"We should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base?"

These (0.00 / 0)

votes will bite him in the butt come 2012 with democrats. I don't think he'll need to worry about getting re elected. He is a former rethug after all. At least Warner came through. Reid is holding all kinds of votes next week- START, DADT. All of which will fail of course.

This only the beginning. Deals will be made, dems will cave, rethugs will hold firm.

I'm quite sure Americans ARE SICK of this political theatre with nothing getting done.

---

by: VADEM @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 17:38:46 PM UTC

As I have said here before (0.00 / 0)

Webb is not worth supporting. He is not a democrat and does not care about the average "joe". Just his narrow, very narrow views.

This Democrat is disgusted with Webb and will actively NOT support it. And if VA Dem party does support him, then they have lost me as well.

Oh, and don't give me that, well if not him then a Republican. He is a Republican, he's just hiding the sheets and hood.

Delete this post or attack me, but we are getting our asses kicked by narrow minded bigots because we don't stand for anything or anyone.

And yes, I support my causes and people with time and money (what little I have).

---

by: Mike1987 @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 18:10:45 PM UTC

Remember (4.00 / 1)

Webb doesn't want to concentrate on social issues like DADT because he thinks the real issue is economic justice...

Oh. Never mind.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 19:07:42 PM UTC

Sigh...... (0.00 / 0)

.......

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 19:21:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It should be noted (0.00 / 0)

Webb didn't just vote against a very moderate policy change, and one that would very simply clarify where the two parties stand.

Instead, he voted to help uphold a Republican filibuster!!!

The US Senate is a rigged game, Michael Bennet from Colorado was correct last week. I certainly don't remember our senior Senator voting against TARP, not to mention cloture for TARP, when it failed to include the inclusion of limits on total financial compensation for bailed out banks that he made such a big show about.

It is a depressing game. The reactionaries always have the upper hand. And the Democratic party can't even show enough leadership to keep its members in line for cloture votes.

The Senators we elected in 2006 and 2008 (minus Webb and Warner, apparently) are going to have to move the old guard (Reid, Durbin, maybe Schumer) out of the way if we are to have any hope of real progressive change.  

---

by: Ron @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 19:25:37 PM UTC

Elections (0.00 / 0)

Looking more and more like we won't have any democrats to support next time if they continue to be republican lite.

---

by: Jim B @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 19:27:36 PM UTC

What I'm hoping (0.00 / 0)

Not that I have any proof that this is actually happening, but I figure if other Dems have thought it up, SURELY some of those serving in Washington (or their advisors) have also thought so.

Maybe what we're seeing here is an elaborate game of chess.  (I live with a chess player.)  The Democrats need some cover on the tax issue (we need a LOT of cover on it, actually, since the meme is that we tax everyone to death and Republicans never raise taxes, which isn't true on either side.)

Anyway, the Democrats needed these votes in order to show that they were cutting taxes on the middle classes (even the upper middle, in the case of those making just less of 250K).  But if they pass, they will continue to be a huge issue to Democrats for the next two or three years.  

So they were relying on their failure.  And hey, under my scenario, Republicans play right into their hands!  (A girl can dream....of course, this means that Webb is more of a pawn than a knight, but that's another issue....)

So the tax cuts extention fails, but the Dem base is happy because we were never that gung-ho about them in the first place, Republicans feel all self-righteous, and then, POW -- Dems come out in January with a new tax relief plan for the middle class.  Now Republicans will be on the defensive -- will they or will they not cut taxes under the Obama Middle Class Tax Relief Plan?  I'm betting enough would peel off to get them passed -- who wants to go into elections less than two years from now voting against cutting taxes??? -- and Dems feel better since they are now driving the tax story instead of following it.

Sigh.  Of course, I'm afraid to blink because the slightest movement could cause me to wake up and find that we've just been stupid all along, but well, I am someone who genuinely lives in hope.

---

by: GretchenLaskas @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 19:33:57 PM UTC

Webb (0.00 / 0)

How would Webb voting to support the filibuster fit into this plan? It wouldn't. It muddies the waters by helping the Republicans claim that opposition to the tax cuts was bipartisan.

---

by: KCinDC @ Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 06:29:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wait a minute - what about Feingold? (0.00 / 0)

My understanding is that no less than a progressive lion like Feingold ALSO voted against this.  Rather than condemn Webb - and by extension Feingold - for this vote, wouldn't it be sensible to ask what their reasoning was?  I'd like to hear Webb's explanation before calling for the pitchforks and torches, or isn't hearing the other side even important anymore?

---

by: Catzmaw @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 20:14:22 PM UTC

Feingold (0.00 / 0)

Feingold didn't vote to end the debate on either tax cut extension because neither of them were "paid for".  Jim didn't vote to end debate for the $250,000 extension but did vote to end debate for the $1,000,000 extension because he is a "moderate" dummy who must believe that the base of this society makes somewhere between $250,000 and $1,000,000.

---

by: blogsrdumb @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 20:44:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And you reached this conclusion from ... ? (0.00 / 0)

Did you actually hear the explanations or is this your assumption?  Any links to statements Feingold and Webb made?  

---

by: Catzmaw @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 20:46:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

With a pseudonym like "blogsrdumb" (0.00 / 0)

something tells me this isn't going to end well. LOL

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 20:47:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My only hope is total failure and they elect a new Senate majority leader. (0.00 / 0)

Who knows, maybe Webb is pushing for Senate majority leader by trying to scuttle everything Reid tries to do. Not likely, but Webb has made no secret of his disdain for Reid - remember his "this is no way to legislate" complaint about Reid's methods? Or, maybe Webb has some other senator in mind he'd like to see challenge Reid and the more Reid failures the more likely that someone with better leadership skills might become disgusted enough with Harry's foolishness to announce his/her Senate Majority Leader candidacy. Damn how I wish Hillary had stayed in the Senate and been elected majority leader !

I know this is just a wild dream, but once or twice in a lifetime dreams do come true, and for me replacing Harry Reid as majority leader is close to the ultimate dream of a democratic party activist (former party activist, from now on I'm dedicating all my political time and energy to just a couple of individual candidates in 2011 and 2013, no party activist work at all).

---

by: Tom @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 20:27:53 PM UTC

Let Jim know how you feel (0.00 / 0)

Here is a link to his contact form:

http://webb.senate.gov/contact...

---

by: blogsrdumb @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 20:47:12 PM UTC

Well here's a suggestion (0.00 / 0)

How about BEFORE we tell him how we FEEL we try finding out exactly what he MEANT with his two votes?  Helpful much?  

---

by: Catzmaw @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 21:12:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lipstick on a Pig (0.00 / 0)

You can wait for the spin. But even if he tries to put lipstick on this pig it will still be a pig. (No disrespect to Sarah Palin)

---

by: blogsrdumb @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 21:24:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

Why listen to the lies. Actions speak, republicans lie.

---

by: Mike1987 @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 21:42:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ooh, awesome slogan! (0.00 / 0)

Now please tell me how it applies to THIS situation since we haven't actually heard an explanation and therefore can't say we've been lied to.

---

by: Catzmaw @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 22:57:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've communicated with Webb's office previously (0.00 / 0)

on this. The only "answer" I've really gotten is that Webb feels $1 million might be a better number than $250,000.  Why would that be the case, and how does it relate to Webb's "Jacksonian Democracy" and statements about the "rich getting richer?" No answer.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 23:02:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's hard to figure out a possible way to spin this (0.00 / 0)

A "Jacksonian Democrat" who talks the way Jim Webb did in 2006 (see blog post quotes above) simply does not vote the way he did this morning. End of story, in my book.  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 22:35:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I find it odd that no one can think of any reason (0.00 / 0)

why Webb would have thought it reasonable to vote against the House bill (preserving tax cuts for those up to $250,000) but to vote FOR Senator Schumer's proposal, which preserved tax cuts for those making UP TO $1 million.  

I can think of a couple of explanations unlikely to cause any progressive to swoon with the vapors or conclude that Jim Webb suddenly really, really hates poor and middle class people.  

How about:  a) the Schumer resolution made more sense to Webb's way of thinking because even people making over $250,000 a year are suffering in some markets (NYC, LA, DC Metro Area) and those who make more than $250,000 but less than $1 million would actually be pretty likely to plow their savings back into the economy rather than investing their savings as the more wealthy are likely to do.  Those making over 250 but less than 1 mill are not the ones who are creating the $700 bn hole. Someone who makes $600,000 a year may be pretty comfortable, but he can't just quit working and live off his investments.  Ergo, he's middle class, not rich, but a middle class person who makes enough money to do more than merely service debt (a drawback of the stimulus in that people who received it paid their mortgages and credit card debt and did not go out and buy things.  The people between 250 and 1 mill are FAR more likely to spend their savings on consumer goods because they have an easier time staying on top of their debt).  

b) I notice that most but not all of the Dems voted for BOTH proposals.  Well, there IS a bit of conflict there, wouldn't you say?  If you're voting FOR the House version you're saying people making ABOVE $250,000 should NOT keep their lower tax rates.  But THEN on the next vote you, the Senator, reverse yourself and say those making over $250,000 but less than $1 million SHOULD retain their tax cuts.  Inconsistent much?  The only Dems who joined Feingold in voting against this proposal were Durbin, Rockefeller, and Harkin - but everyone else went right along with the program despite the obvious conflict between the two proposals.  Seems to me that Webb is one of those persnickety people who: i) hates stupid politics games; and ii) hates silly inconsistencies.  Everyone KNEW the votes weren't going to get anywhere before they were ever taken, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been aiming for some consistency in their positions. Maybe he was just trying for consistency or perhaps hopeful that by isolating his vote he'd cause everyone - including the Republicans - to take a second look.

Maybe he's got a completely different reason.  Maybe it's as people on this site are implying, that he's suddenly, inexplicably decided to turn his back on the poor people and embrace the people making half a million, but MAYBE it's that he's been paying enough attention to the actual effect of tax law to know that the vast majority of Americans who are really suffering in this country aren't paying any taxes anyway.  In fact, some 50% of the population doesn't pay taxes (except for payroll tax such as social security and Medicare), so all this drama about the $30,000 a year nurse with three kids who suddenly has to pay taxes is just that, drama.  It's unlikely that her position would change at all, or if it did, not more than a few dollars at most.  But the doctor who makes $600,000 a year?  Yeah, this IS significant for him.  This might be the difference between him deciding whether or not to buy a new car or a boat or some other thing he might want.  

But hey, it's MUCH easier to accuse Webb of turning on the little people, so knock yourselves out.  All that sitting around waiting for an explanation from a guy you thought enough of to ASK to run for office couldn't possibly lead to a logical explanation ...

 

---

by: Catzmaw @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 23:34:35 PM UTC

Occam's Razor is much easier. (0.00 / 0)

n/t

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 23:40:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Occam's Razor requires that we do more (0.00 / 0)

than merely opt for the simplest explanation.  Simple explanations are no good if they don't explain everything before the viewer.  In this case we have someone who has spoken often and eloquently of his concern for the poor and the struggling middle class, yet has taken a very small course of action (actually, two small actions) which certain parties have chosen to imbue with a particular meaning, that being his seeming abandonment of his previous position.  Simple explanations are also invalid when the premises upon which they are built are like shifting sand and subject to multiple interpretations.  I have offered competing explanations, and the subject of the discussion has yet to offer any explanation at all.  This shifts the burden to those choosing the simpler explanation to explain why these other factors do not disturb the initial simple explanation.

---

by: Catzmaw @ Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 00:07:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The simplest explanation. (0.00 / 0)

The simplest explanation is that Webb determined, for political and/or other reasons, that a higher income threshold was where he felt more comfortable, even if was totally inconsistent with being a serious, Jacksonian Democrat who fights for the working class and does whatever he can to combat the wildly out-of-whack income distribution towards the wealthiest Americans. The fact is, extending the Bush tax cuts for those making $1 million would contribute significantly to the country breaking into "three pieces," to the "rich getting richer," and to the United States becoming a nation defined far more by its "apex" than its "base." That's not the Jim Webb of 2006 I knew and loved, something's changed...

Also, I'd point out that the Webb of 2006 bashed the coal companies as having "raped" Appalachia and left it an "economic basket case," yet now appears at astroturf rallies sponsored by the coal industry, supports "reining in" the EPA's ability to stop mountaintop removal mining and to deal with coal's global warming pollution, etc. Again, something's changed...

So, what happened?

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 02:59:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How does going from 250 to 1 million (0.00 / 0)

lead to this catastrophic impact you predict?  Have you got any numbers?  Besides - almost ALL other Dems except for that little handful ALSO voted for the 1 million option.  So by your reasoning Webb - AND all those other Dems - SHOULD have voted ONLY for the 250 option but NOT the second option because that particular DEMOCRATIC proposal is going to break the country.

As to the "astroturf" appearances, I seem to remember there was an appearance with a rather ambiguous statement which you extrapolated to death here.

---

by: Catzmaw @ Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 14:10:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I have no idea what you're talking about (0.00 / 0)

on either point.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 14:27:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm also puzzled why you're so intent (0.00 / 0)

on defending the indefensible. The fact is, even $250,000 per year is an utterly absurd cutoff for the "middle class," let alone a Jacksonian Democrat's definition of "working class."  And, I'd add, I never want to hear another word about the deficit or debt from ANYONE who votes to add $4 TRILLION to the debt this decade. What a bunch of bull****.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 14:40:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sad (0.00 / 0)

I know you're trying to help him, but coming up with 10 different reasons why him doing the wrong thing might've actually been the right thing just makes it look that much worse. Just four years ago, Webb got elected promising to fight for the little guy. Now he votes with the rich & doesn't even deem it necessary to explain himself to the little guy.

Read more at TheGreenMiles.com and follow me on Twitter

---

by: TheGreenMiles @ Sun Dec 05, 2010 at 16:54:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]