allen, and apparently you, fail to realize why these two points are important. However, I think they were practical moves in 2004/2005, and have lost much of their potential for policy change.
What a difference two months make. Back in July George Allen was considered one of the three or four frontrunners for the Republican Party nomination. How he’s limping towards the finish line in a re-election battle in a red state — and this is while the fortunes of most Republican Senate candidates have improved tremendously.
Allen will probably be back on his feet again in a month — not to mention two years. I have a hard time believing that his political career will end over a stupid, off-hand remark.
I was also wondering about Webb’s other views — namely, is there any reason other than Iraq for him to consider himself a Democrat? I know he’s tough on immigration and pro-gun. I think he’s more sincere than Wesley Clark at least, who decided he was against the war in Iraq — and thus a Democrat — when President Bush decided not to appoint him as a special advisor in the War on Terror. I just want to know if there’s some reason for regressives to like Webb so much other than being weak on defense.
Interesting take.
I suggest you go over to Hugh Hewitts Townhall blog and read Dean Barnett’s review of the debate.
Somehow strikes me as a far more honest set of impressions than the spin here.
HenryH, I’ll check out Barnett’s review, as I admire his work; however, I’m not spinning, just giving you my honest impressions. I gave credit to both candidates where they deserved it, and I said that I was more impressed with Allen – and I was…
I don’t have a dog in this race. But Allen’s did not acquit himself very well, especially his non-answers. Webb is better informed and his arguments were more persuasive. Allen doesn’t have a chance of becoming President. His Macaca slur, captured on video, is not going to vanish down some memory hole. My wife found his remark to the college student revolting, and so would any other parent.
I hear there’s thing called “the internets”, and you can access its tubes to retrieve the kind of information you request.
Ha, ha…but what if the tubes are full?
Well, let’s see, his website has two pages on Iraq and two sentences on everything else; most of it is the expected non-answer bullcrap — education = good, taking money from lobbyists = bad. He hasn’t completed the NPAT on Project Vote Smart — but no major politician does. And a quick google search will get you information such as: Jim Webb is opposed to the war in Iraq (duh), Jim Webb used to be in the Reagan administration and Ronald Reagan said nice things about him once (duh), Jim Webb is a misogynist (duh), Kos wants Jim Webb to win (duh), Jim Webb is a combat veteran, and Jim Webb has a dark-skinned college student with a mohawk or a mullet stalking George Allen — or at least he used to.
I was hoping that there might be someone — possibly in Virginia — who is following the campaign more closely who could provide some insight as to why the regressive camp is such a fan of someone who, from what little information there is on his views, looks more like a paleocon than a leftist.
Boy, the tubes to Webb do seem a little clogged. One minimal reason a dem like myself would support him is probably the same as why a GOPer would support Chafee: when push comes to shove, he’s a vote for the leadership, which is the important part in the football game of American politics. Webb would be more like a right guard than a running back, I suppose.
On issues, he’s pro-choice, pro-privacy, and spouts enough dem buzzwords to suggest he’d be decent on economic issues (I’m a crazed free-trader, so I don’t think he’d be decent, but I digress…).
Chris,
Work with other nations in the region? Which ones? Iran and Syria seem like bad choices with them backing terror and all. Turkey maybe? Sure all they want are the Kurds dead and buried. The Saudis maybe? Just ignore the Wannahabists and Sufris in general and that may work… kinda. Hmmm I guess that leaves us Jordan. One big get together there. As to how long we stay in Iraq, I thought we made that pretty clear… as long as the Iraqis need us. We will leave when they ask. All that having been said, I do agree with 1 thing Scott said a few comments back: Allen doesn’t have a chance of becoming President.
Allen v. Webb On Meet The Press
Jon Henke liveblogged the debate this morning at AllenHQ. They’re are some mixed reviews out there, but I think Allen came out victorious. I also thought he did an adequate job explaining the whole “macaca” kerfuffle. If you’re interested in…
Allen’s answer on the Macaca incident was about as Clintonian as it gets. He knew what it meant, everyone in Virginia knows what it means. He should have apologized and moved off it. Instead, Webb nows has Allen lying on tape and a real question as to his character. Bad move.
I only watched part of the debate.
I tried watching it non-partisanly, as best I could.
I had not seen either speak before.
My first impression of Web was that he was an experienced, seasoned speaker.
My first impression of Allen was smug, not quick on h is feat, and afraid of making a mistake. When Web would make some comment which Allen disagreed with, or was “in left field”, Allens smirks did not help his cause.
I also agree Webs answer on Segration was well rehearsed and well addressed. As I watched more, I saw many of Webs positions to be of the talking poing variety, though. Who wins will depend on whether talking points or substance wins out. Allen seems to have a better grasp of issues, whilie Web is superior at delivery.
Allen made a huge blunder by not proclaiming to Russert, “Tim, I do not pretend to know the future, but yes, I intend to serve the entire six year term.”. He answered as someone (like a Hillary Clinton) running as a stepping stone to higher office. His poor intangibles however, make him a near zero as far as presiential aspirations go. he should wake up, realise he has no chance for Presidency in 2008, and run like a candidate who intends to serve his constituents.