Substance Limited

Now that David Gregory has been bounced from Meet the Press, Washington insiders, as well as the 14  people who still watch the Sunday morning interview programs, are anxious to determine what kind of interviewer politics enthusiast Chuck Todd will conduct.

If Todd's discussion (small portion thereof, video below) with former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, whom some people have speculated may challenge Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, is any indication, not so good.  While a U.S. Senator, Webb worked on prison reform and yesterday raised the issue twice with Todd. However, the NBC veteran ignored the issue, probably because it's an actual issue.

Todd preferred to ask six(6) questions- including five about Hillary Clinton- about the 2016 race. Webb, who was generally something of a moderate while in the upper chamber, took political caution a little far, refusing even to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton was qualified to be President. 

Asked whether Mrs.Clinton is "a qualified candidate to be President," Webb responded "We led on this to Asia, which people talked about a lot for the Obama administration. We began that two years before President Obama was elected. And I've been very strong on different ways to deal with foreign policy."  

The correct answer would have been "yes" or "yes, she has been a U.S. Senator and Secretary of State;"  not giving away any state secrets or making any concessions there.

Credit J.W., however, for boldly stating " I would be willing to bet that we had people at the top of ISIS who actually have been trained by Americans at some point." Do not credit Todd for following up on this fairly extraordinary statement, because he sidestepped it, preferring to dwell on the ex-Senator's "political ambitions."

Todd's major failure, however, was in not following up on a cryptic remark made by his guest in the following exchange: 

CHUCK TODD: Very quickly, a few key issues. Gay marriage. You were for civil unions, but not for legalized gay marriage when you ran in 2006. Have you changed?

JIM WEBB: I took some very tough stands in '06. People will look back at the Virginia campaign. There was a gay marriage amendment on the ballot, an anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot in Virginia. I've got a lot of family ties down in the far Southwest, and I oppose that. And I'm really comfortable with where the evolution has--

CHUCK TODD: So you're not ready, so legal in some places, but not legal in others?

JIM WEBB: I think this has been a good thing for the country.

CHUCK TODD: Okay. Well, Jim Webb, I'm going to leave it there.

Leave it where, Chuck-O?   The presidential contender may be saying he is "really comfortable" with the shift in law and public opinion toward same-sex marriage. Or he may be maintaining that having same-sex marriage "legal in some places, but not legal in others" is wise, as the US Supreme Court presumably and unwisely thinks it is.

And the former Senator would be kind to spare us his "evolution." If he has changed his mind, he could say so, even avoiding the dreaded, and under-utilized, phrase "I was wrong." Use of the term "evolution" is at once both a dodge and patronizing to those who haven't "evolved" to the high state of consciousness he and President Obama have.

We are left unsure about Webb's views of same-sex marriage because Todd had to "leave it there"- other than by asking Jim Webb one last, seventh question about running for President.

Share |

Crime Proposal- no. 2

In defending his proposal for a commission to study the criminal justice system in the U.S.A., Senator Jim Webb (D.-Va.) on the Senate floor emphasized

We have 5% of the world's population; we have 25% of the world's known prison population. We have an incarceration rate in the United States, the world's greatest democracy, that is five times as high as the average incarceration rate of the rest of the world. There are only two possibilities here: either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States; or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice.

Not quite. There may be "something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice." While Senator Webb is concerned about the lack of treatment of mentally ill inmates, the "sharp increase" of individuals incarcerated for drug offenses, and the preponderance of blacks in (federal) prison, many Americans believe judges hand out weak sentences, inmates are coddled, and the death penalty should be more widely applied.

But the rate of incarceration in the United States, which Webb notes is far greater than in the world as a whole, does not suggest that we may "have the most evil people on earth" nor does it alone prove that our approach is radically misguided. Nor does the fact that African-Americans, as the Senator points out, are only approximately 12% of our population but "end up being 37% of those arrested on drug charges, 59% of those convicted, and 74% of those sentenced to prison by the numbers that have been provided by us."

Without using the "r" word, Webb appears to assume that racial bigotry accounts for the disproportionate number of black Americans in penal institutions. This is disappointing- and rather curious- for a man whose Wikipedia entry indicates wrote an op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal in 2006 which

addressed what Webb feels is a growing economic inequality in the United States, touching on what he feels are overly permissive immigration policies, extravagant executive compensation, the detrimental effects of free trade and globalization, iniquitous tax cuts, and speedily rising health care costs, and attacking the "elites" who he says perpetuate the aforementioned woes for their personal economic gain.

In the same article, the newly-elected senator wrote

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century.... If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest.

It's unfortunate that Webb's critical emphasis on the poverty endured by many white Americans has obscured the reality that black Americans more often are plagued with lower incomes, more substandard housing, inadequate education and health care, dysfunctional family structure, and thus, not surprisingly (though Webb claims otherwise in his Senate remarks), a higher rate of usage of hard drugs. And if the"growing income inequality in the United States might "bring a period of political unrest," it clearly is a factor in the incidence of crime. Were the Senator willing to press for a study of the bifurcation of American society rather than repeating the tired bromides about the faults of the justice system, he would be demonstrating the courage which otherwise have characterized his public career.

Crime Proposal- no. 1

Jim Webb has been a combat veteran of Vietnam, Marine Corps infantry officer, and Secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan. Now a United States Senator from Virginia, Webb points out that he is not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. And it shows.

The Virginia Democrat has co-sponsored with Senator Arlen Specter (R.- Pa.) the National Criminal Justice Commission Act of 2009, which would create a commission which, according to Webb's website (redundant?) "an 18-month, top-to-bottom review of the nation's entire criminal justice system and offering concrete recommendations for reform. "

In his speech (pdf) on the Senate floor introducing the legislation, Webb clearly was exorcised because the United States is

5% of the world's population; we have 25% of the world's known prison population. We have an incarceration rate in the United States, the world's greatest democracy, that is five times as high as the average incarceration rate of the rest of the world....

The elephant in the bedroom in many discussions on the criminal justice system is the sharp increase in drug incarceration over the past three decades. In 1980, we had 41,000 drug offenders in prison; today we have more than 500,000, an increase of 1,200%.

There are two major problems with the proposal for a commission, aside from the impulse of Washington politicians to propose a commission, task force, or a committee at the cliched drop of a hat. Here is but one: Webb's speech is all about the United States as a nation, not as a collection of fifty states in a federal system. Statistics which can be directly compared are hard to come by; but in 2005, there were 1,189,900 men and women serving time in state prisons. As of the end of 2007- by which time even more individuals were in a facility after having been sentenced- there were 1,532,817 individuals in either a state or a federal prison.

Obviously, there are far more persons incarcerated in state facilities in the U.S.A. than in federal prisons. And the variation in state laws plays a role in differential rates of incarceration. For example, in 2005, Maine incarcerated 1867 people per 100,000 residents, while the corresponding number in Virginia (Mr. Webb's state) was 3214 individuals.

Admittedly, one of the factors spurring a high rate of imprisonment in the United States is the penalty for personal use of marijuana, which varies significantly between states. And if the thirst for liberalization of those laws on the federal level rested on the President most of the left supported, those hopes may now be considered dashed. Meanwhile, consideration for reform of the criminal justice system should be undertaken by those states, likely including Virginia, exhibiting the draconian laws and sentencing practices which appall Senators Webb and, presumably, Specter.

The GOP- Against The Troops

Late this afternoon, by a vote of 56 to 44, the Senate failed to impose cloture in the debate over Virginia Senator Jim Webb's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment would have mandated, for active duty units and soldiers, at least equal time at home as the length of their previous tour overseas and for National Guard and Reserve soldiers and units a minimum 1-to-3 year ratio.

Sixty votes were needed to force a vote on the measure, which gained the support of all Democrats except Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, who was elected as an Independent, proclaims himself an "Independent Democrat," and votes with the Democratic Party in caucus. (Independent Bernie Sanders, a Socialist who votes in caucus with the Democratic Party, voted "yea.")

Six(6) of fourty-nine(49) Republicans voted for the amendment. So, the next time you hear of a Democrat "not supporting the troops," remember: aside from Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine, Hagel of Nebraska, Smith of Oregon, Sununu of New Hampshire, and Coleman of Minnesota, the Rebub position in the Senate is: We support George Bush, not the troops.

GOP Senators Not Supporting The Troops

On July 7, 2007 I posted a blog arguing that the recent statements by Republic Senators Lugar, Voinovich, and Domenici nearly challenging President Bush's policy in Iraq were vague and offered little indication of their vote on legislation which mught come up this autumn to curtail, or end, the fighting.

We did not have to wait until fall. On July 10, 2007 the U.S. Senate rejected cloture on an Amendment introduced by freshman Senator Jim Webb (D.-Va.) mandating that members of the Armed Forces who have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan remain at home for at least as long (generally a year) as they had served before they are redeployed to the Gulf. Members of the National Guard and the Reserves would remain at home a minimum of three years.

Senators Lugar, Voinovich, and Domenici were among the 40 Republic Senators (and Joe Lieberman) who voted against cloture. (No Democrat voted to continue debate, and three Senators did not vote.)

So much for questioning Bush. So much for "supporting the troops."