Comments on: The Allen-Webb Debate

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:24:36 +0000

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.

By: Cosimoto

Cosimoto — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 04:50:55 +0000

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.

By: The Political Pit Bull

The Political Pit Bull — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 01:32:15 +0000

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…

By: Dawnsblood

Dawnsblood — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 00:04:05 +0000

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.

By: jpe

jpe — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:33:38 +0000

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…).

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:07:41 +0000

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.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 21:03:04 +0000

Ha, ha…but what if the tubes are full?

By: jpe

jpe — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:38:36 +0000

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 hear there’s thing called “the internets”, and you can access its tubes to retrieve the kind of information you request.

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:57:58 +0000

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.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:26:30 +0000

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…