Here is the text of Senator Jim Webb’s SOTU response. It’s a great speech.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Democratic Response of Senator Jim Webb
To the President’s State of the Union AddressGood evening.
I’m Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown – an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.
It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President’s message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.
Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.
There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy – how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy – how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.
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.
With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.
I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.
Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues – those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death – we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm’s way.
We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us – sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.
The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable – and predicted – disarray that has followed.
The war’s costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.
On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.
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 Two. 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.
Thank you for listening. And God bless America.
You can watch the debate over a non-binding resolution on C-SPAN3. Senator Lugar just said that he thinks the President’s plan is a pipe dream but that the resolution will be unhelpful. Biden is yielding to Senator Hagel.
Chuck Hagel (to his fellow Senators): You want a safe job? Go sell shoes! Are we so afraid that we can’t debate policy in public where the public can see it?
Wow…did he really?
Just…wow. And what a shame that this would actually impress me on some level.
Incredible – and about time someone said it.
Wyoming Republican Senator Mike Enzi became somebody in Wyoming by by by by by…..selling shoes! Not kidding, he owns NZ’s shoes. I bought my school shoes from that crook every year. Oh God, this is hysterical!
Steven D, Hagel is reading the article you wrote about this morning.
Senator Webb, thank you for mentioning New Orleans.
Bush didn’t and won’t.
How about a 75% tax on ceo salaries? I’m afraid what the democrats have proposed is a drop in the bucket to what is needed to achieve economic justice in this country.
Perhaps, but it would have a deeper and broader effect if one were to fix the underlying problems in corporate governance (whatever they are). Something seems to be structurally wrong and is likely to be responsible for many other problems.
I think it is the way our tax system is structured, and, what is needed, is a general revolt against corporate payoffs to ceos. That was beginning to happen with the enron scandal, then 9/11 happened.
My favorite comment about Webb was posted last night by one of my friends on a different blog:
“Every bit of effort put into defeating Senator Macaca paid off, didn’t it?”
That was the best speech I’ve heard a Republican who isn’t Chuck Hagel give in a couple of decades! It’s so good to see that someone is returning that party to the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt & Ike, which is of course a more rational expression of greed without the fundie trimmings. Far from ideal, but compared to the current nuts in charge …
Wait, he’s a DEMOCRAT you say? This was the DEMOCRATIC response to the SoTU?
Hmmmm, hard to tell.
Gotta give him credit for speaking about the distribution of wealth.
well, I just can’t bring myself to do that, b/c in all of his discussions about it, his only focus is on the white middle class. He uses all of those same tropes and code-words that Reagan used. He does not talk about the poor. He’s peddling the same “angry white man” rhetoric that Lou Dobbs peddles, and while it’s good to hear someone take shots at the corporations, there is no consideration in what he says about those sinking beneath even the embattled middle class. He appeals to middle class resentment toward welfare as much or more than he does against unreasonable profits.
I refuse to be taken in by another Reagan dixiecrat.
Webb as a Democrat:
a) Criticize CEO salaries,
b) Wage/salaries at all-time low as a percentage of
national wealth,
b) College tuition skyrocketing,
d) Medical costs through the roof,
e) Industrial base & jobs being shipped overseas,
f) Middle-class, white-collar now feeling the pinch,
g) goverment , not the marketplace, has a role
in defending these economic interests.
4) Pres. Jackson: Measure the economy by the strength of the
base, not the apex. (MM, you seemed to have missed this
Democratic reference.) Favor Main Street over
Wall Street.
5) Raise minimum wage as part of returning government
to the right people, not the few who have been feeding
at the trough the past six years.
6) Military/Iraq
a) Empathize with the plight of soldiers and military
families living through on multiple tours of duty.
b) Emphasize that war means sacrifices.
c) Depoliticize by the military by emphasizing that soldiers
| serve the country, not the leader, a party, or
an ideology.
d) Cut Bush off at the knees in the whole war debate.
e) List all the people the President ignored and show
that they were right & Bush was wrong.
Lay the war on Bush’s doorstep.
f) Lay out a clear plan to end the mess in Iraq.
g) Cost of war has been devastating
1. Financially (costs to the US)
2. Diplomatically (International prestige)
3. Strategically (Loss of focus on terrorism)
4. Militarily (The human toll on our soldiers)
7) Summation: The elected officials must correct these economic and national security issues.
A) TR on the economic imbalance of our economy.
TR attacked the corporate power of the original
Gilded Age. He was the “Trust Buster.” He was
the Elliot Spitzer of his day, but from the White House.
B) President Eisenhower is cited as a Republican leader who understood war and saw that the Korean war had the chance to boil over into WWIII. He ended the war quickly once he was elected.
Webb concludes
That’s why Webb used Republican presidents as examples. (Of course, he also used Jackson.) It is a strong rhetorical turn to use distinguished people of your opponent’s party to illustrate how your opponent, in this case President Bush, falls short.
OK, Madman, there’s Webb’s speech outlined. Here’s my challenge. You think Webb’s a Republican. Find one Republican who has made a speech that covers all those points. Hell, use as many Republican speeches as you want.
If you can, I’ll tip my hat to you and recommend whatever nonsense you post.
When you fail, which you will, you’ll take your smug comments elsewhere for a little vacation.
In others words, put up or shut up.
gee, you got me, as I’m certainly not going to link to a bunch of Republican speeches. However, we can point to much of what Eisenhower said … which Webb himself does … throughout his political career, perspectives that line up pretty well with Webb. That was my point, he may sound like Republicans from 40 years ago, but these are Republican ideas none-the-less. The current radical incarnation isn’t representative of the arc of that party. If you have to pick Democrats of the past that he sounds like, that would be the Boll Weevils/Dixiecrats, and frankly pandering to the resentments of middle class ethnic whites, who often grown their resentments around a core of racism and xenophobia, is not a party that I want any part of.
His talk of NOLA focusses almost entirely on the middle class and business.
As for energy, other than pandering to Big Corn in Iowa, I’ll believe it when I see it.
Jackson was a nativist, racist murderer, and not a part of the Democratic party past that we should celebrate. Other than his resistance to the corporations and trusts, built on demogoguery as much as anything else, he ended up being pretty ineffectual.
Yes, Webb’s against the Iraq war. I have little faith that he is against imperial war in general, having had a long career as a militarist.
Attacking imbalances affecting the middle class is an old position of the REPUBLICAN party. TR is a good example. Good for him … I’d love to see the Republicans return to those values.
What the Democrats need to do is expand this idea to include EVERYONE, including the poor, a group I never have heard Webb mention. Not once. Over and over again he complains about his good, christian, beleagured scots-irish. Those are the fabled Reagan Democrats, who abandoned a party that was moving toward championing justice out of resentment and racism.
Your boy is Scoop Jackson reencarnated, and lets not forget that most of Scoop’s boys became neocons. Good on Webb for not falling into that trap (probably b/c he doesn’t seem to fall for the Israel uber alles crowd). His rhetoric also reminds me a lot of the George Wallace speeches that my father loved when I was a boy.
I don’t need your recommendations or your approval. I could care less about what you think of me, and I do not require your permission in order to offer my take from a perspective that is almost completely missing from the political debate in this country. This isn’t fucking Little Orange Footballs (thank you booman), and being bullied into being a cheerleader for a crappy party running right as fast as it can isn’t something I want to join in on. Thanks, but no thanks.
You center-rightists are happy with the direction of the party. I get that. You get to have your very own tin soldier to salute and celebrate, your very own powerful “good man” to champion your cause. Forget about including the disenfrancised in the discussion .. they should shut up and be glad that Webb and his ilk will allow a few more crumbs to fall their way than the far right does. Forgive me if I refuse to join you in your merry dance around the bonfire and pig’s head impaled on a stick.
Here’s what Webb said about the poor in his speech. He called for restoring the vitality of New Orleans, one of the poorest cities in America. Where is your evidence to support this claim?
You won’t find evidence for your claim in this speech.
Webb compares the CEO wages to the wages of “the average worker,” who is not middle-class. “Wages and salaries” are at an all-time low, as a percentage of national wealth. I’ve earned both, and wages means hourly pay, which includes the poor. The loss of manufacturing jobs means a loss of traditional opportunities for the poor to advance into financial security. Yup, factory workers became middle-class in the post-war period. Seems to me that was a good thing. That was what the unions were fighting for.
Yes, he also says that the middle-class is under assault. He calls them the “our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future.” Would we be better off as a country with an expanding middle-class or a shrinking middle-class? I think that more people with a measure of financial security is something to value.
You say Webb is a Boll Weevil/Dixiecrat, who is “frankly pandering to the resentments of middle class ethnic whites, who often grown their resentments around a core of racism and xenophobia.” Let’s break that charge apart. The most obvious policy positions of Dixiecrats was States Rights and Segregation, or, plainly put, racism without the intervention of a troublesome Fed. Your charge of racism is simply unsupported in this speech. The closest thing he says about race, and I realize that it is not a direct addressing of that problem, is that “[W]e in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans.” All Americans, not just the Scots-Irish.
As for States Rights, he is proposing a very active agenda for the Federal Government, a position no States Righter would ever hold.
Where exactly is he pandering to white middle-class and their “racist resentments”? He says the problem of the middle-class is the same as the problem of the poor, corporate power & Wall Street. It doesn’t get any whiter than in the Board Room and executive offices of the Wall Street traders. His comments about the middle-class professionals starting to feel the pain is an acknowledgment that they have ignored the pain of the working class and poor.
You say Webb’s pandering to Big Corn in Iowa. That’s a stretch since he never mentions it in his speech. If anything, Big Corn is part of the corporate power he is condemning. Webb mentions “spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs.” That would seem to mean the government should be working to get new ideas into the market place, and ethanol is an old, very problematic idea. But then, you mentioned it, not Webb. That’s a bit of a strawman there.
Andrew Jackson. You’re right about his character and actions. He is a difficult man to admire a century and a half later. He embodied many ugly American characteristics. None of which Webb is praising. Webb is citing Jackson’s statement that you measure the economic health of the country by the economic health of its poorest members. Sounds good to me. If human flaws, glaring as Jackson’s and Jefferson’s undoubtedly were, mean everything a person said or stood for is without value, then we have nothing to value. We are all failable, we are all human. Our ideas, like our art, must stand or fall on their merits.
Your Scoop Jackson jag is irrelevant. I reject the premise, and you have supplied no evidence to support your claim.
Nope, my recommendations shouldn’t matter to you. But your claim that I am trying to somehow stifle you is ungrounded. I have spent a great deal of time analyzing and refuting your argument. I have not resorted to personal attack. I can in no way silence you. I do not have that authority here, nor would I want it. I would even oppose it.
If my demands that you support you arguments feel like threats to you, then you should consider what debate is. You seek “to offer [your] take from a perspective that is almost completely missing from the political debate in this country.” Fine. Debate is a good thing. Try it sometime. It takes addressing the points of your opponent, and presenting a counter argument. Otherwise, it is rant masquerading a debate. Which, by the way, is a grand Republican tradition.
this is too funny. I’m enjoying this exchange.
stifle …
Hmmmm.
Anyway, you project your hopes on the words Webb says. You have every right to do so. I’m looking at the totality of his career, his campaign. He uses the same loaded language used by Wallace, Reagan and Lou Dobbs. I’ve been watching politicians like him my whole life, and know a right-leaning southerner when I see one.
We can play this game all day. I’m not going to go searching for links, arrange them in outline form, then respond in the way you want me to. I placed my beliefs in the context of history as I see it. Webb’s a rightie. He’s always been a rightie. He’ll always be a rightie. He may come from that populist tradition of rightie, but he’s a rightie none-the-less.
As for the Big Corn reference, part of your argument was that he was speaking for a Democratic Party that will push alternative energy. Much of their emphasis is on technologies like ethanol and liquified coal, esp. ethanol. Ethanol made mainly from corn, of course, the major product of that first caucus state. There are numerous reasons why ethanol is NOT the direction to go to develop alternative energy. Don’t even get me started on how stupid it is to try to replace one dirty fossil fuel with another.
I listen to him and I hear the same old center-right code words, you hear something else. We’ll see who’s right. The party is going in Webb’s direction, and “purist” lefties aren’t welcome unless we shut up and go along. I’m not saying YOU’RE telling me to shut up, I’m saying that the relentless party cheerleading is. Your side is in control. Time will tell how it works out, but I frankly have a hard time seeing Webb offering much resistance when Bush bombs Iran, since like so many other Democrats he likes to join in the demonizing.
I like your vigilance so it is hard for me to tell you this, but you need to relax every once in a while.
Jesus.
What the fuck did you expect from Webb? He must be exceeding your expectations even if you have little faith in him.
Can you at least see the virtue in Macaca/Santorum/Burnsism getting thoroughly rebuked?
the relentless cheerleading for rightie Dems gets on my nerves.
I expected from him exactly what we got. I didn’t enjoy it anymore, perhaps less, than Hagel’s wonderful performance today, but I’m not going to start supporting Hagel politically. I’m certainly not going to vote for him. The same goes for Webb. Embracing southern white populism to win them back after they abandoned the party for Reagan (which led us to exactly where we are) is exactly the wrong direction for the party, and for the country.
I get tired of reiterating this but you seem to conveniently forget the pre-Civil Rights Bill makeup of the Democratic Party.
You whitewash history every single time you herald the virtues of some never existent Democratic Party.
All Reagan did was take away the northern Wallace voters and build a lasting governing majority.
And now you complain that Webb is a Wallace Democrat.
Number one, Webb ain’t from Michigan. Number two, he ain’t peddling racism, but he took out a racist.
You want to move the Dems in the correct direction? Don’t complain about Webb, wonder why we can’t get ridd of Sununu, Gregg, Snowe, Collins, Specter, Voinovich, Grassley, Domenici, Allard, Kyl, and other Republicans that are in blue or purple states.
And for chrissakes, stop bitching about candidates that we have no control over selecting. They wanted Morrison and got Tester. Tester is better than Morrison. They didn’t want Webb either, and at least he won, and at least he is damaging them on Iraq. They wanted Casey and unfortunately they got him. But at least he crushed Santorum, which was vital to mental well being of all Pennsylvania progressives (trust me).
Sometimes the glass is half-full.
well, no I don’t. I constantly refer to that brief period where the party showed signs of becoming something better. The Daley machine and characters like Wallace, Scoop Jackson and the other Dixiecrats and Boll Weevils worked very hard to kill off that glimmer of hope. I have no illusions about what the Dems were, and are becoming again. I despise both parties, both party’s histories. From the moment “‘three-fifths’ of a person” was written into the Constitution to persuade racist southerners to join the Union, the cancer invaded every political party this country has ever had. For a brief time, led by a racist Texan, the Democrats tried to help cure that horrible legacy, and they’ve been running away from it ever since.
To build the party around a “southern populist” like Webb is to hand it back over to the racists who left to join Reagan. It doesn’t matter if Webb is personally racist, he speaks in the language and cant of those people, he ran for office appealing to their fears and resentments, and holding him up as the Great White Hope of the party is going in exactly the wrong direction.
‘Building the party around’?
Where do you get this shit?
Are we building the party around Bernie Sanders? How about Menendez? Whitehouse? Cardin?
WTF are you even talking about?
Webb won us one very difficult seat and the results are enormous (the control of the Senate).
Oh, that won’t mean shit you said. Except that Bush immediately fired Rumsfeld, dropped over a half dozen truly awful judges, and is facing resoultions against the war in Iraq eminating from the Senate.
Do you ever admit that you are wrong? Does Dick Cheney? WTFU.
it’s too early to see if I’m wrong, just as it’s too early to pat the Donks on the back. Lets see them actually do something that stops the war or improves people’s lives, then I’ll be impressed.
Time will tell.
Time already has told, just look at the Dodd Amendment, from Chris Bowers at MYDD:
You’re right, this seems like a good place to stop. Just a couple of quick thoughts.
Webb isn’t Wallace. I doubt Wallace ever defended a Black Viet Nam soldier who was wrongly convicted of a war crime by the US military. Webb cleared the man after a long legal struggle, that Webb continued after the man’s tragic suicide.
I may not have been clear, but I agree completely about ethanol. It is an awful idea that lives on through the primacy of the Iowa caucuses and the lobby money of ADM.
As for the Party being my Party, I must have missed that memo. The keys to the clubhouse haven’t arrived. Anyway, I side with Marx on this one. I don’t want to be a member of any party that would have me as a member. And I’d need to get in shape before taking on the cheerleader role.
I do not think Webb will support a move on Iran. If he does I will be the first to condemn him. (Which will matter as much as my praise.)
You are saying that I project my hopes onto Webb. I think you are projecting your fears. Time will tell.
By the way, put up or shut up isn’t stifling debate. It is encouraging you to put up an argument. True, I am saying shut up if all you have to say are unsupported accusations and ramblings. I hope someone will do the same to me. There’s a lot of noise in the world and damn little worth listening to. So now I will take my own advice and shut up.
my fears have been borne out increasingly over the last several decades. I don’t think that trend is likely to change. I’m willing to be surprised. Don’t think I will be.
Well, Jim Webb seems to be the right man in office with focus on the important issues: Foreign policy, Economy and Social Justice/Fair distribution of wealth (Welfare issues). Keep up the good work of telling the truth and doing something about the injustice.
While valid criticisms could be made,I think he sent as strong a message as he felt he could while remaining a relatively conservative centrist. It was a stronger message than we’ve heard in a while and, considering he’s an ex-repug, it was impressive and well delivered.
He’s no Kucinich but his style and message will have credibility with conservatives further splitting the repugs.
that he meant with so few words I could gotten another load of laundry done last night and then I would have to buy laundry soap today and GNP would have been increased! George continues to blow it all again!