Monday, January 12, 2015
How about Jim Webb?
Like a lot of other people, I'm horrified by the idea of a Clinton-Bush contest in 2016. The big question becomes, if not Hillary and Jeb, then who? On the Republican side, we might actually have some choices, albeit the choices are not terribly attractive. There are the 2012 retreads, including Romney, Santorum, Perry and Huckabee; the "bomb throwers," Cruz and Paul; and some governors, including Christie, Walker, Daniels and Kasich. And yes, there could be more — lots more.
The Democrats are more constrained, most believing that Hillary has a lock on the nomination. Yes, our man Bernie Sanders will wade in, mostly to let everybody know that the former senator from New York is a conservative hawk, who voted for the Iraq invasion and supported her husband's dissolution of Glass-Steagle. I'm pretty sure Elizabeth Warren means it when she says she won't run this time, so efforts to draft her will almost certainly be fruitless. Martin O'Malley has sent out feelers but, so far, the feelers haven't found anything solid to which to attach themselves.
Jim Webb. Click on the link, and see what you think. Very important to me is that he could be the first president since JFK with any military experience (and this includes the Pentagon.) Why is that important to me?
Jim Webb is the only potential candidate with the knowledge, the motivation, and the experience needed to resist the blandishments of the military-industrial complex. What could we expect of Clinton? More useless military spending and adventurism and, most likely, the return of David Petreus: keeper of secret prisons, planner of secret drone strikes, and architect of the largely useless 2009 "surge" in Afghanistan.
I like what Webb has to say for himself. Maybe you'll agree.