(cross-posted at
mood indigo)
Virginia's a battleground state. That's nice to hear, because I've lived in Virginia for 6 years now, and I've been watching the changes rolling through the polling places. It's been a long haul, and it's due not only to hard volunteer work but great candidates who are willing to stand up for what they believe in.
The Commonwealth probably isn't a place where the far left is ever going to have more than a tenuous (read, "parts of Northern Virginia") hold. It's got a lot of work to do, as far as gay issues, and many others go. It's a state in flux, and we've got an opportunity to continue steering it in the right direction here with Jim Webb's campaign.
Below the fold is the start of the Virginia Senate campaign in cliff notes, big issue by big issue, starting with Iraq.
Virginia's showing formerly-unsuspected tendencies toward Progressive politics. It's a place where, if you take the time to explain your position to people in the formerly-thought-red districts, you see light bulbs starting to pop. You make the connection, you can convince people here, because most of them are as worried about the track this country is taking as anyone in Massachusetts or New York City or Chicago. They might not be as liberal, or as politically sophisticated as some, but they care.
:::
Jim Webb: We can't just pick up and leave Iraq, we've got to plan. We've got to plan for the long term, and the plan's got to include the surrounding region. It's got to include the rest of the world, if a solution is going to work.
And he's right. In my opinion, we've been missing a plan all along--long-range planning is not proving to be a particular talent of the Bush administration. And the Iraq problem--for that's what it is now--is not going to be solved without some sort of regional plan. Jim Webb gets it. He's got a mind, and he's not afraid to use it, even if what he finds out doesn't agree with the Bush party line.
This guy is an example of the best Virginia has to offer. He cares about people, he's got national security experience, he stands for the little guy, and doesn't believe in sacrificing liberty for safety--he knows we can have both.
:::
George Allen: we've done a "tremendous job helping Iraqis build a democracy in a formerly oppressive, terrorist-friendly dictatorship".
What? What? We've been doing a tremendous job of something in Iraq, but creating a non-oppressive, non-terrorist-friendly enviroment isn't that something. No planning=eventual chaos. And that's what Allen supports.
George Allen supports thoughtless warfare and destruction. He supports policies that make enemies of our former allies. He supports the degradation of the US' reputation in the world community by supporting those policies. He invites terror through thoughtless action. George Allen may believe he's fighting the war on terror, but he's really opening it up to newcomers.
:::
Who's the independent thinker? Who's going to stop and consider the serious issues rather than throwing us right into another war? Who's not going to blindly follow where George W Bush leads us? Hell, which candidate has been to war, and has the military experience to help lead our soldiers, not just "send" them?
Far be it from me to tell you who's the best candidate. But it's not Allen.