3: Squick vs. SQUICK, Virginia vs. Connecticut.

EVENT

Let's start here:
The New York Times: A Democrat Rises in Virginia.
Race profile page: The Virginia Senate Race.
The Caucus: Virginia Senate Debate: War, Race and Women

Now, what do we think of this?

I'm assuming nobody here votes in Virginia, though I'm sure most of us know someone who votes in Virginia. And: this is one of the most important races in this upcoming election. First, for the obvious reason that the Democrats are within reach of a senate majority, and this is one of the most closely contested seats. Second, and somewhat more obliquely, Webb's victory would mean an unambiguous Democrat victory in the South, and in a state that moreover, for all its urban agglomeration, is a haven of social conservatism.

Not that there isn't plenty in Webb to disturb your average liberal... he vocally opposed women involved in the military and favors further repealing and/or limiting of Affirmative Action. Or, for that matter, (consider this) enough to disturb your average human being. In the former case I mentioned, he was quoted in a printed article he wrote for the Washingtonian:

"being at the Naval Academy is a horny woman’s dream."

#1. Ewwwww. #2. I don't think many military women would see it that way. #3. #1. I won't pretend that doesn't squick me out. It still squicks me.

Fortunately, Senator Allen is further out of the pale, having not denied hanging (as Virginia's Governor) both a Confereate flag and a noose at his home. His position on women in the military or affirmative action are more-or-less as tenable as Webb's. Maybe most dramatically, at a campaign gathering, in reference to a Webb campaign worker, Allen said:

This fellow over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is — he’s with my opponent. Let’s give a welcome to Macaca here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia.

Macaca, by the way, means "monkey." To which, perhaps, the perfect response came in interview with Tim Russert:

And here is the young man, S.R. Sidarth, he’s a resident of Virginia, an American citizen, straight A student at Fairfax High School and now goes to the University of Virginia. Critics say that "macaca" is a racist slur and that you used it because he was dark-skinned. What did you specifically mean when you said, "Welcome to America and the real Virginia." Why did you use those words toward a dark-skinned American?

* * * * *

To veer off on a tangent, for a moment, the question here, for those of us for which there is even a question, draws a sort of parallel with the Lieberman situation. I'm inclined to conditionally support Webb, his conduct notwithstanding, against Allen, while I could not support Lieberman against Lamont, even while Lieberman's conduct is probably more admirable than Webb's and their platforms are presumably in the same ballpark.

Is this a contradiction?

There are two possible explanations I can think of, the easier of which is simply a choice between the lesser of two evils. In Lamont I saw a preferable alternative to Lieberman, and in Webb I see a preferable alternative to Allen.

But the complicated answer is also useful. And that is the issue of the kind of the race at hand. Superficially, this would be a primary vs. an actual senate race, with all the accompanying difficulties such as the risk of a third-party candidate splitting the vote down the road, or perhaps running blue in a red state.

More fundamentally, the question is what each race means. In the Connecticut case, I'm operating on a national perspective and from a general understanding. That is that while the U.S. is a democracy, I'm not convinced that most Americans take a very sunny view of compromise. This is a fact that the Republicans have been exploiting quite successfully in driving toward a hard line, while the centrists that dominate the Democratic party, in their attempt to draw water from both wells, seem to be pandering, groveling even, hence, "weak." I was pleased when Lamont won the primary, but I was overjoyed at the news that the Democrats were going to fully support him in the actual race. Even if the Democrats lose a seat as a result, I will see this as a good thing. Why? Because the Democrats have to "find themselves," both philosophically and rhetorically, and a rejection of Lieberman was a rejection of perniciously unstable and unproductive compromises. (Not that I object to compromises in general, but a compromise that deprives one party of its traction isn't much of a compromise, is it?)

The case of Virginia is, thankfully, much simpler. We should throw our support behind Webb because he is much better than Allen, both idologically and objectively. It doesn't mean we can't find them both somewhat squicky... we'll take Webb with the same temerity that Republicans take Bloomberg for New York City. He represents a more acceptable option where we might reasonably expect none at all.

* * * * *

What do you think about all this?

* * * * *

Of course: There's plenty of good in our world.

"It's similar to the Eiffel Tower in Paris or Gateway Arch in St. Louis in that when you see the weather ball, it's a clear indicator you are in Flint."
- Gary Flinn

"I see the weather ball as the eye of Flint. If you look at the shape, it's the shape of an eye. For 50 years, it's been watching over us, predicting or telling what's coming. For 50 years, it's been through all and seen all in Flint."
- Kofi Brown

Photo copyright Stevel Kleeman / The Flint Journal.

END OF POST.