Jim Webb's PAC questioned.

    By Oxy Mora on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 9:08am |

    Out of our over amped predatory two party oligarchy to maintain the status quo comes a news story of how Jim Webb misused his PAC, Born Fighting.

    Well, darn---game on!

    The floating of such a story at this early point in Webb's possible Presidential run can only mean one thing---someone out there thinks he can upset the apple cart.

    The Clintons?

    The Republicans?

    Webb is a threat to a two party system which is geared to maintaining the war posture, the division of the "classes", the privileges of the financial industry and a segmented society where the elite run everything.

    So, Jim, (with my Appalachian roots, he seems, or could be, a cousin), go for it!

    Obviously the intent is to define Webb early so that a Populist message is killed in its infancy, as it has been many times before.

    It's time to make a decision. Shove this bad PAC story right down their throats the best way possible. Take these bastards on.

    Here's a campaign slogan:

    Vote for Jim Webb now; you can vote for a Bush anytime!

    (Or substitute Clinton)

    Now where to announce? I'm thinking Wheeling, West, By God, Virginia.

    Take yer* news story and shove it. This practiced knocker** is takin' ya'll on! 

     

    *yer (orig. Chaucer)

    **practiced knocker (Appalachian term, means "fighter" or "good with fists")

    Comments

    Despite the fact that the great Populist was beaten when this slogan was used against him.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 9:24am

    I've heard a lot of things about Jim Webb, and am most concerned about what I've heard about his environmental record. That said, when I go to On The Issues, Jim Webb's record doesn't look quite as bad as I recalled. On the other hand, while realizing there will be no perfect candidate for me, here are a few notable sore points:

    1. Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax.
    2. Voted NO on factoring global warming into federal project planning.
    3. Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps.
    4. Voted YES on declaring English as the official language of the US government.
    5. Voted NO on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules

    That said, there are many other positive points in that record, and Webb's opinions on many things have evolved over the last several years, much as Obama's have.

    This response is not meant to be either anti-Webb or pro-Webb.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 9:39am

    Thanks for your comments. There are going to be a lot of sore points in Webb's candidacy if he pursues it. I do think in the fog of an election he can find a center and I like his willingness to take on a bloated military and the financial sector. My Appalachian roots give be a great foreboding about Hillary in the election of two thousand and sixteen.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 10:29am

    Besides those Appalachian roots and his "working people" campaign rhetoric, how is Jim Webb a populist?


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 12:41pm

    Here would be a few votes that might support such a claim (also from On The Issues):

    • Government’s power should end at my front door. (Apr 2006)
    • GOP free trade dream world costs American jobs. (Apr 2006)
    • I will lead the ANTI out-sourcing of American jobs. (Apr 2006)
    • Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
    • Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy. (Feb 2008)
    • Make tax deduction permanent for conservation easements. (Mar 2009)
    • Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. (Apr 2009)
    • Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures (May 2009)
    • Allow veterans to register unlicensed guns acquired abroad. (Jun 2011)

    That said, I could probably create a similar list against that claim, and more importantly, I'm not exactly sure what a populist is. wink


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 12:51pm

    Populists seek to empower workers & farmers and rein in capitalists & aristocrats. Webb's positions on outsourcing, free trade, and mortgages are populist. But the rest--gun rights and small government--is just blue-dog-ism.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 1:27pm

    Now how are you going to empower farmers without gun rights? How else are they supposed to exterminate their prairie dogs and other vermin?


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 1:46pm

    Lots of glue traps


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 1:57pm

    Thanks for comments, Michael. One of Webb's most important and courageous positions is to raise tax rates on capital gains and dividends and he refers to research indicating that these two rates have been key in the increasing wealth disparities over the last decade. Raising these rates is redistribution---which I favor even in my position as a small business owner..

    I don't cotton to the gun rights stuff and small government razzle dazzle but I could stomach it if we can bring fairness in the financial sector.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 3:56pm

    Thanks. That's definitely a populist position, and I would love to see it happen. If he runs, I hope that he makes it a centerpiece of his campaign.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 5:34pm

    Btw, with respect to free trade, it's important to note this vote which, at its surface at least, appears to contradict his 2006 position: 

    • Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru. (Dec 2007)

    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 3:58pm

    Historical irony note. The original populists from the late 1800s wanted to reduce trade barriers. The U.S. had a huge import tariffs back then, as high as 50% on some products. American corporations loved tariffs because they provided a competitive edge over foreign exporters and smaller domestic producers. They used their political influence to dictate tariff legislation to Congress much the way modern companies manipulate corporate subsidies.

    High tariffs meant high prices for consumers--essentially a hidden sales tax that boosted corporate profits. Populist politicians blamed the tariffs for raising the cost of living and encouraging corporate consolidation.

    I think about this sometimes when people call for raising trade barriers to protect workers. Like agricultural subsidies for small farmers, it seems like a good idea in principle, but once corporations get their hands on the legislation, the result will look much different from what proponents intended, and it will be almost impossible to take back.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 5:59pm

    I'm not a fan of trade barriers to protect workers.  Rising prices of imports cut the purchasing power of wage earners. Better to have corporations improve their own products, provide more benefits to employees.  


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 7:19pm

    Michael, good article, going back a way, 2007, American Prospect, by Galbraith---"Why Populists need to re-think Trade."


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 7:48pm

    Trade barriers don't just increase the cost of imports; they indirectly increase the cost of domestic products by reducing price competition. That said, I'm sympathetic to the need to bolster US manufacturing against foreign competitors with fewer regulations and lower labor costs. I just don't know a way to do it without inviting corporate manipulation. I'll read that Galbraith article though.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 8:47pm

    Thanks, VA.


    by Oxy Mora on Tue, 12/30/2014 - 3:29pm

    Latest Comments