How bad/good is Mark Warner?

[4_Legs_Good]

One of my co-workers is a die hard republican, George Jr. supporter, and he said he'd vote for Mark Warner over John McCain in a heartbeat. He's from Virginia, though, for what that's worth.

Compare Warner to Bill Clinton on policy, et.al. How do they stack up?

david

[JDPriestly]

1. I don't think California will support Warner

He is too right-wing for us. I don't know where he would get the money to run if he doesn't fly in California, because if he doesn't fly here, he probably won't fly in the northeast either. He came out here and made derogatory remarks about California Democrats. Not a very smart guy in my book.

[spooky3]

15. What did he say about Calif. Democrats?

[woodleydem]

18. He didn't say anything derogatory about California Democrats. He

commented on the condescending attitude he gets from some big state Democrats (i.e. California, New York, etc...) about the fact that he is a Southern Democrat and some of the Dems on the coasts look down upon Southern Democrats. Nothing really derogatory about that as his comments are rooted in truth. He was emphasizing the need for the Democrats to compete in all states and to be respectful of small states as well.

[seabeyond]

57. he dissed kerry too. so just another dem that disses his own n/t

[woodleydem]

67. He criticized Kerry's campaign strategy of ignoring large swaths of the

country, which many Democratic campaign strategists (including Howard Dean, partron saint of liberals) have said was probably a flawed strategy. His main beef was how big state Democrats are condescending of Southern Democrats, and that there needs to be more tolerance within the Democratic Party of dems who may have different view points.

[seabeyond]

71. i will listen to the dude, but real issue how easily dems attack dems

and i am not even a f*in dem. if i were a dem, i would be really pissed, lol. he is right about taking the south. i know the panhandle of texas we can do a lot better. doenst help passing no spanking laws though.

but i heard from this man about kerry was a muc more personal attack. dont know where the quote is

[JDPriestly]

20. I think he said we were negative.

It was in last Sunday's paper. I threw it out. Apparently Warner was not well received here. I would not support a Democratic candidate that is just Republican lite. Warner's running would split the Democratic Party I believe. The current "centrists" in the Democratic Party are unprincipled and just as corrupt as the Republicans.

[woodleydem]

68. At least centrists have more party discipline than liberals. I can't

remember how many times I have read posts on here from self-proclaimed liberals saying, "If Candidate X gets the Democratic nomination, he WON'T get my support because of his stance on issue Y." There is NO party discipline within the liberal wing of the party. They label centrists DINO's, but in reality, liberals who jump ship to the Green party or withhold support of a Democrat in a national election are the real DINO's.

[JDPriestly]

72. Not true.

In the past, I for one supported centrists like Clinton and Feinstein here in California. I just don't think a centrist is the right choice now. The Republicans paint every Democrat as an extremist. The centrists want to be liked to such an extent that they don't stand up to that Republican fanaticism and end up being completely destroyed because they seem wishy-washy. Even Kerry was painted as being a flip-flopper. Imagine what they would have done if he had tried even harder to be centrist. He was about as centrist as you can dare to be in this political climate. As for appealing to the "swing voters." Forget it, either we appeal to them by being true Democrats or we can never please them. Actually, the differences between liberals and centrists on most issues are very slight. It's the willingness to stand up for the central Democratic stands that is important.

[spooky3]

75. I think you're over-generalizing. There are some for which

your description is apt. But there are many for whom positions on the issues are probably what many here would call centrist or moderate because those positions make the most sense to them, regardless of what anyone else thinks. They are just as principled as your description of liberals.

Part of the problem is the labeling, of course--what person X defines as "liberal" or "centrist" may not match person Y's definition. And part of the problem is that one can be "liberal" on one issue (e.g., pro-abortion rights) and "conservative" on another issue (e.g., pro-gun rights) and average out to a centrist position, even though neither of these positions is centrist.

[JDPriestly]

79. As I believe I said,

it is no longer so much a matter of stands on issues. I can compromise on some of the issues. I strongly backed Kerry although I felt that the war in Iraq was illegitimate and wrong. I thought he had enough backbone to face down the Republican propaganda machine. He did not.

And that is the issue, not so much where people stand on the issues but whether they have the courage, organizational ability and strength to stand up for the most important Democratic ideals -- like a fair shake for working people, fiscal policies that protect the middle class, affordable basic health care for everyone, dignity for seniors, no discrimination in public institutions or in schools of the workplaces, fair trade, not just free trade, an immigration policy that protects the wages of American working class people and a host of other important issues that anyone who claims to be a Democrat basically agrees on.

The details of programs have to be hammered out in the legislature anyway and should be agreed upon after input from minority interests. The reason I don't like the centrists is that I do not think that, at this time in history, the Republicans are playing with an honest deck. You don't play cards with a card shark who cheats on every play. And that is what the Republicans are doing.

Those who pride themselves on being centrists are actually just naive about what the Republicans are doing. They have a false pride that they can somehow handle the situation. In fact they are just appeasers. Clinton was pretty middle of the road -- and look what the Republicans did to him. They will do that to any Democrat who tries to play fair. This is a very unfortunate situation, but it is not of our making and it is not our choice. We need a strong fighter at the helm of our party, someone who will unmask the Republican cheating. That is why I back Dean as party chair. I haven't decided on who I will back for the presidential candidate, but it has to be someone who has backbone and courage.

I am enjoying discussing this with you because I think it is a major strategic problem. We have always been the party of compromise and fairness and the Republicans are not using that to silence and marginalize us. We need leadership that refuses to be silenced or marginalized. We need leadership with integrity and strength. The centrists just don't have it.

[SaveElmer]

2. Very Good Governor, Bad Speaker...

Really took the Republican legislature out to lunch this past year. In fact a number of Republican delegates have primary opponents to their right this year because they went along with Warner's tax and budget plans.

He's a bit on the conservative side, though not a DINO. He has courted the NRA in the past. He is not a very good speaker...can be a little goofy at times...but extremely intelligent!!!

[CarolNYC]

9. Bad speaker?

You think? I've never seen him so I can't say but I've heard others who have say they were surprisingly impressed....

[SaveElmer]

10. This is mostly in an interview format...

I haven't really heard him give a speech, which he may be good at. But I have listened to a number of interviews with him, and he has a very halting, goofy way of answering questions that gets very annoying after a while. Of course, as our current "exalted leader" proves, eloquence is apparently not a requirement. Though as with everything else, I suspect their is a double-standard as far as Democrats are concerned!!!

[CarolNYC]

11. Gotcha!

I've never even seen him in an interview format. I'll have to watch for him.

You're right about the double standard. :(

[woodleydem]

19. I have found him to have a very charming personality as well as being a

good speaker. I was in attendance for a speech he gave in Richmond about a year ago that dealt with economic development in rural Virginia. He was very personable and gave an outstanding speech that connected Democratic ideals with rural values, specifically relating to jobs and economic growth. He has a personal fortune worth a few hundred million dollars as he was one of the founders of Nextel (cellphones). He doesn't have the charm of Clinton (who does?), but his likeability and personality are head and shoulders above Kerry.

[SaveElmer]

33. He is likeable...

But the times I have heard him interviewed, particularly on his "Ask the Governor" show on WTOP, he is very halting in his answers and is often hard to follow.

[wyldwolf]

41. of all the Dems who've hinted at running...

..Warner looks the best (if the intention is winning, of course.)

[Atlas Mugged]

3. Vote for what? President????

Ack! Wrong Warner! Nevermind.

[SaveElmer]

4. Wrong Warner dude...

That's John Warner...Mark Warner is the Democratic Governor

[Atlas Mugged]

6. Yes, I caught it too late...

I saw "John" McCain and Mark "Warner" and the word "president" and my head spun.

[SaveElmer]

7. Happens all the time...

In fact Mark Warner ran against John Warner in 1996 I think. His bumper stickers said MarknotJohn. He came pretty close to beating him too.

[Atlas Mugged]

8. My family still lives in Virginia..

...so I do, really, try and keep up with things there. My father is a rabid Bush hater, making him even more of a perfect father than he already is.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Not that Warner....

THIS Warner...The one with no foreign policy or National Security experience. The 1992 candidate (minus the charisma) that some want us to vote for in 2008.

[FreedomAngel82]

12. Oh good grief!!

He's a governor!!! Did Bill Clinton have any foreign policey?! Get over it! So nobody can elect someone unless they're Wesley Clark? Good grief! You did the same shit with Phil Bredesen!

[FrenchieCat]

13. Did I mention Wesley Clark? Didn't think so.

The OP asks the question....good and bad. I answered. Do you have a problem with that?

MY OPINION (if you don't mind):
Mark Warner is no Bill Clinton....and Bill Clinton didn't run after two elections where the Rethugs beat us due to the National Security issue in a post 9/11 world.

Like I said before, if the best Democrat strategy is to redux the 1992 strategy (moderate Governor from a small red state) because it was the last winning strategy, I say we will lose.

I think I have the right to say that, if that's what I think.... don't I?.....or do I have to just go along to get along?

Remember.....the OP asked the question....good AND bad.

:shrug:

[FreedomAngel82]

16. You still put the same shit up with

anybody else who isn't Wesley Clark. How do you know how they'd do? What about FDR? He had no experience either did he? But he handled WW2 quickly and professionally. Give someone a chance before you go barking down their thorats for "national security." There are other issues to care about. What about health care? I don't have it and neither do 45 other million people. What about public education? What about the enviornment? Hmm? He's a fucking governor. Governors don't deal with NATIONAL security. It's called national for a reason. Duh.

[FrenchieCat]

23. So again.....

I believe that I have the right (and IMO the responsibility) to point out the fact that Mark Warner has no NATIONAL Security experience to an OP that asks about Warner. We are talking about a potential candidacy for NATIONAL office. So whether you will acknowledge it or not, we lost 2002 and 2004 mainly due to the fact that voters don't rate Democrats highly on National Defense. Whether you want to ignore that fact or not is your choice. I choose not to. For you to be upset at that is your f*cking business....but I was addressing the OP, not you.

Being a governor has it's "Upside" BUT it also has it's "Downside"...ESPECIALLY after 9/11 and how the Repubs have been using the issue to their advantage. You can make of that what you want.

Here are some (maybe)potential candidates for '08 that do have SOME National Security and Foreign Policy experience apart from Wes Clark (although Wes Clark clearly has the most):

Evan Bayh
Hillary Clinton
Joe Biden
John Kerry
Russ Feingold
Barbara Boxer
Bill Richardson
Al Gore

I'm not saying these candidates are Better than Warner....I'm just saying that their resume contains something in them that Warner's doesn't. Warner may have other advantages (e.g., executive experience).....but National Security and Foreign policy are not them.

If you pissed due to this fact, or pissed that I am pointing it out....so be it. I'll learn to live with it. :hi:

[MsTryska]

29. your list is entirely made up of senators.

Governors win elections.

Senators don't. mainly because senators have voting records that are easy to dissect and critique.

[FrenchieCat]

31. My point is not who's a senator and who's a governor.....

If I may correct you, I do not only list Senators (although they do make up the majority).

Please find that my list includes:
a former Vice President--Al Gore (another VP that won was Bush I)
a Governor --Bill Richardson
a General--Wes Clark (Eisenhower won 2 terms)
a Senator who was also a 2 term Governor from another Red State (Bayh of Indiana).

Dukakis was a Governor--and he lost in 1988....and one reason that he lost was a particular pic that showed him looking ridiculous as potential Commander-in-chief.

My point is that a strategy that was utilized over 16 years ago (1992 vs. 2008) may not work in 2008....just cause it worked in 1992. Times were different back in 1992. There had not been a 9/11 nor the troubled and dangerous times that we are currently facing in reference to Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc.

I personally question that Bush Jr., a governor, actually won over Former Senator and VP Al Gore. And that was BEFORE 9/11 occurred.

I am offering food for thought. One can take it or leave it.

However, it is my sincere hope that Democrats are not going to just ignore the National Security issue in 2006 or in 2008. It is an issue that will not be going away.....whether we acknowledge it or not. Considering that it is a perceived strength for Republicans doesn't mean that we should just cede that issue to them....or should we?

[CarolNYC]

34. Good point about the Senators

I agree. No more Senators. It's unfortunate because there are some good ones but too easy to distort and manipulate a voting record.

Better to run a General. :)

Or maybe a Governor like Richardson, who does have National Security experience. Don't jump on me, please, but I too think it's important to run someone with national security/foreign policy experience, not just because it might give us a better chance of winning, but also because this world is going to be in such a mess when W gets done with it, we're going to need someone with the right experience to straighten things out....and things happening in other parts of the world really do affect us.

Don't worry, someone like Gen Clark or Gov Richardson wouldn't be interested in ONLY foreign affairs, I'm sure. I know Clark's got all kinds of solid ideas on how to help things on the domestic front. I would hope Gov Richardson would also.

[liberalpragmatist]

44. Disagree

There's no reason to disqualify Senators. Personally, if you're looking for someone progressive, they're more likely to come out of the Senate than the states - seriously, aside from Warner, who really excites you as a governor? Rendell and Schweitzer are VERY good but Rendell has said he's not running and Schweitzer isn't going to run after just 4 years in Montana. Richardson? Aside from his being Hispanic, I really don't see much that's special in him.

The rest of the governors are largely a mixed bag. Bredesen and Easley are good but probably too far right for the national party. Easley's said to be quite boring actually. Napolitano is good but doesn't seem like presidential material. So who else? Blagojevich? Ha! Vilsack?

Talk to me in 2012 after Spitzer's had 6 years and then maybe I'll look seriously at another governor besides Warner. Otherwise, I'm willing to accept another Senator. Hell, I might well go for the same senator we had last time around.

Of course, I could well support Clark as well - I like a lot about him.

[CarolNYC]

53. the Senator thing

Don't get me wrong. I think there are a number of worthy Senators. I think John Kerry would have made a hell of a President and I worked every minute I could to try to make that happen (which is why I wasn't really here before the election).

I just think it's too hard to get them elected. There's a reason why not many Senators are elected. I think the average American is just not going to pay close enough attention to not get taken in by the manipulations and distortioons of a Senator's votes...and the way the whole voting thing works in Congress just too complicated to avoid the distortions.

As for governors, I don't really know much about many of them. I know that Richardson's got at least some kind of foreign policy experience which I do think is important with the mess * is making of this world. I love Rendell's fire and his spunk but know little about his qualifications for the Presidency. Too bad he's ruling out a run.

Love Spitzer and I could support him when the time is right....

If I get to choose the nominee though, I won't deny I'll go with Clark all the way. Not only do I think he has the experience, smarts and ability to fix the mess * is making of this country and this world, but his heart's in the right place. He's a good guy, a determined guy, a fearless guy who doesn't back down and he'll do whatever it takes to help save this country. We could do worse than that, IMHO. :)

[FreedomAngel82]

60. Personally

Bredesen excites me but of course I could be a lil biased. ;) There are a lot of good democrats out there who could be a good president. You have to look at their record as a whole. Not just one area like national security.

[liberalpragmatist]

81. No, I agree

My point is just that we shouldn't exclude senators. Really, how many senators have been nominated post-Watergate? None, except for Al Gore (a former Senator) and Kerry. I really don't think their losses had so much to do with their being senators. The records could just have easily been picked apart as governors.

I'm willing to look at the whole field. I'll give everyone a good look. All I'm saying is that I'm not going to rule out anyone b/c they're senators, and personally, at the moment, I find more senators who line up with my views better than governors.

Still, Bredesen looks like a good guy. I'll definitely give him a good look if he runs - however, I haven't read or heard anything to indicate that he's going to. Too bad, he's really popular from what I hear and he could be an interesting candidate.

[FreedomAngel82]

59. Just wondering

Who is the last senator who won an election as president? Only person who pops in my mind was Kennedy but he also was a congressman which helped with experience. The last democratic president was a governor.

[MsTryska]

76. it was JFK actually.....

which is why it really would have been big if our JFK had pulle dit off this last time.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Senators are 2 for 2 in open elections in the 20th century

And Senators are percieved as not elections because Governors get nominated. I posted a list of Senators vs Governors in the 20th century and there are an incredible number of Governors who tanked in presidential elections and most people have never heard of any of them. But, when you compare the ratio of Governors and Senators who have been successful presidential candidates, the ratio is relatively the same. Also, Governors do very shitty in open presidential elections, but do very well as challengers. If you don't count Chimpy's victory as legitimate, then no Governor has won an open election in the 20th or the 21st century. But as challengers, Governors do pretty well... Wilson, FDR, Carter, Reagan, Clinton.

[Awsi Dooger]

49. Please remove Evan Bayh from that list

Regardless of anything else, he's simply from the wrong state. We would get buried by double digits in Indiana even with Bayh on the ticket, whether president or VP. Here is the partisan breakdown of Indiana, compared to the national average, demonstrating it is basically a misplaced Southern state. In fact, the recent numbers are more Republican leaning than South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Lousiana, Mississippi, Virginia or North Carolina:

Indiana:
'88: Bush (59.84 - 39.69) = + 12.43% Republican
'92: Bush (42.91 - 36.79) = + 11.68% Republican
'96: Dole (47.13 - 41.55) = + 14.11% Republican
'00: Bush (56.65 - 41.01) = + 16.15% Republican
'04: Bush (59.94 - 39.26) = + 18.22% Republican

[FrenchieCat]

50. Tell it to the pundits....

as it is they who decides who gets on the "list".....not us!

Personally, I think Bayh is a wimp...but that's not the press that he's receiving....and between you and I, we both know that in the end....he/she who has most positive press, wins.

[Hippo_Tron]

70. Not only that, but unlike the south, Indiana has no democratic tradition

Our southern state parties are actually still in reasonably good shape, largely because everybody's daddy was a yellow dog Democrat. Indiana has been voting pretty solidly Republican since Lincoln. Wilson (in a three way race), FDR (only two times), and Lyndon Johnson (won almost every state) are the only Democrats in recent history that I can remember winning Indiana.

One of the best episodes of the West Wing (20 hours in America) takes place in Indiana. President Bartlet is campaigning there even though he doesn't stand a chance and Toby (one of his staffers) is talking somebody who lives there.

She says: "Did you forget, we have voters here too."

Toby says: "They're voting for Ritchie. Indiana is voting for Ritchie, if there were anybody less competent on the ballot, then that's who Indiana would be voting for."

(Ritchie is the GOP nominee who is basically a moron like Bush)

[spooky3]

77. Sorry, I'm not following the arithmetic. How do you get the figures

to the right of the equals sign? They are not the difference between the numbers to the left.

[Awsi Dooger]

80. My fault, sometimes I forget to explain the basics

The number at right is a net relationship to how the state voted in relation to the nation as a whole. Indicating how many points Democratic or Republican it supposedly leans.

For example, Bush won the national popular vote by 2.46% in 2004. So, in this example, when Bush won Indiana by 20.68% it meant Indiana tilted 18.22% more Republican than the nation.

[JDPriestly]

82. But, Roosevelt had the humility to rely on really good people.

Mark Warner seems to dismiss people unless they worship the ground he walks on. I am quite ready to change my mind, but after the article I read about him in the LA Times, I just don't think he has the humility, sense of humor or courage to run for the presidency in today's climate. I wonder if FDR would have been elected if it had not been for the depression. So, everything could change. Warner can prove himself, but he is going to have to change his attitude toward non-southerners. We will never win the presidency by pleasing southerners. It would be nice to get a southern state or two to vote for us, but don't hold your breath. Going for western states is a better strategy.

As for the gun thing, I personally really don't care either way as long as gun ownership can be controlled in urban areas. We don't need people to have a lot of guns in dense urban areas what with the gangs and small dwellings. It is just too dangerous. Guns get into the wrong hands too easily in the cities. It is a totally different matter in rural areas. So, I think gun control is a local issue.

[snowbear]

14. All I know is......

His name is going to keep popping up on here over the next 3 years a LOT since he's seriously considering a run..

And I intend to hear him out as equally as I do every other candidate who runs for our party! :patriot:

I've read some great stuff about him from KOS, Friedman, and other publications.. and I've certainly read comments here from people who can't stand him.

I don't know enough about him yet. :shrug:

We're going to have a LOT of candidates for the '08 nomination and I'm sure in the end.. the last one standing will be the lone survivor for a good reason! Whoever it is! :grouphug:

[FreedomAngel82]

17. And don't forget

he's been to at least two Bilderberg meetings.

[Jai4WKC08]

25. Two of 'em, huh...

Like a long weekend... oh, excuse me, TWO long weekends... gives a person national security experience. Oh yeah, I know I'm impressed. :sarcasm:

But I guess, from the way you tried to slap Frenchie down up-thread, Clark supporters aren't supposed to voice opinions.

Well, maybe the Repubs will have the Iraq War all wrapped by 2008, as well as Osama captured, al Qaeda crushed, and all our allies on board to US foreign policy. Then Americans will vote their pocketbooks again and a two-Bilderberger governor with a boatload of money can get himself elected.

And maybe pigs will fly.

[Texas_Kat]

35. But did he pass the quiz afterwords?

[Clark2008]

42. Can't stand the Bilderbergers - won't vote for any more.

And, my fellow Tennessean, please lay off my fellow Clarkie.

She didn't mention him, btw, until after you did.

:hi:

[FreedomAngel82]

58. And I'm getting sick and tired

of the "they don't have national security" crap. GOVERNORS DON'T HAVE IT!!!! IT'S "NATIONAL" SECURITY FOR A PURPOSE! There are other qualities that governors have that go into a presidency such as how to handle local crisis and balance a budget etc. I know that about Bredesen and that is why I brought him up. Bredesen is a fine governor (can't comment on Warner since I know nothing about him) and I get so sick of that bullshit. Look at the bigger picture. There are professionals inside the government who work for the president who know more and they learn as they go on by the others (if they are good president). We all know that Clark is a good person and has a lot of good experience with security as a four star general but there are other good people as well out there who you can elect. It gets very old and tiring hearing that same line over and over.

[CarolNYC]

73. National Security

So, you don't think National Security/Foreign Policy will or should be an issue? Even with the way this world is going?

I'm really not trying to be antagonistic so please don't get upset with me...but I respectfully disagree....strongly.

[CarolNYC]

74. Oh, and just to make clear....

Gen Clark's got a lot more going for him than just the security stuff....But you know that, right?

[JDPriestly]

83. Right. The Bilderberg attendance

looks bad -- like a deal, a set-up, a buy-out. We don't need more of that. No Bilderbergers for me. He'll still get a chance, but the standard goes up a notch higher if he is a Bilderberg social climber. I want someone who represents me -- a middle class person. I think Wesley Clark is the most likely to do that. He got by on a military salary for all those years and even if in later years his salary was pretty high, he was close to enlisted men who did not have a lot of money. Even Kerry was too protected by his wife's huge amounts of money. Bilderberg is a money pot -- courting the people who go there is not a good way to start a campaign if you want the votes of the American middle class today.

[CarolNYC]

47. Bilderberg

Is that supposed to be a plus or a minus?

[FrenchieCat]

48. Means that the Powers-that-Be are behind you....

even if the people aren't.

It's an exclusive secret Big Boy Corporate/World leaders club....

They discuss and they decide.

It's all good for Mark Warner...

Don't know how good it is for the rest of us.

It will mean lotsa positive coverage of Warner from this point on...just like Edwards got after he attended.

[CarolNYC]

54. yeah,

I know it means the powers-that-be have blessed him...I'm thinking that's not a good thing...although it's no doubt beneficial to his chances....Not sure I want someone blessed by the secret club as my nominee.

[FrenchieCat]

55. But the real question is....

Do you really have a choice in the matter? :shrug:

[CarolNYC]

56. yep...that IS the question n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

61. Exactly

I do remember reading how Kerry wanted to have someone else as his VP. People who were working for Kerry got on the Edwards band wagon and said he'd be a good choice. Don't get me wrong, I do like Edwards and think he does a lot of good and raises an important issue for poverty (which is a BIG issue now days) but it is kinda strange. I don't remember who Kerry originially wanted (I'd know the name if I saw it though) but after he had some people talk to him he choose him and now I think they do like each other. I remember reading a couple months ago an article how the Edwards' kids (the younger ones) went to visit the Kerry's and Mrs. Heinz Kerry gave the little one's some cake to take home and they talk on the phone a lot still. The whole Bilderberg thing could be behind the Dean stuff as well. :shrug: I really don't know since I didn't follow anything back then.

[mrgorth]

21. Didn't VA introduce

some seriously anti-gay legislation recently?

[spooky3]

26. VA's legislature is dominated by RW Rethugs.

Don't blame that on Warner.

[Norquist Nemesis]

22. One has to wonder about his running...Rove pinpointed VA

as the state where the 2008 election will turn. (Just Like they said Florida in 2000, and Ohio in 2004). And now hearing quite a bit about Warner including his starting a committee to check his viability for a run, well...that makes me nervous.

[Awsi Dooger]

51. No kidding; the math screams at how vital Virginia is in 2008

Virginia and Colorado were the two red states that shifted noticeably in our favor last cycle, compared to the typical partisanship. North Carolina also by maybe 3.5 points, but that is attributable to Edwards on the ticket.

Still, I don't see how we get over the top in Virginia in 2008 unless Warner is atop the ticket. As VP it might be close but a probable loss. The state was still nearly 6 points more Republican leaning than the nation as a whole and the tide is perhaps 2 points in our favor every 4 years.

Warner is an extremely intriguing candidate because of the potential of stealing those 13 electoral votes, a 26 vote swing which would make Florida or Ohio unnecessary as long as we held Pennsylvania and everything else and bagged one other state, like Iowa, Nevada or New Mexico.

The math reveals how vital Virginia is, and that is why Rove is isolating it. I hope like hell we are not asleep at the wheel and letting the GOP quietly shore up Virginia prior to 2008. Kerry ended up with 252 electoral votes, 18 short of a majority. Virginia would add 13. And that opens up any number of possibilities on our end. Iowa has 7 electoral votes, Nevada and New Mexico 5 apiece. Therefore any one of those states along with Virginia puts us over the top. In short, the GOP loses a ton of its margin for error minus Virginia.

On edit: of course, I should have mentioned the possibility of nabbing Colorado, which we only lost by 4 points in 2004 and has 9 electoral votes.

Virginia:
'88: Bush (59.74 - 39.23) = + 12.79% Republican
'92: Bush (44.97 - 40.59) = + 9.94% Republican
'96: Dole (47.10 - 45.15) = + 10.48% Republican
'00: Bush (52.47 - 44.44) = + 8.54% Republican
'04: Bush (53.68 - 45.48) = + 5.74% Republican

[FreedomAngel82]

62. I didn't know that

Very interesting. Someone should give that info to Mr. Cobb and Mr. Arnebeck so they can get on it early and Dean.

[liberalitch]

24. I voted for him..... And I'll vote for him when he runs for sen or pres.de

He took this state from the deficit that gilmore made with his car tax cuts.... (More SUVs on Va. = increase in traffic deaths.) and developed a surplus.... fighting our repug state house tooth and nail.... wants to opt out of NCLB....
Things that will lure the repugs: Endorsed by the Va. chapter of the NRA and signed partial birth abortion ban.

[4_Legs_Good]

28. I like the fact that he's a governor not a freaking senator

I've said it before, had Kerry been a Governor he'd be President right now, no doubt. Senator's (and House members) voting records are too complex and thus too easily manipulated by the opponents for the masses.

I'm hoping that a couple good governors emerge to take on the Repubs in 2008.

david

[spooky3]

27. Check out his website.

It includes a lot of info on his achievements and positions on issues.

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/

[FreedomAngel82]

63. Thanks for the website

I'm checking it out.

[fujiyama]

30. From what I've heard

he's a very good governor and really has turned the state around. He has a clear record of achievement in the state.

I haven't heard or seen him speak so I don't know anything about his charisma. I've read an interview with him on salon (www.salon.com it should be there if anyone is interested), but he came off somewhat dull. He basically stated what many other Dems have stated since the election (appeal to rural values, etc etc). He does seem a bit more conservative, especially on abortion (pro choice, but he's in favor of parental notification laws and signed a "partial birth" ban ).

I still think he's worth looking at. While I'd prefer somebody more liberal (perhaps Clark), Warner still seems more interesting than Bayh.

[autorank]

32. Pretty damn good Gov. Much like Doug Wilder

The last two Democratic Governors in Virgina had to do some serious governing. Wilder inherited the late 80's recession a la * I. He managed the state well and preserved progressive policies and programs. Warner inherited "cooked books" by Governor Enron, his Republican predecessor. $3.0 billion in deficit showed up just before the inauguration. Well, he cleaned that up and did some very progressive things for the state.

He's an entrepreneur from Northern Virgina, birthplace of the Internet, and he started up some great businesses. He's so committed to his version of social justice that he took his earnings and entered politics as a Democrat. Almost beat the very popular Sen. Warner in his first try. Won the Governor position in his second try. He is VERY good at rural politics, VERY good at suburban-tech/professional worker politics, and he's not too shabby in the cities either. He does pop off occasionally but he did give a beautiful speech on why he's a Democrat referring back to FDR as his mode.

He's a work in progress. He won't get it in 2008, although he'd be a great VP candidate (he provides tremendous management/governing experience). He's a looker for the future.

BTW, Virginia was named the BEST GOVERNED STATE in the most recent survey. No accident, this guy takes good management seriously!

BTW2, I grew up in California and visit there frequently. Warner would do exceptionally well :sarcasm: after all, my California brothers, you did elect Arnie! (just a little kidding among cousins).

[politicasista]

36. Can we just think about 2006 first?

There is a criminal in chief on the lose named *. Remember him? Probably not.

[4_Legs_Good]

43. Who???

*? Never heard of him!

Kidding! Of course I think 2006 is very, very important, but I think having some popular names out there that look like strong candidates in 2008 could actually help our prospects in '06. The Democrats need to appear to be a party with strong vision and strong personalities.

2004 should have taught us that it's not enough for the other guy to suck ass out loud, we need to have guys on our side that are strong enough that the Mind Control Media cannot destroy them and the Republicans cannot tar and feather.

If we don't win in 2006 we're in some serious shit.

david

[DemsUnited]

37. Warner is incredibly respected here in VA

He's a true moderate democrat, NOT a Repug lite. He's got character, integrity, intelligence. He's respected in Virginia by both Democrats and Republicans. The state was in pretty bad shape when he got into office (kinda like California) and Warner really turned things around (kinda like Ahnold Schwarzenegger -- NOT!)

He's a one term governor only because of VA's stupid one term law. He doesn't have diplomatic or foreign policy experience. But ya know, the draft-dodging dipwad from Texas had the same problem & it didn't slow him down much ...

[FrenchieCat]

39. Glad to know that IYO, Warner is no DINO....

but please don't use Bush, Jr. as an example as to why our guy/gal shouldn't have the National Security experience or foreign policy experience in 2008.

Let's just say that if voting folks had known that 9/11 was gonna happen, I don't believe that Bush would have gotten into the office (the election stealing would have had to have been more than they could have handled). By 2004, Bush had the experience (no matter how terrible he might seem....he has still been commander in chief for 4 years...and that qualifies as experience).

[4_Legs_Good]

40. You have a one term Governor law???

That's totally nutty!

david

[liberalitch]

45. Yea.... it's a double edged sword....

You can't keep folks like wilder and warner, but you're able to get rid of freaks like gilmore and allen (now senator)

[AntiCoup2K4]

52. The draft dodging dipwad from Texas was excused because his Daddy was Prez

Kinda like some here want to go with Hillary just because her husband was President.

As for Warner, I don't know a lot about the guy, so I'll reserve judgment. However some of the DLC-bots are boosting him, so that can't be good.

[FreedomAngel82]

64. Why do they have a one term law?

Kinda weird. I've never heard of that. Reminds me of the governor here in Tn. Very moderate (not republican lite) and people on both sides of the isle like him. Some people might say you should worry about that (republicans liking you) but I think it means you can work well with others as long as you stay true to your ideals of your party. On the foreign policey it's called foreign for a reason. He's a governor. Governors mostly deal on the local level and on other issues with the state. So give all the governors a rest on foreign policey.

[Stinky The Clown]

38. Warner is, overall, a pretty good guy

He's done a truly great job as VA governor, particularly in that he had a decidedly RW infested state legislature. I suspect, however, that many on the left will find him too center too suit them. I also suspect that, upon seeing/hearing him on teevee, he'll come across as quite bland and uninspiring.

As to his centrism, that may be as much, or more, a product of the state he governs as it is his personal views; I really don't know. As to his blandness, well, its real. I hear him often on the DC radio station, WTOP, where they regularly have him on for an hour talking to commentators and on the phone to citizens.

On the whole, I like the guy and can see him as a strong number two to any viable candidate. I just don't think he's a strong enough package on his own to carry a ticket.

All that having been said, I'd **really** like to see him take on George 'Empty Suit" Allen for the Senate. Allen is the second dumbest man in the Senate (bested only by Norm Coleman). But he's also a real contender for the 08 Repub ticket. Take him out in 06 and we get a two-fer ... a Senate seat and a blown-out candidacy for the 08 Repub national ticket.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

46. Warner vs Allen if they both had #2 positions would be good

Allen is dumb as paint. I can't remember what forum he was on (maybe MTP) but when questioned about the prospect about older people losing their homes because of a cut in SS he said something mind boggling and earth-stopping like "well, at least they won'thave those lawns to mow" I am absolutely paraphrasing, but that was the gist of what he said. I think he created his own best anti-ad that moement. You could show it un-edited and it shows him as the un-aware, unperceptive, slow-on-his feet dolt that he is. I agree that Warner couldn't headline a ticket but he deserves consideration for 2nd position.

[FreedomAngel82]

65. He really said that?

OH wow. How heartless. :mad: From what I've heard of Warner he'd make a good VP or another cabinet member.

[FreedomAngel82]

69. Another thing with Warner

is he is a DLC democrat. http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1

[kentuck]

78. He doesn't look presidential..

that's all...

[stealthbadger]

85. I'm about to state the obvious, I know. -_-;;

/delurk

Somewhere in the strange gestalt that is the MSM, a decision is made about how a candidate is covered (along with the perception on how well the handlers and make-up artists are doing) that affects the writing, the photography, and the reporting about the candidate. That, more than anything, determines whether a candidate looks presidential or not.

If the media get the feeling that either a majority of people believe a candidate IS presidential (or if they have the backing of the Right Sort Of People), then you'll see an amazing shift in how they are covered. To borrow a phrase from Heinlein, the MSM is filled with people who have been studying the proverbial problem of how to sell dead cats to the board of health for most of their adult lives. So whether a candidate looks presidential or not isn't a problem, and it's something we can't influence.

Tangent:

The problem is whether or not the media thinks they could be covering a winner. That is something we can, and have in the past influenced, and will have a much easier time influencing in 2006 and 2008 than we have for the past ten years. Thanks to the painfully gradual re-emergence of real journalism, mostly brought about by grassroots response, the question of "are people interested in this story" is starting to once again gain credible weight against the question of "what do the advertisers and the Powers That Be think of this story."

*stops babbling and wanders off to get some coffee...*

[JHBowden]

84. Warner is one of our best options.

Governor Warner connects well with the black community and rural voters. A self-made millionaire, he doesn't alienate pro-business moderates and has done quite a bit for Virginia's budget, education, and health care.

I can see Warner taking several red states, including Virginia, Ohio, and Arkansas to name a few. Other candidates, like President Gore and Senator Clinton don't have this strength.