Tangled Webb III

Peter Boyer has an article in the New Yorker on what he regards as “the strangest Senate race of the year,” the one in Virginia between incumbent Republican George Allen and former Republican turned Democrat James Webb.

Well, the “macaca” imbroglio was certainly strange, but there is some strangeness that passed below, or above, Boyer’s radar. He writes, for example, that Webb wants to appeal to Southern white males by becoming, and having Democrats in general become, “less insistent” on such matters of party orthodoxy as “abortion, gun control, and gay marriage.”

Now, assuming for a moment that Southern white males are more or less of one mind on “abortion, gun control, and gay marriage,” do Boyer/Webb really believe they are so dumb as to flock to candidates who are merely “less insistent” on the Democratic orthodoxy on those issues?

But that pales by comparison with Webb’s reversal on racial preferences. As I pointed out in what I’ll now call Tangled Webb 0 and Tangled Webb I, Webb is on record (presumably when he was still a Republican) calling racial preferences “state-sponsored racism.” If Webb is intent on appealing to Southern white males, pulling a Kerry-like flip flop on this issue and now supporting race preferences (but only to blacks, not Hispanics; see Tangled Webb II) is indeed a strange way of going about it.

Say What? (2)

  1. Will October 25, 2006 at 2:19 pm | | Reply

    I’d vote for Webb over Allen any day. Actually, I’d walk a mile in the snow and rain to vote for Webb over Allen.

    Here in California, Hispanics are about 35-40% of the population, blacks are about 6%. So limiting affirmative action to blacks (Webb’s plan) would get rid of 80-90% of the affirmiative action in California. Allen supports affirmative action for blacks AND Hispanics (see link), so he’s worthless on the affirmative action issue.

    http://sixers.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Njc1NGNkMWI3YzFiZTYwNGVkM2IxM2RiMzNkMTQ1NDE

  2. Xrlq October 25, 2006 at 2:55 pm | | Reply

    I think Webb’s position is that since white guys used to own black guys, that makes state-sponsored racism in reverse acceptable in that one instance only, but not acceptable for other, lesser slights against other races (except maybe American Indians, a.k.a. Chopped Liver).

Say What?