Sen. Jim Webb Plans to Reform the Prison Industry

The United States produces more prisoners than any other country in the world...

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Sen. Jim (D-VA) plans to introduce legislation to reform our prison industry...

This spring, Webb (D-Va.) plans to introduce legislation on a long-standing passion of his: reforming the U.S. prison system. Jails teem with young black men who later struggle to rejoin society, he says. Drug addicts and the mentally ill take up cells that would be better used for violent criminals. And politicians have failed to address this costly problem for fear of being labeled "soft on crime." [...]

Webb aims much of his criticism at enforcement efforts that he says too often target low-level drug offenders and parole violators, rather than those who perpetrate violence, such as gang members. He also blames policies that strip felons of citizenship rights and can hinder their chances of finding a job after release. He says he believes society can be made safer while making the system more humane and cost-effective.

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

Evan Bayh is organizing a Blue Dog caucus in the Senate.

Matthew Yglesias explains further...

With Republicans out of power, the GOP can’t really block progressive change in exchange for large sums of special interest money. That creates an important market niche for Democrats willing to do the work. It was a good racket for the House Blue Dogs in 2007-2008 and there’s no reason it couldn’t work for Senate analogues over the next couple of years.

Matt Stoller has a list of Conservative Democrats that might join a Blue Dog caucus that include Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Jim Webb (Va.), and Sen.-elect Mark Warner (Va.).

Stoller goes on to explain that this just shows that the 60 vote threshold meant nothing...

This shows that the 60 vote threshold argument was nonsense, power is concentrated in the hands of conservative Democrats and a few Republicans, and that's how these guys wanted it.

A perfect example that electing better Democrats is just as important as electing more Democrats.

McCain Takes Credit for Webb's GI Bill

John McCain is taking credit for the Webb GI Education Bill...

I'm happy to tell you that we probably agreed to an increase in educational benefits for our veterans that not only gives them increase in their educational benefits, but if they stay in for a certain period of time than they can transfer those educational benefits to their spouses and or children. That's a very important aspect I think of incentivizing people of staying in the military.

This is quite odd considering that McCain opposed the passage of this bill in the Senate...

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, seemed to give a thumbs down to bipartisan legislation that would greatly expand educational benefits for members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan under the GI Bill.

Vote Vets put out this ad asking McCain to support the bill and support the troops.

Obama Will Look at Qualifacations, Not Geography When He Names His VP

From Marc Ambinder...

In a briefing with reporters here in Washington, Obama manager David Plouffe offered the campaign's first public comments on what criteria Obama would use to choose his vice presidential ticket-mate.

Responding to a reporter's question, Plouffe said that Obama would choose someone "qualified to be president and someone who'll be a partner in governing."

"We certainly don't want to pick someone who will hurt," he said.

He then referred to President Bush's choice of Dick Cheney as any example of a pick that didn't help Bush politically but didn't hurt him either.

And he noted that the pick of Al Gore didn't help Bill Clinton win Tennessee in 1992; without Gore, Clinton would have won anyway.

Richardson and Webb have the best geographic arguments to be VP, so you'd think this might help the chances of Joe Biden and Kathleen Sebelius.

Jim Webb: The Fire Breathing Economic Populist

The Economist takes a look at Sen. Jim Webb possibly being Obama's running mate.

Webb has great resume on foreign policy issues and opposed the Iraq War from the beginning...

In his prescience on this issue, Mr Webb, who is now a senator, has much in common with Barack Obama. The difference is that Mr Webb is a military man. He attended the Naval Academy (also John McCain's alma mater), was decorated four times and wounded twice in Vietnam, and served as Ronald Reagan's secretary of the navy. His father was in the air force; his son served in Iraq. No one, therefore, can accuse Mr Webb of being an effete peacenik.

Webb comes from a swing state and is a Washington outisder...

He is from Virginia, a battleground state with 13 juicy electoral votes. At 62, he is reassuringly older than Mr Obama, but he has been a politician for less than two years, which fits nicely with Mr Obama's message of freshness and change.

However, they conclude that Webb would be a poor choice because he is a fire breathing economic populist.

The main worry about Mr Webb, however, is that he is a genuine fire-breathing economic populist. He appears actually to believe the sort of stuff that Mr Obama only says during Democratic primaries. Since vice-presidents sometimes become presidents, this matters. American workers, says Mr Webb, “are at the mercy of cut-throat executives who are vastly overpaid, partly as a consequence of giving [the workers'] jobs away to other people.” Illegal immigration and globalisation “threaten to dissipate” the American middle-class way of life. He predicts that, unless the government acts to restore “economic fairness”, America “may well go the way of ancient Greece [or] greed-ridden Rome”.

I think that might be the biggest reason why Webb should be Obama's VP.

What Obama Needs in a Vice President

The most important thing that Obama needs to consider when looking for a VP is foreign policy experience. Obama was attacked during the primary for not having enough experience and he will be attacked for this in the general election even more. However, if Obama picks a VP that has a ton of foreign policy experience, but voted for the war in Iraq then it would totally undercut Obama's message that judgement matters more than experience.

It would be helpful for the VP to put more states in play. A quality VP choice should give Obama a chance to win a few states in the Mountain West or Southwest or the mid-Atlantic regions.

It would be a plus for the VP to be viewed as a Washington outsider, as it would strengthen Obama's message of changing Washington.

Knowing that it would difficult to find a VP candidate that meets all of those, I think there are 4 names that bring the most to the table...

• Joe Biden
  
• Wesley Clark
• Bill Richardson
• Jim Webb
  

What do you think?

Obama's VP

The American Prospect takes a look at possible VP's for Obama. The two names that came up the most in the discussion were Senators Jim Webb of Virginia and Joe Biden of Delaware. I think both would be excellent, with a slight edge going to Webb. Biden is a Washington insider and Webb is less connected to DC, while still bringing foreign policy experience (the same could be said for Bill Richardson).

There are a lot of Clinton supporters listed (Ted Strickland, Wesley Clark, Tom Vilsack, Evan Bayh, and Ed Rendell) and I would think if Obama names a Clinton supporter as VP then it would probably be Hillary herself.

The most intriguing name listed was Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. He is a solid progressive and could help turn Montana, Nevada, and Colorado blue.

The most interesting long shot was former Colorado Senator Gary Hart, who has a long resume on foreign policy and terrorism, but would bring some monkey business to the campaign trail.

After Chris Dodd endorsed Obama yesterday, I was surprised his name wasn't even on the list. Matt Browner-Hamlin, who worked for Dodd's Presidential campaign, takes a look at a possible Obama-Dodd ticket.

How about an Obama - Bloomberg Ticket?

Marc Ambinder is reporting Barack Obama met with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for breakfast this morning.

Sen. Barack Obama will set vice presidential speculation on fire with a brief stop to say hello to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, himself an occasional presidential flirt. The meeting appeared on Bloomberg's schedule, which was distributed to reporters last night.

An Obama aide said the meeting was scheduled because of "mutual interest" and did not know whether the two had met before.

You hear rumors all the time about possible Clinton Vice Presidential candidates, such as Wesley Clark, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh, and former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, but this is the first name mentioned as a possible VP candidate for Obama. I think the perfect VP candidate for Obama would be Richardson. However, Obama could tout his bipartisan approach by appointing someone like Bloomberg or Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA).

War with Iran

I went out to lunch yesterday and the talk on NPR and conservative talk radio was all about going to war with Iran.

Here's Sen. Jim Webb discussing this on Hardball yesterday.

Scarborough Takes on Iraq Concering Blackwater, Sen. Webb Sets Him Straight

Wow, I don't think anyone could flip flop more than Romney and Rudy, but Joe Scarborough sure did a 180 on this segment concerning Blackwater's actions in Iraq.

Webb Amendment Gives Troops the Rest They Need

Jim Webb introduced an amendment that would require US troops to have equal time between active duty and breaks between deployments. So if a soldier is in Iraq for one year they get one year off before being redeployed.

Over the summer, this amendment got 56 votes.

Here is Webb explaining the importance of the amendment.

Moving to the Left

EJ Dionne of the Washington Post has an article today about the country moving to the left. He has a couple interesting points...

Today's left is not talking about nationalizing industry, abolishing capitalism or destroying the rich. What passes for "left" in American politics is quite moderate by historical standards.

He cites popular Republicans governing with moderate views and Democrats embracing economic populism doing well at the polls...

Economic populism is no longer marginal or antique. Frustration over growing economic inequalities, excessive compensation for executives, the privileged role of hedge funds and the disruptions caused by globalization are mainstream concerns. Newly elected Democratic senators as diverse as Jon Tester of Montana, Jim Webb of Virginia, Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota all sounded populist themes in 2006.

Vice Presidential Candidates

Political Insider says vice presidential candidates rarely are named from people who have been running for president.

With many presidential candidates being touted as possible vice presidential nominees should they lose their party's primary, such as Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), it is important to note that history is not on their side. Since 1932, of the 28 vice presidential nominees who were running for the office for the first time, just five of them were previously candidates for president that year: John Edwards (D) in 2004, George H.W. Bush (R) in 1980, Lyndon Johnson (D) in 1960, Estes Kefauver (D) in 1956, and John Garner (D) in 1932.

I think Richardson or Obama would be ideal VP candidates. However, If we are looking outside the field of presidential candidates you can look at people that almost ran for president like former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana), and Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin). Some others could be Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, and first term Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia).

How to Frame the Iraq Appropriations Bill

Sen. Carl Levin gets an F for these remarks on ABC's This Week (here's Matt Stoller's take from MyDD and the Young Turks reaction from Air America) ...

"We're not going to vote to cut funding, period," Levin said. "But what we should do, and we're going to do, is continue to press this president to put some pressure on the Iraqi leaders to reach a political settlement."

Levin is correct in saying that Democrats support the troops and wouldn't cut the funding. However, Levin is using the Republican frame to make his point. By insisting that Democrats won't cut the funding it instantly makes people think that the Democrats will cut the funding. The reality is Democrats passed a bill that funded our troops, a bill that Bush is going to veto. Bush is the one that is against funding our troops.

Sen. Jim Webb understands this and earns an A+. Here is how Webb reframed the issue...

"President Bush has threatened to veto the Iraq War supplemental bill, which is favored by a majority of Americans and a majority in Congress. This is just another example of the one-dimensional approach of this administration with respect to the resolution of this ill-conceived war.

"In the Constitution, the Congress appropriates funds and writes the checks. We're sending the President a bill that provides $100 billion for our troops to continue their mission in Iraq. Nobody is cutting the money from the troops unless the President vetoes the bill Congress sends him."

Jim Webb Gives Democratic Response to the State of the Union

I missed the state of the union speech, which I didn't really care about anyway. I caught the important quotes on cable news and saw the analysis.

What I really wanted to see was Virginia Senator Jim Webb giving the official Democratic response. I have read that Webb tore up the prepared remarks given to him by Democratic leadership and gave a speech that he wrote himself. Webb's speech was an intelligent and strong statement of beliefs that focused on the economy and foreign policy. It is these issues that helped Democrats get elected like Jon Tester in Montanta, Claire McKaskill in Missouri, Heath Schuler in North Carolina, and Bruce Braley and Dave Loebsack in Iowa. Democrats must push these issues if they want to hold Congress and win control of the White House.

Webb closed the speech by saying...

Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.

Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other. And he did something about it.

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the general who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War II. And as soon as he became president, he brought the Korean War to an end.

These presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this president to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.

Part 1


Part 2

We Went in Recklessly; We Must Move Forward Responsibly

I read a great post at Huffington Post by newly elected Senator Jim Webb of Virginia about Iraq. When Webb, the former Sec. of the Navy under Reagen, speaks on Iraq people should of both parties should listen. Webb has been there and has a son in active duty in Iraq right now.

In the post, Webb summarizes his argument by saying we went to war in Iraq recklessly and we need to must move forward responsibly. Here is part of what he wrote...

We went to war in Iraq recklessly; we must move forward responsibly. The war's costs to our nation have been staggering. These costs encompass what we hold to be most precious--the thousands of American servicemen and women who have been killed or wounded. The costs also extend to the many thousands more Iraqi people killed and wounded as their country slides into the chaos of sectarian violence and civil war. We have incurred extraordinary financial costs--expenses totaling more than $380 billion and now estimated at $8 billion a month.

I recognize that Iraq faces severe and growing economic hardship as the result of its increasing spiral of violence, but I believe that providing an additional $1 billion in U.S. funding for reconstruction projects would only worsen the rampant waste and corruption as a result of the lack of effective oversight and control of similar billions in funding over the past four years. The administration's intention to increase economic aid to Iraq is especially troublesome when we still have victims in critical need of assistance more than a year after Hurricane Katrina's devastation along our Gulf Coast.

The key questions of the moment are how long the United States should be expected to keep our forces in Iraq as its government seeks to assume its own burdens? How and when will we begin to draw down our combat presence and conclude our mission in a way that does not leave even greater chaos behind? What is the administration's strategic vision and, as it relates to our presence in Iraq, its eventual endpoint? This administration has never clearly affirmed that the answers to these questions are not to be found in Iraq alone. Achieving our goals in this war requires a coherent strategy encompassing the entire region. The need for an overarching diplomatic solution is now, more than ever, an imperative if we are to end the war.

Welcome Economic Populists!

The mainstream media would lead you to believe that many of the Democrats that won on November 7th because they are more conservative. In the past, I have asked where does moving to the center get us? A look at the candidates that won, it looks like centrism gets us no where and the key to succes is economic populism.

That economic populism extends, for many candidates, to a new emphasis on expanding health coverage. Congressional Democrats who lived through the Clinton administration’s failed effort to create a national health insurance plan, which many believe was a crucial factor in the Democrats’ losses in 1994, have been wary of broad health legislation for years. (And being in the minority, they were unable to do much about it, regardless.) But the class of ’06 is adamant that something major can, and will, be done.

The media says many of the Democrats elected were Centrists because they only see things on a Liberal - Conservative line and they say that Bob Casey is pro-life (so he can't be that much of a Liberal and must be centrists), Jon Tester is pro-gun (so he can't be that much of a Liberal and must be a centrists), and Jim Webb is pro-military (so he can't be that much of a Liberal and must be a centrsits). Democrats can't fall for the centrists trap.

Many of the democrats elected on Tuesday are progressive populists. The Progressive Caucus membership in the House is going to increase by from the low-50's to 64, with many holding important positions on committees. In the Senate, Bernie Sanders, Jon Tester, Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Bob Casey, and even Jim Webb are progressive populists that believe in a balanced budget, health care for all, a strong and an intelligent fight against terrorism, and most importantly Fair Trade agreements that keep jobs in America.

This November, Americans voiced their disapproval of the Iraq War and disaproval of the corporate agenda. Centrists Democrats push the corporate agenda and put profit before people just as much as Republicans do. Luckily, for the common Americans out there, these newly elected members to congress hold different views. Views that put wager earners before wealth and put people before profit.

That economic populism extends, for many candidates, to a new emphasis on expanding health coverage. Congressional Democrats who lived through the Clinton administration’s failed effort to create a national health insurance plan, which many believe was a crucial factor in the Democrats’ losses in 1994, have been wary of broad health legislation for years. (And being in the minority, they were unable to do much about it, regardless.) But the class of ’06 is adamant that something major can, and will, be done.

So They Say Jim Webb is Conservative?

The Mainstream Media would want you to believe that Virginia Senator elect Jim Webb is more conservative than the regular Democrat because that has to be the only way he could win, right?

Here is an op-ed that Webb wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week discussing one of the issues that was central in his campaign: class struggle.

Class Struggle
American workers have a chance to be heard.

BY JIM WEBB
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

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. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.

Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.

Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.