GEORGE Allen, in one of the more sinister moves of his reelection campaign, has asked voters to focus not on his own racism, but on "real issues." To ask for this courtesy when his own campaign continues to focus on attacking an allegedly sexist item written by his opponent, Jim Webb, in 1979, is to ask for a double standard. Nevertheless, Monday's debate between Allen and Webb offers an opportunity to evaluate the candidates for office based on their stances on a number of issues. In this case, such an evaluation leads to a clear conclusion: George Allen is a puppet of the Bush administration and should be replaced in November.
It should be noted that Allen's attitudes on race are indeed an issue, even if his campaign wishes they were not. Minority voters no doubt care if their representative in the Senate is a racist. When the issue was presented during the debate, Allen offered a half-hearted denial of accusations against him and tried to steer the conversation away from the issue. He could not defend himself.
To his credit, Webb did not attack Allen on the issue. In fact, throughout the campaign, Webb has refused to comment on the accusations and has wanted instead to discuss policy issues. Allen's campaign ads and television interviews of both candidates reveal that while Webb has consistently refused to engage in character defamation, Allen has repeatedly attacked Webb based on his supposedly sexist article. Allen is being extraordinarily hypocritical in calling for a return to the issues.
Probably the most important issue facing voters, and the first issue mentioned in the debate, is the war in Iraq. Allen has stood firmly behind the Bush administration through every major blunder made so far. He continues to regurgitate Bush's rhetoric by saying we should "stay the course" instead of "cutting and running." By this time, it should be clear to everyone that what we are doing in Iraq is not working. Changes must be made, and Allen does not suggest any.
Webb, on the other hand, opposed the invasion on the record from the beginning. He now favors a more diplomatic course of action, bringing other nations in the area together to solve the problems facing Iraq. He may not present a definite plan, but at least he realizes that the status quo leaves a little to be desired. Allen seems unable to argue with this position, choosing instead to misrepresent Webb's views.
Another major issue debated was that of deficit spending and taxation. Both Webb and Allen bemoaned the country's dependence on loans from foreign sources, especially China. Only Webb offered a concrete solution: He argued that taxes on corporate wealth should be increased and loopholes should be closed. Allen again could only misrepresent Webb's views in an attempt to argue with them. He claimed that Webb wanted to raise taxes for Virginia's families and small businesses, a charge that Webb vehemently denied. Allen, for his part, could only offer a plan to keep taxes stable and limit pork spending. He clearly does not want to increase taxes on the Republican's corporate sponsors, but like the Bush administration, he is also unwilling to cut spending. This position is financially irresponsible, and Webb's plan offers a solution.
Perhaps the most interesting point of the debate was the question that Allen posed to Webb on the subject of anti-terrorism. After appealing to voters' fears of another 9/11, Allen asked Webb his positions on the NSA wiretapping program and terror detainees' habeas corpus rights. Webb answered that the NSA program should be subject to congressional oversight and asked Allen if he saw any reason why it should not be. Allen ignored the question and focused in his rebuttal on the habeas corpus issue, asserting that Webb, just like all the other Democrats, supported habeas corpus for detainees, creating "frivolous lawsuits" that would "flood our courts." Webb, somewhat weakly, replied that whatever we do in detaining suspects ought to be in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
This question is important for two reasons. First, it shows Allen's complete disregard for human rights. The right of habeas corpus is a fundamental guarantee of our Constitution and not a "frivolous" issue. Congressional oversight for NSA wiretapping programs is also the only way to ensure that such programs are being used responsibly. Second, Allen tried to label Webb as liberal and scare voters with names like Clinton, Kerry and Kennedy. Webb actually has closer ties to a name with which conservatives are comfortable -- Reagan, who appointed WebbsSecretary of the Navy.
The closing arguments made by the candidates best show their differences. Allen accused Webb of supporting a massive tax increase and argued that the Republicans can better protect America's security. As Webb pointed out, both arguments are false and represent the views of a blind supporter of President Bush. If voters think that the administration has acted perfectly and should be followed without question, they should vote Allen. If not, Jim Webb represents a rational, moderate alternative.
Daniel Colbert's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at dcolbert@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
