Jim Webb

[OrnotBitwise]

I think it's great that an opposition rebuttal nearly overwhelmed an SOTU speech by a president.

I've never seen that happen before. Rebuttal speeches are usually forgotten five minutes after they're over.

And Webb is addressing a REAL issue: overwhelming majoriites of american's think this economy is not working for the middle class. So do life-long republicans like CNN's Lou Dobbs and JacK Caferty. This ain't no "marxist" thing - this is real economic populism.

And, if the Dems lose the presidency in 2008, look for Jim Webb to be a candidate for prez in 2012.

Exactly. It's more than a bit disingenuous to object to the tone of a (supposedly) populist platform by deliberately mis-casting that platform in explicitly Marxist terms.


Moderation and statesmanship don't require one to become a complete lapdog. There is a place for blunt speech.

 

[uscitizen]

I think the time for blunt speech has arrived. As long as it is true.

 

[Damocles]

Exactly. It's more than a bit disingenuous to object to the tone of a (supposedly) populist platform by deliberately mis-casting that platform in explicitly Marxist terms.


Moderation and statesmanship don't require one to become a complete lapdog. There is a place for blunt speech.

I never did. I specifically gave different ways to express it and to resolve it without creating the wedge. The wedge is vital to partisan politics. Cheering it for one side while complaining about it on the other is disingenuous. I, for one, will continue to complain about it consistently.

I have once again never promoted that it was no problem at all, I have promoted an idea against wedge-issue emotive politics. I didn't say his issue was non-existent, but that it was specifically expressed in a way to drive a wedge between people who need not be enemies while fixing the issue. I have even given ideas on how to do it that people on your side have consistently pretended never were expressed. This is exactly the response I expect to get from those who fall for such emotive politicking. I expected a bit better from a crowd who are a bit more immersed in politics.

 

[Damocles]

I think the time for blunt speech has arrived. As long as it is true.

Once again, pretending that I said do not address the issue so that you can take out that silly strawman. What a hero, but your real "adversary" is over here, promoting other ideas without using the "warfare" card or denying that the way somebody says something is as important as what is expressed.

 

[uscitizen]

The warfare card is more than just a card. It the the lives and health of many of our finest youngsters, and oldsters too in this one. Also it could be the finiancial ruin of our nation. constitutional issues, etc Not a simple little card at all.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

I have once again never promoted that it was no problem at all, I have promoted an idea against wedge-issue emotive politics. I didn't say his issue was non-existent, but that it was specifically expressed in a way to drive a wedge between people who need not be enemies while fixing the issue

And I say you're fooling yourself. You're seeing more emotion there than there really is because you dislike the message itself.

What, exactly, did you object to in Webb's remarks?

 

[Damocles]

The warfare card is more than just a card. It the the lives and health of many of our finest youngsters, and oldsters too in this one. Also it could be the finiancial ruin of our nation. constitutional issues, etc Not a simple little card at all.

Just as those on the right see the Abortion thing...

Unnecessarily creating division where actual common ground may be found is not an answer, it is an attempt to create a powerbase and nothing more. It is a tool to solidify power. If part of the solution is not to insure that all are aware of their rights, of the power they have as shareholders in this instance, then the solution isn't a solution at all. It is simply another brick in the politcal wall that has been building for centuries...

They are the enemy... They are the enemy... both sides speak this mantra, and in the issues in which they do there is little movement.

 

[Cypress]

Here's the actual transcript. Damo, can you specifically point out to me where this outrageous class warfare, and pseudo-marxist rhetoric is?

From what I can tell its a recitation of economic data/numbers - which I think are accurate - , and opinion: that the economy isn't working like it should for the middle class:


When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy – that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.

 

[Damocles]

And I say you're fooling yourself. You're seeing more emotion there than there really is because you dislike the message itself.

What, exactly, did you object to in Webb's remarks?

Once again, from the first it was the way he promoted it as an us against them type of thing. Using, as I stated in my first post, statistics that are specifically designed to create that emotive response. I even gave better statistics to use...

The idea that using wedges is good is only promoted by those who wish that wedge to exist so they can feel that they are more powerful. It leaves people in the dark as to their actual rights, as I have repeatedly pointed out here, and doesn't promote equal opportunity, but equality of outcome pursued by the protector government.

What do I have against it? It promotes ignorance of the actual power those people have by generating a feeling that government must intervene in their protection when they currently have the power to change it almost immediately. Promoting ignorance, and never promoting education as part of the solution is only a way to solidify power, it is not a solution.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Here's the actual transcript. Damo, can you specifically point out to me where this outrageous class warfare, and pseudo-marxist rhetoric is?

From what I can tell its a recitation of economic data/numbers - which I think are accurate - , and opinion: that the economy isn't working like it should for the middle class:


When one looks at the health of our economy, it's almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.

Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.

In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.

In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy – that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.

And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We've established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We're working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.

You beat me to the punch, Cypress.

Here's a link to the complete prepared text, if anyone's interested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/washington/23webb-transcript.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Again, I don't believe that the section on the economy was at all aggressively emotional. It was blunt, but not manipulative, in my view.

 

[Damocles]

"Two different countries..." etc. It promotes an idea that others are ignoring you for their own welfare, it did not address the ignorance issue, and uses wording that is specifically designed for emotive response rather than a movement to empower those people who could change it quickly by simply using their voting power in their shares... They have the power to fire these people and to ensure that in the future such pay differences are not there, they have the power to change the positioning of the companies they own to a longer-term view of societal responsibility...

None of that was addressed, it was the government that will fix it all. No need to look any deeper.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Once again, from the first it was the way he promoted it as an us against them type of thing. Using, as I stated in my first post, statistics that are specifically designed to create that emotive response. I even gave better statistics to use...

The idea that using wedges is good is only promoted by those who wish that wedge to exist so they can feel that they are more powerful. It leaves people in the dark as to their actual rights, as I have repeatedly pointed out here, and doesn't promote equal opportunity, but equality of outcome pursued by the protector government.

What do I have against it? It promotes ignorance of the actual power those people have by generating a feeling that government must intervene in their protection when they currently have the power to change it almost immediately. Promoting ignorance, and never promoting education as part of the solution is only a way to solidify power, it is not a solution.

To point out to people that they are being wronged is not "promoting ignorance." None of the great advocates of non-violence in the modern world could have achieved what they did without the unifying force of shared suffering and commonality of goals.

The economy has become dysfunctional in that it is concentrating too much power into too few hands. People have to come to grips with that, however distasteful it may be.

 

[Damocles]

To point out to people that they are being wronged is not "promoting ignorance." None of the great advocates of non-violence in the modern world could have achieved what they did without the unifying force of shared suffering and commonality of goals.

The economy has become dysfunctional in that it is concentrating too much power into too few hands. People have to come to grips with that, however distasteful it may be.

No, not promoting the tools that they can use to fix it is.

The actual power nowadays is far more widespread than ever before. More than half of us have stocks and voting power to change those corporations... Instead pointing it out and promoting only the government as the protector from the BIG BADDIES without addressing the extreme ignorance of shareholder rights and promoting that they excercise them and fix it far more quickly than any government actions...

That is simply a way to generate a base, to build it and keep it... It is not the promotion of the best and quickest solution to the problem.

 

[Cypress]

"Two different countries..." etc. It promotes an idea that others are ignoring you for their own welfare, it did not address the ignorance issue, and uses wording that is specifically designed for emotive response rather than a movement to empower those people who could change it quickly by simply using their voting power in their shares... They have the power to fire these people and to ensure that in the future such pay differences are not there, they have the power to change the positioning of the companies they own to a longer-term view of societal responsibility...

None of that was addressed, it was the government that will fix it all. No need to look any deeper.

Okay, thanks.

Other than the phrase "two different countries", there's nothing specific you can point to that is emotive class warfare language. I understand you disagree with his opinion, and have a general gut feeling that this type of language is class-warfare.

But, I disagree. I don't see it as emotional at all. I think all of the facts he laid out, were empirically accurate, and he feels the middle class is slipping behind. A lot of republicans, like Lou Dobbs and Jack Cafferty would agree with that.

As for him not promoting enough policy specifics, nobody ever does that in SOTU rebuttals. There's not enough time for it, and its not the forum.

 

[Damocles]

Not true. There is the use of statistics that specifically are designed to build strength to the emotive response. As I stated in the first post there are others to use that give a better idea of the actual division rather than unnecessarily exaggerating an effect.

I also disagree entirely with his solutions as they do not address the ignorance of the rights of shareholders and use the power of the fact that over 50% of the US owns stock and can change this nearly immediately if they excercised their rights... Instead only the government is promoted as the savior of the masses.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

No, not promoting the tools that they can use to fix it is.

The actual power nowadays is far more widespread than ever before. More than half of us have stocks and voting power to change those corporations... Instead pointing it out and promoting only the government as the protector from the BIG BADDIES without addressing the extreme ignorance of shareholder rights and promoting that they excercise them and fix it far more quickly than any government actions...

That is simply a way to generate a base, to build it and keep it... It is not the promotion of the best and quickest solution to the problem.

It is your opinion that the "actual power" -- whatever that means -- is more widespread today than ever before. I disagree. Wealth is power. Wealth has always been power and almost certainly always will be. When wealth becomes too concentrated then almost no other power matters.

Which is where revolutions come from.

Again, I don't believe that it is necessary for people to be BIG BADDIES -- people of evil intent, I suppose -- in order to function counter to the interests of society as a whole. Perfectly honest people can pursue their own, natural self-interest and yet be damaging society as a whole. That's exactly what I mean when I say that the economy has become dysfunctional.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Not true. There is the use of statistics that specifically are designed to build strength to the emotive response. As I stated in the first post there are others to use that give a better idea of the actual division rather than unnecessarily exaggerating an effect.

I also disagree entirely with his solutions as they do not address the ignorance of the rights of shareholders and use the power of the fact that over 50% of the US owns stock and can change this nearly immediately if they excercised their rights... Instead only the government is promoted as the savior of the masses.

No, you mentioned statistics that give a picture of the economy more in line with your ideological bent, not a "better" picture per se. In fact, I think that the statistics you mentioned are but trivia, of no significance at all.

 

[Damocles]

It is your opinion that the "actual power" -- whatever that means -- is more widespread today than ever before. I disagree. Wealth is power. Wealth has always been power and almost certainly always will be. When wealth becomes too concentrated then almost no other power matters.

Which is where revolutions come from.

Again, I don't believe that it is necessary for people to be BIG BADDIES -- people of evil intent, I suppose -- in order to function counter to the interests of society as a whole. Perfectly honest people can pursue their own, natural self-interest and yet be damaging society as a whole. That's exactly what I mean when I say that the economy has become dysfunctional.

You disagree because you insist on ignoring the voting power of the shareholders, of the litigation powers they have to insist that such huge divisions in pay be ended almost immediately as they are not good for the corporation, of the actual power that they hold in their portfolios. Huge amounts of Americans hold that power, but they were never educated on how to use it and what their rights are as a group, even a minority one, that owns shares in a corporation.

 

[Damocles]

No, you mentioned statistics that give a picture of the economy more in line with your ideological bent, not a "better" picture per se. In fact, I think that the statistics you mentioned are but trivia, of no significance at all.

And there we disagree. That is at least an honest and direct disagreement to what I have actually said rather than an assumption of what you think I believe. One of the first within this thread.

 

[uscitizen]

FYI, Many shares of stock are non voting shares.