1. Considering polls and public satisfaction levels a more independent choice would be a huge unknown this time around. If nothing else his candidacy would shift discussion more towards issues and away from formulaic partisan politics, divisiveness and propaganda id imagine. That would be good for the country. I also imagine he will face tremendous dissuasion from all directions, but I hope he runs.

  2. I will not vote for him. That he is pro-nuclear is admirable. But I looked up where he stands on moral issues – you know what I mean – and his stand is wrong. I am pro-nuclear but not a single issue voter. I will vote as the teaching of Scripture and Holy Mother Church say to vote.

    1. @Ioannes

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

      You are free to make your own choices. Don’t be surprised when others don’t follow your catechism.

  3. The same James Webb that voted for TARP, TARP II, Porkulus, ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank and Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader for all the years he was in the US Senate? That James Webb? Really, Rod? YGTBSM. (/sarc). Cheers –

    1. Yes, as Romney, Biden, Paul, Clinton, Bush, Christie have comparatively no baggage or past issues to consider whatsoever. (/sarc).

  4. He’d be an interesting candidate. He is too independent probably to have much of a chance. Maybe he could run with Elizabeth Walker (bit of a joke). Seriously, unless you are a corporate (or maybe just Wall Street) whore you have no real chance these days. Unless people follow my new voting principle … whoever has the most ads … vote for the other person. You’ll go wrong now and then, but I think in general it would work well.

    1. @SteveK9

      Making such a declaration plays right into the hands of the people who depend on systematic despair to maintain their wealth and power.

      My chosen course of action is to celebrate, promote and support independent thinkers who are not owned by anyone else or by debts to a particular party.

      1. Rod…..

        Steve simply made a statement of actual fact. Whats that old adage about having to realize a problem before being able to address the problem? One could argue that your optimism is the actual enabler of the status quo. As long as the masses on both sides of the aisle accept the current state of campaign funding as being an acceptable electoral dynamic, high office will continue to be bought by the highest bidder. Burying your head in the sand ain’t going to change that. This feller won’t even be permitted into the debate process if he rocks the status quo in any substantive manner.

        1. @poa

          You don’t understand the source of my optimism.

          Money cannot buy votes. The vast majority of the money involved in campaigns is spent in creating and airing advertisements in commercial media outlets – TV, print, billboards, etc. The pitch that conventional candidates have accepted is that those ads will influence people to vote for them.

          My view is that money is mostly wasted in an era where people spend less and less time in passive consumption of media while devoting more and more time to interactive involvement with their information sources. Webb is the kind of guy who will get out and talk to people and he is the kind of guy who has developed a wide and deep fan base of influential communicators who are spread throughout the country.

          Atomic Insights is only one tiny example of the way that the message of a high integrity, real leader can be introduced to people who can then spread the word without any exchange of money.

          How many of your friends and associates are actually influenced to vote based on the kinds of ads that conventional campaigns spend the majority of their contributions purchasing?

          1. I would say that most voters are influenced by news media, a news media that tends to ape the message contained in the campaign ads. Look how closely an entity like Fox on the right, or MSNBC on the left, work to advance the message that the candidates deliver in their campaigns.

            Its ridiculous to opine that these huge sums of money expended by special interests do not help determine a candidate’s ability to attain office. Exposure is purchased, and without exposure there is no hope of a successful run for office. Media, in league with politics, bows to the dollar.

            You decry FUD, yet are in denial about how such deceptions are marketed, financed, and nurtured by politics? How have the myths about a wide range of topics been sold, if not by our media’s complicity with the political sector in fostering these deceptions? The insidious marketing of wide scale deception does not come cheap, and cannot be successful without media and politics working hand in hand. FUD, our relationship with Israel, WMDS in Iraq, Iran’s “nuclear weapons program”, etc, all hot campaign issues, nurtured along by by media complicity. And founded in deception.

            You seem to think the masses are acquiring their information on sites such as this one. Rod, the masses are tuned in to CNN, Fox, MSNB, etc.. Thats where they get their world view. And for a candidate to stand on these stages, huge sums of money must be expended. Optimism and denial does not change that reality. Money does buy votes. And they get more and more expensive with every passing year. And that puts a huge grin on those that can afford to out-spend all comers.

            How are you NE folks doing against the deep pockets of the fossil fuel folks? You think a pro NE candidate can be successful if he has a campaign coffer that doesn’t measure up to what the fossil fuel folks can spend? Good luck with that.

            1. @poa

              I would say that most voters are influenced by news media, a news media that tends to ape the message contained in the campaign ads. Look how closely an entity like Fox on the right, or MSNBC on the left, work to advance the message that the candidates deliver in their campaigns.

              Do you know what kind of ratings numbers cable news programs achieve?


              Most are reaching in the low single digit millions in a country with about 200 million people of voting age.

              I am not opining that huge sums of money have no influence. I am opining that huge sums of money do not buy elections any more than the baseball team with the largest payroll automatically wins the World Series. Believe it or not, many political candidates and their advisors waste a whole lot of money. That fact is what makes me believe that strong, solid, independent candidates who are willing to use some “sweat equity” have a good shot at winning.

              The America you see may be going to hell in a hand basket, but I’m not willing to simply accept the status quo. We have amazing communications tools at our fingertips; smart, hard working people have a better chance of success than people who simply have money.

  5. He is interesting and independent of *partisan* politics. I don’t like his vote on TARP either but he’s still interesting. He’s clearly non-ideological. He supports the re-establishment of relations with Cuba and he played a major role in shepherding the reestablishment of relations with Vietnam as well. In this I support him.

    “Moral issues”. God save us from the self-righteous! God gave you free will, use it!

  6. If Jim becomes his party’s nominee, or even makes it to the stage, I will strongly consider supporting him.

    My current favored candidate is Senator Rand Paul; while I don’t always agree with him, I appreciate iconoclasts of all stripes.

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts