Webb Led On Women's Rights in Navy

[sandnsea]

I am not and never have been a wild Webb fan, although I do think he would be a good choice for VP. For whatever reason, that has brought the George Allen smears against him to this board. What he said wasn't acceptable, but as usual, there is more to the man. Can people please try to refrain from reflexive slander and get the whole picture of a person.

"The women spoke eloquently and forcefully of their support for Jim Webb as a "man of integrity and vision" who has the "deepest respect for everyone." They also praised Webb as someone who, by opening billets as Navy Secretary to women in the Navy, started a "ripple effect" on all the services that was "crucial" and "has to be emphasized." According to Kate Wilder, "Jim Webb started the ball rolling and that's big."

"Barbara Brehm declared that George Allen's negative ads about Jim Webb and women are "bogus." She talked about how Jim had taken the lead in setting up a "women in the Navy" study group, in putting "no restrictions on that group," and in accepting all the groups' recommendations. Brehm thanked Jim for providing "genuine career opportunities" to women when he was Navy Secretary. Brehm asserted that military women have "moved beyond Jim Webb's Washington article" and are more concerned with electing a leader who will focus on "current issues."

http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5203

[woolldog]

1. k&r

Good information.

[MADem]

2. He did not. I was at a speech he gave where women IN UNIFORM were getting up

and SCREAMING AT HIM. In profoundly CAUSTIC terms, too. Senior leadership, to include Flag officers. And there were Flag level males in the crowd agreeing with the female officers as well. And this is while he was SECNAV. First time/only time I ever heard a SECNAV get BOOED.

He fought expanding female combat support billets TOOTH AND NAIL. It was only "his own initiative" because it was shoved down his throat. The real expansion came AFTER he left. He felt that women did not BELONG at the USNA. He had to be beaten over the head to change his mind. And he GRIPED about it the whole way.

You can fluff and call people who challenge this bullshit reinvention of the man names, but that does not, and will not, change facts on the ground. He came around eventually, yes, but that was only after he was obstreperously rude, crude, and blatantly sexist in the interim. And some of that shit is ON TAPE. And would make a SWELL GOP ad.

He is a LOUSY VP choice. His books, with their salacious passages, and his "too many wives" problem knock him out of the running. Even if he didn't have a hair-trigger temper, which he does have. Or the habit of packing heat (and letting his chief of staff get arrested when he handed off his briefcase w/gun to the poor slob).

FWIW, I supported Webb over his primary opponent in the VA SEN contest, and I was VERY pleased that he won. I remain pleased that he serves in the Senate. So don't even pull out that "Ewww, you HATE Webb" stuff.

The reason that shit that George Allen's team flung didn't stick to Webb is because George Allen wasn't just a virulent racist and an anti-semite of Jewish heritage, HE was also an ass-pinching style of sexist to beat the band--and an unrepentant one, who used to spit tabaccky at the high heels of pesky female reporters.

It was sort of like Allen was a hardcore coke and heroin user complaining that his opponent, Webb, used pot every now and again. Never mind pot call kettle--it was the cast iron stove calling out the wrought iron spoon rest.

I just think he is a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE VP choice, for anyone except maybe John McCain on one of those stupid "Unity" tickets. And Webb wouldn't buy off on that unless WWIII was well underway and we were under attack.

I would be shocked if he was chosen. I also don't think anyone close to any campaign sees him as viable. No one would make that ill-advised of a choice, unless they really WANTED to lose.

[bain_sidhe]

3. Women Can't Fight

Women Can't Fight
By James Webb
From the November 1979 Washingtonian
http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/2182.html

It's impossible to pick a decent excerpt, because it's a long piece that builds arguments over many paragraphs. Read it for youself. My point isn't about the pros and cons of his article or his argument, just that picking him would send the wrong signal to a party that needs to unite. I believe that there is a certain segment of women that would see a Webb pick as a giant FUCK YOU to women, something that might especially be seen as "pouring salt in the wounds" for some of Hillary's female supporters.

**edited - typo**

[sandnsea]

5. Which he completely rejected

by his actions in the 80's, which I posted above.

[sfam]

4. Reflexive slander??? That's what I was doing when I asked whether this stuff would matter in the GE?

The only reflexive slander I see here is you slandering me for raising the issue. Truly, give me a break. The guy is my Senator - a person who I both donated to and voted for. I think I made it perfectly clear that I LOVE him being my senator in my so called "slander" thread, both in the initial post and in many of the follow-ups.

Is it really that horrid to mention that this was an issue in the Senate campaign?? This means I'm slandering him?" We're not even allowed to raise the main attack the Repubs used against him when discussing whether he would be Obama's best VP candidate???

I would rehash what I said in my "Jim Webb Slander" thread, but if you weren't able to get the jist of it (my problem was not with Webb, but that the Republicans would use this as an issue, especially when the see an opening with Obama and women who really dug Hillary), its probably a waste of time here.

Continue to slander away...

EDIT: Here's the thread where I apparently am "slandering" Webb, if anyone cares...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5943213&mesg_id=5943213