Your video, Jim Webb SLAMS Romney's "Taker" Claim vs. Veterans, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^volumptuous:
Actually, Senator Jim Webb is currently trying to do something about it, and he's linking US drug policy in his push for reform.
http://webb.senate.gov/email/incardocs/FS_CrimJust_3-26-09.pdf
Private prisons (which should be the free-market favorite of blanky's) have shown they are more costly to run than government prisons, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. They are also more dangerous, and provide far less for the inmates.


The link doesn't work for me...gets a 404 page-not-found error.

I do wonder where this religious belief in the universal-superiority-of-private-enterprise comes from... There's really not much support for the idea that private enterprise can always do it cheaper. There is little to nothing that a private agency can do that a government agency cannot, and those profits have to come from somewhere (i.e. must get added to the base costs of operations).

And if there are any moral issues involved, private enterprise is probably not an appropriate choice, especially when their profits conflict with the morality. Healthcare vs profit, healthcare loses. Safety of anyone vs profits, safety loses.

I'm pretty much of the opinion that anything involving the safety of humans is a poor choice to leave to the profiteers.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
no politician will touch it for fear of being labeled 'soft on crime'. It's infuriating.


Actually, Senator Jim Webb is currently trying to do something about it, and he's linking US drug policy in his push for reform.

http://webb.senate.gov/email/incardocs/FS_CrimJust_3-26-09.pdf

Private prisons (which should be the free-market favorite of blanky's) have shown they are more costly to run than government prisons, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. They are also more dangerous, and provide far less for the inmates.

The press is swearing on a stack of bibles that Obama will pick either Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, or Tim Kaine. They also swore on a stack of bibles that there was no reason to doubt that there were WMD in Iraq.

Snarkiness aside, I'm thinking they're right, it'll be one of those three, with a smidge of possibility for Katherine Sebellius.

Nobody has an inside line, but I think the smartest pick for Obama out of that group is Biden, and I think the press is right to consider him the front runner.

I'm with Fjnbk, I'd probably be most excited about Al Gore, but that's not happening.

There's quite a few people I liked more than the names that are left, Jim Webb, Chris Dodd, John Edwards (before I knew about the affair), and even Bill Richardson, but Webb & Edwards are out of consideration, and Dodd & Richardson's names never made it on any of the short lists, even when the short list was 15+ people.

I'm trying to figure out who McCain will pick. I've got zero read on where he's at, but I don't see anyone who'd be a good choice for him. Who'd be able to energize independents without pissing off the base, or who'd energize the base without pissing off independents? Why wouldn't such a person have become the nominee in the first place, if they existed?

If I had to guess, I'll say Romney, which will mean I get to promote old videos of McCain and Romney attacking each other from the Republican debates.

If Bush could apologize, I'd be utterly stunned. Mainly because he thinks he's on the side of righteousness, and history will view him as a magnificent and beneficent leader, so he sees nothing for which an apology is necessary. That is the gall of a dictator on his throne. I really hope Obama can change things. I am not entirely sure about it, but he cannot possibly be worse than Bush.

Oh, and you mentioned he's a President and not a King? Well, if were a King, he'd be on the downswing of a guillotine blade by now.

>> ^Farhad2000:
I read a very interesting article in Harpers the other day called "Democracy and Deference", about how people relate to power in the US, it featured an anecdotal story about Vietnam veteran Jim Webb meeting Bush, Webb has a son fighting in Iraq, Bush asked him about him, Jim said he wanted to get him out of Iraq, Bush said that he didn't ask him about that but about his son.
What followed next was a big media outrage about how rude Jim Webb was to President Bush in the Whitehouse questioning his decisions about Iraq! You simply do not question the president. Unquestionable loyalty is more important then rational dissent.
It then posed the same example with Powell and his presentation to UN, where the statesman part of Powell lost out to the loyal Soldier. Powell later said that even though he had grave doubts about the evidence against Iraq, he still went ahead with the presentation because he was loyal to the President.
When did this type of thinking evolve? The President is not a King, he is an elected official accountable to the population. The White house is rented out by the American people to him.
The parallels are stark when you comparing the US and UK political process, the UK populace believes it has an inherent right to meddle in politics, whereas in the US its more about trusting someone else to do the right thing.
You ever watch Tony Blair giving a press conference? The audience is always full of well informed people who ask challenging questions, who make the PM sweat, who press if the question is dodged, the PM then apologizes (OMFG) and tries to clarify.
Compare that to the US media circus of PR, where questions are always soft balled and there is a silly air of jolly good fun with funny quips, the seriousness is lost. The questions are prescreened, weeding out challengers and encouraging stupid expressions of admiration along the lines of "All my heroes are cowboys" to which there is thunderous applause.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

I read a very interesting article in Harpers the other day called "Democracy and Deference", about how people relate to power in the US, it featured an anecdotal story about Vietnam veteran Jim Webb meeting Bush, Webb has a son fighting in Iraq, Bush asked him about him, Jim said he wanted to get him out of Iraq, Bush said that he didn't ask him about that but about his son.

What followed next was a big media outrage about how rude Jim Webb was to President Bush in the Whitehouse questioning his decisions about Iraq! You simply do not question the president. Unquestionable loyalty is more important then rational dissent.

It then posed the same example with Powell and his presentation to UN, where the statesman part of Powell lost out to the loyal Soldier. Powell later said that even though he had grave doubts about the evidence against Iraq, he still went ahead with the presentation because he was loyal to the President.

When did this type of thinking evolve? The President is not a King, he is an elected official accountable to the population. The White house is rented out by the American people to him.

The parallels are stark when you comparing the US and UK political process, the UK populace believes it has an inherent right to meddle in politics, whereas in the US its more about trusting someone else to do the right thing.

You ever watch Tony Blair giving a press conference? The audience is always full of well informed people who ask challenging questions, who make the PM sweat, who press if the question is dodged, the PM then apologizes (OMFG) and tries to clarify.

Compare that to the US media circus of PR, where questions are always soft balled and there is a silly air of jolly good fun with funny quips, the seriousness is lost. The questions are prescreened, weeding out challengers and encouraging stupid expressions of admiration along the lines of "All my heroes are cowboys" to which there is thunderous applause.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

At this point, I think the real question everyone's asking is "What does Hillary really want?"

The pundits fill the spectrum, but in my opinion, I think she's saying "President or Bust!"

I think when Obama hits the magic number (what that number is between 2025 and 2210 will be decided on the 31st), she'll gracefully step aside, and start helping unify the party.

I don't think there's a consolation prize that could buy her off before that. I think afterwards, she's willing to let the chips fall where they may. She wanted to be President, and she'll likely be too old (69) to run again in 2016, especially since she'd have to defeat Obama's VP for the nomination.

Obama has to be the one who decides the VP. He can't be forced, or it'll weaken his image. Not to mention, Obama's campaign focus is on a "new kind of politics" and Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of the old kind of politics.

I'm dying to know who Obama will pick for VP. I'd love for it to be Dodd, Edwards, or Jim Webb.

>> ^Grimm:
>> ^Crosswords:
I disagree with Ron Paul on quiet a few things, but what he said there couldn't have echoed my own thoughts and words on the matter more closely. I'm glad someone like him is running on the republican side because of all places that's where those words need to be spoken the most.

Just don't be blind to the dems role in all of this. Bush took us to war with Iraq because both republicans and democrats gave him the thumbs up. Even though most of the dems in congress try to play it off like they are against this war...what have they done to stop it since they were put back in the majority?
One might argue that the true evil is not the republicans who supported this war then and now...but it's the dems who tell us they are against the war and how bad the republicans are who support it and yet they just stand to the side and do nothing to stop it.

Come on Grimm - you're smarter than that. Imagine yourself as a junior senator on the intelligence committee being fed bogus data, and with little access to the full story going on inside the intel community (cheney's strong-arming, etc.).

As for the failed promises of 2007, again, a freshman senator like Jim Webb for instance, wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting a bill to deauthorize Bush from conducting offensive operations in Iraq to the floor. No doubt that Reid deserves mountains of disdain for doing little more than calling for repeated votes on useless bills for no other purpose than to score political points. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

The House just passed a resolution for redeployment (or withdrawal) from Iraq by April 2008, which Bush will veto.

The Republican minority have successfully pushed all timetable war related amendments in the Senate to majority votes (60-40), and Bush has vowed to veto any that reach his desk. The last bill (Webb Amendment) that simply required that troops receive time away from combat equal to time serving in combat was sponsored by Jim Webb, a former Marine, and co-sponsored by every Senators with ground combat experience, including Republicans, and still missed the 60-40 majority required to send it off to the President. The Democrats are being stymied by Republicans who want to hear the end of the summer report on Iraq progress before doing anything.

Tags changed from "jim webb, democart, response, reasoned" to "jim webb, democrat, response, reasoned" by gold star member farhad2000.

Tags changed from "voice of reason, bush is a chimp" to "jim webb, democart, response, reasoned" by gold star member farhad2000.