« TV station offers quick "refresher" on self defense | Main | Parker v. DC hearing reset »
New Sen. Jim Webb and the Second Amendment
Bloomberg.com has a incoming Senator Jim Webb (D-VA).
I'd agree he is going to stand out. A Demo who is, so far as I can see, very conservative (and probably acceptable to the Demos only because he didn't like the war in Iraq, and they wanted a chance at another Senate seat). A Marine with the Navy Cross *and* Silver Star, who likes the Confederacy, refused to shake John Kerry's hand for decades, etc., etc.
Of relevance: "Webb may be a novice politician but he's also a natural. He was careful to keep his most conservative leanings well camouflaged during the campaign. He is, for instance, an absolutist on Second Amendment rights -- the right to keep and bear arms -- but he made sure the subject seldom arose as he campaigned in the liberal suburbs of northern Virginia."
12 Comments | Leave a comment
You are soo wrong. You are confusing a man of principle with what you call a conservitive. I have been a volunteer for Jim Webb almost since the beginning. He made a pledge at the beginning that he would never compromise his principles for one vote or one dollar and he has been true to that. You think he is all about the Iraq war. He is about the war but he is also about economic justice for the middle class and the weaker parts of our society.
I don't think (in fact I know) you will be proven wrong.
it's not that he's got principles, it's that he's got characteristically conservative principles. i would even say that, in my humble opinion, mr. Webb holds to reactionary principles. even that short news story outlined several of them, and i've heard quite a few more like it.
political leftists certainly can have principles too, and all the good ones do - but they're different ones. my point is that the democratic party seems to have this odd acceptance of people not only among their members, but among their elected representatives, whose principles seem quite incompatible with - and opposed to - anything that would set the party as a whole apart from that other party.
IOW, if people want to vote for a republican-lite, shouldn't they just go looking on the republican side of the ballot for that? what's the point of making the two major parties even more like one another - haven't we drifted close enough to a one-party system as things are?
i could be wrong, of course. in fact, i hope i am wrong. but to judge by mr. Webb's publically stated opinions, i really can't see why he isn't running as a republican, and i personally believe both he and his current party would be better served if he were.
OK, how's this for a scenario. The Dhimmicrats despite all their promises (a good as a three dollar bill) p1ss off some of their more conservative senators and we get both Lieberman and Webb switching parties.
When push comes to shove, these blue dogs always cave. Maybe not at first, but they will cave. They cannot be trusted to hold the line on gun rights. Have you forgotten 1994?
No Democrat is the only good Democrat. Sorry, but been at this for far too long to be convinced otherwise.
Webb is really not bad at all on the 2A fight. I have seen much worse, and it appears he may even be a True Believer, if you examine his NRA questionnaire on his campaign Website (www.webbforsenate.com).
However, I think Montana got the better new Blue Dog D, however--Tester, the new D Senator, is supposedly on record as wanting repeal of the 1986 machine gun ban!
One of them should offer that repeal amendment on the floor of the Senate at the right time--heck, it could even pass, too, with the right legislative timing.
Harry Reid is not going to stop a pro-gun D Senator from offering an amendment like that! Schumer and Feinstein would be apopletic, but so what? They're both nuts anyway.
--but he made sure the subject seldom arose as he campaigned in the liberal suburbs of northern Virginia-- Man of principle? I'd say he already compromised by keeping his yap shut in Northern Virginia. Well we'll see, I'm not holding my breath, once they get Potomic Fever, Nancy and her minions will lead them around by their noses.
You're wrong, Devil Dog. Webb has always been frank about his Second Amendment position. He answered the question thoroughly during his Meet the Press debate and might have mentioned it in the Fairfax debate. I can't remember. He never hid it, but since he and Allen had exactly the same position it's not like the issue was going to come up much. He was eager to get his position before the voters, and at least one diary was posted on the Raising Kaine website about his position just before the election, but elements of the NRA "lost" his survey responses until after they put out their report of each candidate's position. Then they endorsed Allen in spite of the identical policy positions. Seems to me it's not Webb who was playing games there.
I'm glad the republicans have competition for the 2nd Amendment vote. The republicans have taken my pro-gun vote for granted.
"he made sure the subject seldom arose as he campaigned in the liberal suburbs of northern Virginia."
Sounds like the reporter is a tad resentful here.
Justfor the record and for those who dont frequent "usenet" one of the posters here, aka: NOMEN NESCIO, which is norweigen for John Smith, is a common usenet troll who's sole purpose in life is to promote leftist ideology and interfere with other peoples right to free speech. His more commonly known alterego is Danny Min...
Please dont respond to him and if you're smart you'll block him from posting.
Keep the faith.. and down with left.
To get the skinny on Jim Webb, read Born Fighting; Jim's a Jacksonian democrat through & through...not bad to have around these days...
he already stands out, to me - as somebody who ought to be running on the republican ticket, but for some weird reason or other refuses to. i can't understand why democrats will countenance such people in their party, frankly.