Centerfield

Allen's opponent is the very well qualified former Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb who, among other things, was dead on about the Iraq War before one bomb was dropped.

Have to disagree with you on that one. But other than that, I mostly agree with your post.

I think there is a third type: the unintentional type that comes from a thought pattern that someone has always had but tries to surpress. I actually think this may be more applicable to Mr Allen. However, I have thought that all of the religion issues were uncalled for.

Deep down, I do think that George Allen has a bit of strong racial bias in him from his upbringing. Correct me if I am wrong, I was under the impression that he was actually safely ahead in the polls before all of this started to come up. Maybe I am confusing his numbers with Conrad Burns in Montana.

Correct me if I am wrong, I was under the impression that he was actually safely ahead in the polls before all of this started to come up.

Allen lost about half his polling lead with the flap over the "macaca" incident, though there were signs he was slipping a bit before that. The latest is an attempt by the Webb camp to revisit that well and dip in it some more. Allen still holds a 5-7% lead in the polling.

As always, a reminder that the only poll that counts is the one taken at the precincts on election day.

Mathew,

That is one of the most astute analyses that I have ever read. I grew up in the South too and, if I had refused to associate with people that used the "N" word, I would have had few, if any friends. Some of these were true racists, but others weren't and have changed over the years. They may not be great racial liberals, but they are not the pernicious racists that liberals would like to label them. I agree with you about Allen--I don't like him, but I don't think it makes sense to label him as a racist because of things he did as a teenager.

That's not to say that using that language isn't awful. It is, but I have always been skeptical of the idea that people's words necessarily reflect their inner feelings. I think it's a lot more complicated than that; people say things all the time that they don't mean out of frustration. And, as you say, in the South in those days, that was, unfortunately, a part of the culture. I remember when I was in high school, a vile man named JB Stoner ran for Congress in North Georgia (across the line from Chattanooga, TN, where I grew up) and his TV appearances featured the Confederate flag and the liberal use of the "N" word. Fortunately, even that early (around 1972), that kind of campaigning was an anachronism and he got few votes. I always found in the South that a lot of people would use that word casually, yet at the same time be very cordial and friendly with black people. I guess you could call that hypocrisy but to me, it suggested that people could hold a lot of different attitudes at once, some of them contradictory.

The only caveat I would say about Allen, partly in response to Jim, is that he spent at least part of his childhood in California and he spent much of his childhood with his father coaching the Redskins, a team with lots of black players. George Allen Sr., as far as I know, was well liked by the black players (and, of course, it would have made no sense for an NFL coach to be hostile to blacks). So I'm not sure you can attribute Jr's attitudes to his upbringing (unless you mean in the broader sense of the environment he grew up in.) You would have thought he would not have picked up as much of the southern culture. My guess is that he has some conflicted feelings about blacks (and probably Jews) in the same way that Richard Nixon did.

It's pretty grim for an incumbant to lose so much of a lead this close to the election. Momentum matters. He still will probably win by a few percent but he'd be stupid not to be really nervous.

Speaking of racist sentiment, does anyone think Obama would be such a rock star among democrats if he was white? Just wondering.

Obama would, perhaps, not be "such a star" if he was white. But he would still, I think, be a rising star.

Being black gets him noticed initially, but _what_ he says (plus his personal charisma, smart political instincts, etc.) is much more important in the long run. (Just look at all the other blacks in politics who aren't getting that same star attention.)

Do you think Condolleeza would be SOS if she were white? Republicans are just as guilty on this one....

Um, considering her background, qualifications, skill in political maneuvering, and longstanding relationship with the President, TN, I absolutely think that Condoleeza Rice would be Secretary of State were she black, white, or yellow.

This thread had a lot of potential for an interesting discussion. Too bad it quickly veered off.

What Pat said. Condi Rice's credentials are stunningly impeccable. She certainly has nothing to apologize for. Nor does Barack Obama, whose record is also quite impressive, if not nearly as "wide" as Rice's. Of course, she's got a few years on him. I can't see either one of them NOT doing very well indeed in politics (or anything else they aimed at) regardless of skin color, and both of them earned every bit of those impressive creds.

And I don't even like Obama. Much.

The point is, you can't predict any particular person becoming Sec. of State regardless of qualifications. Condi would be just as qualified if she were white, but that doesn't mean she would necessarily have become Sec. of State. I don't know how much racial (sexual) politics played a role--and I certainly don't think she rose only because she was black--but it's probably naive to think that appointing a black woman didn't have some appeal to the Administration. In general, though, I think Pat is right; her relationship with Bush likely had more to do with her appointment than her race or gender.

Mathew,

I wouldn't worry too much about the liberals on this one. I won't declare the race for Webb just yet, but he has handled the whole macaca issue with aplomb. Never pushing it himself, but framing Allen effectively when asked.

Webb is against the war and a Democrat but he's NOT a liberal. If anything, he's to the Right of Warner and Kaine. So this race defies the typical dynamic. In fact, Allen is now trying to win by moving to Webb's left with the feminist sentiment over his comments 27 years ago on the, "women in combat," issue. If Virginia is as Red as everyone says it is, Allen is charting into uncertain waters, here.

I do want to come back to Cavalier's last point about Jim Webb here-- he is most certainly not a liberal, and (while he opposed the Iraqi War) he's studied enough grand strategy to understand that simply saying sorry and withdrawing Coalition forces prematurely is not going to serve our national interest. Listen to what he says about the War-- he blames the President for getting us into the conflict, but he can't be lumped in with Pelosi, Murtha, Kerry, et. al. about getting out. Anti-war activists who think they'll be getting someone to extract us from Iraq as soon as practicable are going to be sorely disappointed. If we had to slap an international relations label on him, it would probably be Realist, which has always fit more cleanly with the Republicans than the Democrats (who, traditionally, have always been guided by values as well as interest).

On politics, Webb is definitely somewhere in the middle and-- on some issues-- he can actually be downright conservative. For example, he is opposed to gun control, wary of free trade (which is more Populist than Liberal/Conservative), to the right of the Senate on immigration reform, and opposed to women serving in combat and gays serving in uniform. None of these positions will endear him to the Democratic left; he's using (and being used by) anti-Administration forces who just want to get more Democrats into the Senate. And there's not anything necessarily wrong with that-- although one must understand that when he gets in office, he'll have his own agenda and his own priorities.

Personally, I think it would be a good thing for the Democrats to have a Jim Webb serving amongst their ranks in the Senate-- for starters, it would moderate the ultra-liberal influence over the Party, and make it harder for them to argue that their ideological positions are what wins elections. That said, I also would put it at fifty-fifty that Webb even finishes out his term as a Democrat. If the rest of the Party doesn't do something to arrest its slide to the more leftward end of the spectrum, he's going to find himself increasingly isolated and without much support for his maverick votes on numerous issues (even moreso than Lieberman, whose votes on domestic policy are bound to be more liberal than Webb). Like Ben Nighthorse Campbell, I wouldn't be surprised if we him switch parties (again) somewhere down the road... and possibly while still in office.

Good points, Bobby, all of them.

But if Webb is elected to the Senate I don't think he would switch to the GOP because of his views on trade. He probably will leave the Democratic Party, but not until nigh lose to the nomination contest.

But you hit the proverbial nail on the head on this one. Webb is more like a Perot independent without the nuttiness. In fact, I've been real surpised at the degree to which Democrats have embraced Webb given that he worked, not in the Bush '41, Ford, or Nixon Adminsitration, but REAGAN's Administration, of all places. But I think it's largely based on his cogent analysis of what needs doing in Iraq.

Should he win I think he'd not last long in the Dem caucus and would likely leave pending the outcome of the Iraq War. If we're still there in 10 years, he'll probably run for President as an independent.

In fact, I've been real surpised at the degree to which Democrats have embraced Webb given that he worked, not in the Bush '41, Ford, or Nixon Adminsitration, but REAGAN's Administration, of all places. But I think it's largely based on his cogent analysis of what needs doing in Iraq.

I think it has more to do with his criticism of the origins of the Iraq War, i.e., that he didn't think it was a very good idea, questioned whether we could successfully occupy Iraq, and was opposed to a war there.

I don't think it has much to do at all with "what needs doing in Iraq"-- in fact, his positions on what to do in Iraq far more closely resemble the positions of Lieberman, Biden, and the Administration than they do the anti-war Democrats who are desperately supporting him. In fact, those anti-war ideologues aren't going to be happy at all when they find out that Webb's a "stay-the-course, but improve it" man.

But then, I've always said that most War Critics really don't know what the heck to do next, and so they clutch at the only thing they can do, which is to focus on criticism of the decision to go to War in the first place. While important, that's just not nearly as important as figuring out what to do next. It just so happens that in this case, they don't realize that the past isn't going to deliver what they want for the future.

But then, I've always said that most War Critics really don't know what the heck to do next, and so they clutch at the only thing they can do, which is to focus on criticism of the decision to go to War in the first place. While important, that's just not nearly as important as figuring out what to do next. It just so happens that in this case, they don't realize that the past isn't going to deliver what they want for the future.

I couldn't not have said it better, Bobby. As far as Webb's candidacy, I'm thoroughly impressed by him. We may disagree on the rightness of the war, but Webb seems to be one of the few candidates (of either party) coming up with solutions, or at least trying to.

I am not even liberal (I am a black moderate-conservative). However, I believe that Sen. Allen should go down in flames for his mess. There is a pattern of racism here: the N word usage, the "macaca" comment, the love of the Confederate flag, and his downplay of his own Jewish roots. Bye bye, George. He can kiss the presidency goodbye too.

"In fact, those anti-war ideologues aren't going to be happy at all when they find out that Webb's a "stay-the-course, but improve it" man."

Webb's position is basically to redeploy outside of Iraq and to bases in the South and North, as I recall. As far as this allows the country to get back to a sense of normalcy I think the Left would like it fine. After all it's the inability to score points on domestic issues that has the Democrats in a justifiable tizzy.

Also, I might buy that Biden & Webb are in the same boat. Might. But Bush and Lieberman are, what I would call, dead-enders. Equivalent in attitude to those they would call by that name.

I've thought this since the beginning. Bush, Cheney, etc. know that as long we're in Iraq there's a ready issue for the GOP to pummel Democrats. As soon as we're out, we return to 9/10. It's just that simple.

In fact, I've recently thought the press and the Dems have this issue all wrong. The 2006 elections, in general, will NOT be won or lost on the performance of the Administration in Iraq, but whether or not the Dems could improve the situation. Which is why I think they'd be much better off phrasing this election in terms of whether Americans want more answers about the conduct of the War or would rather not. Even then it would end up a close election.

I watched Ed Gillespie try to defend him on Hardball. The idea that he made up the word macaca is bogus as can be. That will not wash Senator.

It's not the Dixie flag, it's the noose that worries me, though the body armor ad is still the best one of the campaign.

Yeah, I'm with you on that one Rafique. One of those areas where an apology for how hard it is to break out of speech patterns from one's upbringing might have worked much better for him.

Yeah, Jean, I'm with you on that, too. He was the governor of Virginia. Of COURSE he's going to have a Confederate Flag in his office. Doing otherwise would be political suicide. But the noose? And that's an excellent political spot you link to, by the way. It's "I just have these questions" tone works very well.

I'm black and live in VA & if race wasn't an issue when he was governor, why is it an issue now? What if Webb said something racist or sexist or had the same issue come up this week, would you condemn him?
I know this sounds weird but this is nitpicking at its finest. This should have been an issue when he tried to be governor, You don't like him, fine. If you think he's done a crappy job, fine. (we did end up with a deficit when he was governot) But this smacks of politics rather than justice.

also, I think Webb's a phony. when the Dems who think he'll tow the line when he's in DC find out otherwise, I think there will be buyer's remorse.

Rachel,

If it were just the Macaca comment, the welcome to America comment, or the "N" word in college I'd be inclined to agree with you. What's getting my attention is Allen's really LAME responses about how he used that specific word , but had he just, "made it up," and that it appears when asked about his heritage he seems to be ashamed of it. I think that says loads about his current attitudes, if not on race, then at least on equality.

I don't know why this came out now rather than when he last ran for the Senate or Governor. My best guess would be this wasn't thought of as offensive enough until someone managed to dig up that his mother is of North African descent and wondered why Allen would lie about it.

I'll be surprised if Allen survives this. This is more than just isolated comments, this is goes his character.

As for Jim Webb, all the Left knows he worked for Reagan and he has opinions which are NOT politically correct and they STILL decided that he could respresent the Democratic party in the Senate. I think black voters are completely turned-off and in rebellion over his nomination, but the rest of the party believe him on his opposition to the war and is willing to have him elected over one of their arch-nemeses.

Webb clearly has conservative views on some issues, but his compromise views on the war and affirmative action, are seriously plausible. Plus his staunch unionism and his support for Gay Rights in what is both a Red and Right-to-Work state show that he's NOT a panderer to the obvious middle of the state.

I like your reasons, Cav. And I truly understand where you are coming from.
But this means that people did not mind having a racist represent them since 1979. They did not mind a racist as governor, or a racist as senator, or a racist as an assemblyman. We don't have to deal with that now, but this recent (30 year?) "discovery" is pure Iraq-based politics.
I cannot accept the sudden shock of allen's behavior. Not if it was known for a long time and people just chose to ignore it.
On another website, i compared Allen to Clarence Thomas. How one issue is used as a mask for another agenda. Allen may have issues, but the source is just as disingenous and corrupt. and that is why I just might write myself for Senate. (Be verrry afraid)

You're right that someone has known about this for awhile, however, it is accepted among opposition researchers that when they find some dirt on a candidate there is no point in, "airing," it when the office-holder isn't up for election, because no matter how the public feels about the revelation they can't do anything about. So operatives will always keep their, "powder dry," so to speak until he comes up for re-election. Someone has definately suspected all this for some time, and I respect your dissonance with Webb, but however it has been revealed it isn't the hidden facts that are so damning it's his present day (even as late as YESTERDAY) responses which lead me to believe that Allen still lives in 1979.

A general question: When will it not be political suicide to admit that in the past you said the "N-word"? It seems than since Bill Clinton ran 14 years ago more politicians have been comfortable admitting that they "did inhale". Are we, the voting public, so naive that we can't accept that people do things they later regret?

Were all of this in his past he could easily "mea culpa," and get on with the campaign. He may yet. It's not clear yet whether Virginians consider this a deal-breaker or not. Maybe racism is still alive and well but simply in hybernation. Alot of Republicans are actively looking for ways to forgive this behavior or disbelieve it, even though the behaviors really in question are his current responses which aren't genuinely in question.

But nearly ALL of those given by Allen and his campaign have shown that he's still elitist at best and probably a closeted racist.

On top of which Allen has always been something of a bully: "We'll kick their soft teeth down their whiny throats," being a campaign favorite of his.

The question will probably end up being whether Allen does anything else to embarass Virginia. If not, he'll probably still win.