The Art Of Webbemics

by poputonian

The appeal of Jim Webb has been mentioned a few times as having a yet-to-be-defined quality that Democrats find endearing. What I’ve noticed is that he speaks in direct terms, from internalized knowledge, and with little hesitation. In this way, and for lack of a better description, he does not appear ‘politician-like.’ People tend not to trust politicians, but they do trust leaders who are confident, and who fall within a range of sensibilities.

One other thing I’ve noticed about Webb is that when he cites a source as evidence, he uses people his opponents are more likely to deem unimpeachable. This is good polemics. In his State of the Union response, he used Republican Teddy Roosevelt to support the case against class division, and Dwight Eisenhower to suggest how a past Republican ended what seemed an interminable war. Reaching to the other side for evidence can devastate a debate opponent.

For example, if someone like Bob Novak took a big, though legitimate, dump on Republicans, like he did the other day:

The result of McConnell’s tactics is that no resolution will be passed by the Senate anytime soon. The White House was overjoyed. But Tuesday’s headlines indicated a public relations fiasco for Republicans: “GOP Stalls Debate on Troop Increase” (The Post),””In Senate, GOP Blocks a Debate Over Iraq Policy” (New York Times),” “Vote on Iraq is blocked by GOP” (USA Today).” Considering that outcome after a tactical victory, the Republicans might have been better off with a strategic defeat.

And if Novakula even threw John McCain’t into the mix …

McCain was particularly vigorous, antagonizing Reid and other Democrats by contending that anti-surge resolutions say to U.S. troops that “we think they are going to fail, and this is a vote of no confidence.”

… you’d want build on the case that only Republican Neanderthals would suppress the Iraq debate. To do this, I imagine Jim Webb would find sources who are unimpeachable in the eyes of his opponent, less likely sources who exhibit a better appreciation for Democracy than Republicans do.

Like these guys, for example:

Debate on Iraq Plan Doesn’t Hurt Morale, Leaders Say

February 7, 2007 from All Things Considered

ANDREA SEABROOK: The House Armed Services Committee room was packed. Two guests faced the rows of lawmakers. They were Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Peter Pace.
…
Secretary ROBERT GATES (Department of Defense): As a truism from the beginning of time and the time the first Neanderthal picked up a club, you try to see whether your enemies are divided or not, all I would say is that history is littered with examples of people who underestimated robust debate in Washington, D.C. for weakness on the part of America.

I think he just called McCain’t and his ilk “Neanderthals.”

SEABROOK: Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace was even clearer.

General PETER PACE (Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Army): There’s no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy. Period.

SEABROOK: Pace said enemies may watch and take comfort in the debate in Congress, but they have little understanding of democracy, he said. And as far as the support of U.S. troops, said Pace –

General PACE: They understand how our legislature works. And they understand that there’s going to be this kind of debate, but they’re going to be looking to see whether or not they are supported in the realm of mission given and resources provided.

SEABROOK: There were also troops on Capitol Hill today, former soldiers now lobbying against the surge. They made their way from office to office, finally paying a visit to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. John Sults(ph) runs this group of veterans.

Mr. JOHN SULTS (Former Soldier): We’re the troops, we’re here. We are the troops. We’re sitting next to leader Pelosi, because “they” don’t support the troops.

SEABROOK: They, in this case, is the Republicans, says Sults.

Mr. SULTS: If you all want to talk about not supporting the troops, go over to the Republican side ask them how to vote against body armor instead, not once, but twice in 2003. That’s not supporting troops. If you support escalation, you don’t support the troops. Twenty thousand more troops in Baghdad is a backdoor timeline. It is like spitting in the ocean. It will not make a difference. We need a new strategy in Iraq.

That’s how Webb would do it, methinks. Where possible, use sources your opponents respect, even worship, and the cases will almost close themselves.