Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

I found this column on the Scaife papers website-think it makes a great argument for former Virginia Gov Mark Warner, which is shocking because we all know about Scaife ghtrib/opinion/columnists/zito/s_453676. html

Tags: Hillary, Richardson, Warner (all tags)



Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

"Warner undoubtedly is what is missing most in a Democrat candidate -- a non-shrill moderate."  

If that's what you call a "solid case" for Warner, I think that we have strong disagreements about what constitutes a solid case.

by DanM 2006-05-14 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Warner would be my second choice as a southerner and person who wants somebody who has a strong chance of winning. But my Progressive side forces me to back Feingold.

by Liberal 2006-05-14 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

He is a moderate like Hillary Clinton and he comes across to the American electorate that he isn't an insider he is an outsider and he comes from as non partisan.  But I would like him to answer more questions before I endorse him.

by mleflo2 2006-05-14 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

I think it is a joke Warner pretends he is an outsider. He worked and went to school in Washington, DC. And he lives in Alexandria, VA which is in eye sight of DC.

by Virginia Blogger 2006-05-14 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Governing Magazine "Public Official of the Year" in 2004.

Chairman of the National Governors Association in 2004.

Virginia is recognized as the "Best Managed State in the Nation."

'I think people are tired of politicians trying to poke each other in the eye."  - Mark Warner

Oh yeah, that sounds like an insider to me.

by sndeak 2006-05-14 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Your going to have to get over one thing - He is not Governor any more. And you are using an old approval rating. Tim Kaine is Governor and you Warner supporters give him zero credit for his win. Tim Kaine is his own person and he won because of who he is not because of Mark Warner.

by Virginia Blogger 2006-05-15 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

So because the state he led just so happens to border D.C., he is an insider?

Ah, okay.  That make's no sense.  Zero.    

by Eric11 2006-05-14 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

What I am saying is not he isn't a Dem I said he comes across as not being part of the Clinton legacy.  Most of the Dems in Washington was supportive of the President, Clinton, during the Monica Lewinsky crisis, like Edwards, Kerry, and Gore, the last three defeatist Dems.  But Mark Warner wasn't part of that in Washington during that time.  So, he comes across as an outsider unlike the other Dems.

by mleflo2 2006-05-15 04:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

I live in VA, but was born and raised in Minnesota.

I wish we had a governor and Senator's which were as competent and progressive as Mark Warner.

Once 2007 comes and the focus of the presidential campaign begans , we will learn about the positions of all the candidates. We will be able to compare and contrast through debates and the campaign it-self. I bet Hillary will not compare to well and she will not stand out above the rest of the candidates.

by BobM 2006-05-14 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Mark Warner has been an utter coward on the issue of Iraq and of national priorities. We cannot have an election where the deceptions and failure of Iraq are not debated with a new direction for national security. Moderate in this sense means coward and without conviction. Progressives need an articulate and forceful voice, not a wimp and evader. Dems have lost in the past because the electorate doesn't see them willing to fight for what they believe in, nor willing to be forceful in articulating their leadership direction for the country.

by cmpnwtr 2006-05-14 10:56AM | 0 recs
Not so fast....

Coward? I don't think so. Just because he does not advocate your stance does not in any way make him a coward.

"The notion of unilateral action without consequences is a notion that should have passed away with the 20th century,"

"We're at our strongest when we pursue a policy that unites our friends and divides our enemies, and not the reverse."

Yet, there seemed to be limits to how far Warner would go. He told reporters afterward that while he hopes the Iraq war is successful, he would consider pulling U.S. troops out if the country did not make progress in coming months on democracy and security.

"I think you don't take that off the table," he said when asked about troop withdrawal.

"The litany of mistakes are almost unprecedented," Warner said at one point, proceeding to then list the various and sundry errors he attributes to the Bush administration.  "We're seeing the ramifications" of [the policy]."

You are clueless if you think for a second that Warner does not fight for what he believes in.
He did more for Virginians in 3 years than the previous 3 Governors combined.

Get you facts straight before calling someone a coward.

by sndeak 2006-05-14 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Not so fast....

I am a Virginia voter and think Warner is a great guy. But I will not support him for President. There are far more qualified dems out there for 2008. He lost my vote the day he decided not to run for Senate against Allen.

by Virginia Blogger 2006-05-14 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Not so fast....

That's a great reason not to want to vote for someone.  I heard Feingold buys white onions instead of green ones.  I'm not voting for him.  

Oh I forgot, he let the party down.  I mean there aren't any good candidates running in his stay or anything.  

by Eric11 2006-05-14 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Here is Warner as policy wonk, in an interview on health care issues, which shows off the fact that on domestic policy issues, Warner has some good ideas and knows how to articulate them.

I hope he gets better on foreign policy.  He gave a decent talk at the Progressive Policy Institute, when they were introducing their new book about taking a progressive approach to the war on terror; but his command of the material wasn't as impressive as it is when he hits domestic issues.

Highlight of the talk: "[I]f we just take a small snapshot of where we are, Osama bin Laden is still at large; al Qaeda or its offshoots have launched terror attacks in Europe, in the Middle East, in Asia; we have now arising not only a whole branch of worldwide Sunni-inspired terrorism, but an equally Iranian-sponsored Shi'a branch of terrorism across the world.  In Iraq, the litany of mistakes are almost unprecedented: no WMD, faulty intelligence and then selective leaks; no real plan of what our military was to do after we took out the command and control of the enemy, after we took out Saddam Hussein; and almost unprecedented outcries from our military leaders about their frustrations with this administration's failure to listen to them in terms of what it would take to do the job; and a so-called coalition of the willing, that increasingly has become a coalition of the non- existent; and a complete failure to recognize that to solve this issue would have required much more regional cooperation, much more international efforts."

Of course, considering how idiotic Bush has always sounded on both domestic and foreign policy, I'm not sure a good grasp of the issues is necessary, as long as one learns to at least sound decisive.

Here is Warner not throwing gays overboard.

Warner restores voting rights to ex-felons -- while one could note that most ex-cons who vote, vote for Democrats, I still believe that denying constitutional rights to people who have served their time is an injustice, unless you cite a serious threat of harm to the public.  (e.g. I'm not against tracking child molestors, because their pathologies tend to be persistent.  Also, I tend to think purchases of guns by violent felons should be held to a higher standard than a purchase by non-felons.  Oddly, the NRA and its GOP stooges don't seem to agree; they seem to think felons should have guns, but not votes.)

Salon interview with Warner -- if anyone's interested in reading it but doesn't have Premium, I can post the text in the comments section...

All that, plus a tax package that drove his local 'wing-nuts up the wall, and he leaves office with 70% approval.

What more do you want?

by auros 2006-05-15 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Hmm.  Testing sig block.  (I thought newlines in the sig were supposed to auto-format, same as in the body?)

by auros 2006-05-15 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Anyone who can raise taxes in a red state and come away with a 70 pecent approval rating is what leadership is all about.  

Think about it for a minute--if Warner holds all of the states that Kerry did(shouldn't be that hard) and comes away with Virginia then pretty much wins the election, not to mention his ability to connect with southern voters.  The man is pragmatic and a leader, Mark Warner would be an excellent candidate for '08.

by burroughs 2006-05-14 02:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

While attending a small lunch with a group of gay and lesbian donors, Warner was asked where he stood on gay marriage.  He, the brother of a lesbian, responded: "I haven't decided yet which rights gay people shouldn't be entitled to" and continued to show how unclear he is on a whole list of human rights issues for gay people.  I don't care if he's not a gay-flag waving Dem--but there's no way that we should be supporting someone who doesn't support equal treatment for gays, especially when he could easily anticipate the question with a group of people very interested to support his candidacy.  I'll wait for someone who doesn't need to figure out which rights every American should have.

by passionateprogressive 2006-05-14 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

I'd be interested to see the exact citation; he may've been saying that sardonically -- implying that people should not be denied ANY human rights.

See here.

by auros 2006-05-15 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Republicans and independents seem to regard Warner favourably. I'm not convinced that democrats who bother to vote in the primaries are that excited by him.

If he can raise enough money then perhaps he can become the main challenger to HRC but even within the netroots Warner is not polling the sort of numbers that would suggest he'll frighten her.

by kundalini 2006-05-14 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Warner couldn't beat Hillary Clinton if he was the only one running against her in the primary.

by Virginia Blogger 2006-05-14 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

There is a profound statement coming from a rabid Hillary supporter.

Assuming Hillary even runs, she has spent too much time triangulating her positions. She is too transparent.

That is not the case with Warner. He understands the progressive movement and believes in REFORM.  

One of the things I really appreciate about him is that he'll tell you he doesn't agree with you when he doesn't agree on an issue. A true triangulator would never say "I disagree" they instead take the comment/question and reword it to cover all angles.

by sndeak 2006-05-14 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Its true. And tell me something. Why didn't he run against Allen for Senate? Its not like he isn't interested in the Senate... He did run for it once. Mark Warner is all about Mark Warner. If he really cared about us he would have given us a chance just like we gave him one in 2001 when we elected him and made him who he is.

by Virginia Blogger 2006-05-15 05:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Warner stated a number of times that after being a chief executive he did not feel that the senate was the right place for him. I appreciate that level of honesty.

by sndeak 2006-05-15 05:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Yea. After 4 years as Governor I appreciate he thinks he is the most qualified to lead the free world.

by Virginia Blogger 2006-05-15 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

What's wrong with saying you think you can do more good as President of the United States than as a Senator?  

The reality is that it is very difficult to run for President from the US Senate and it would have been almost impossible for him to have run such a campaign 6 months after winning the Senate race.  So his choice was really whether to run for and win the Senate seat OR to take a shot at 2008.  I hate Allen and would have LOVED to see Warner beat him, but I can't slam the guy for making a different decision.    

by HSTruman 2006-05-15 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Sorry, you're mistaken.  I'm a democratic activist -- I was an assistant whip for the Angelides campaign on the floor of the CA Dem convention a couple weeks ago.  And I'm very excited about the potential Warner candidacy.

by auros 2006-05-15 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

I believe Mark Warner is the perfect candidate for the Democrats.  People on this site must realize the US as a whole will not elect a progressive as President, not yet.  Right now we need to take what we can get.  Mark Warner is a moderate southerner just like the last two democratic presidents and just like al gore who won the popular vote and quite possibly the election in 2000.  Mark Warner should pick a moderate democrat from the south or from a swing state to be his running mate (John Edwards, Wes Clark, Bill Richardson, Bill Nelson, Joe Manchin, Mike Easley, Phil Bredesen, Ken Salazar, Tom Harkin) that ticket is the Democrats best shot to win.  I love Russ Feingold but the US as a whole will not elect him, he is too far to the left of the current nation.  I think electing progressive should be a goal but i think sometimes you have to put that goal aside and worry about just winning the office with the best candidate possible.  Like AZ-8 Jeff Latas is the progressive candidate, but Gabby Giffords is our best shot to win the seat.  Sure she is a moderate but she will be able to vote for somebody other than Nancy Pelosi hopefully as the next Speaker of the House.  Where as, Feingold is the progressive but Warner is the best candidate and he will be able to lead our country in the right direction(left) for the next eight years.

by Johnny17 2006-05-14 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

As someone with many years of experience in politics, I want to say the following to those with doubts about Mark Warner: You have every reason to wonder who he is. Your doubts and your curiousity are completely understandable.  That's where I was a few years ago: A Hilary Clinton Democrat, a New Yorker, heading government relations for a large public entity and entranced with her meteoric rise and her intelligence and her passion. Watched her close up. Wow.

Then  somehow I found myself speaking at the Univ of Virginia, and I heard and met a politician I didn't know. My ignorance was pretty stark. And at first I didnt know what his party affiliation was. Because here was this guy delivering a "civil-liberties sensitive" yet relentlessly tough message about homeland security to a conservative audience and they were completely taken with him.

"Darn, I thought, why can't Democrats get candidates like this?" Until I found out he WAS a Democrat.

I dont want to put you to sleep with the journey that led me to be deeply committed to the idea that Mark Warner MUST be the next President. But I will ask you a simple favor, especially those of you like me who have doubts.

Watch him. Listen to him.

Watch his speech to the New Hampshire Democrats. (CSPAN).

Those of you with doubts about Governor Warner on the issue of national security, watch his DLC appearance last week with Evan Bayh.

Read the New York Times magazine cover story.

Read the results of recent Luntz focus groups that reveal a stunning ability to almost instantly connect with voters.

And read the story of how a get tough Democrat in a red state had the guts to stop an execution when there was some doubt about the guilt of the convict, against the urging of many who wanted it to go forward.

But most importantly, if there is any way you can, talk to him, listen to him, apply your toughest standards and skepticism, and decide for yourself if you agree that no politician in a generation has shown himself to be a more voracious and deeply sincere listener. Decide if what you see is genuine insatiable curiousity about people's needs and hurts  rather than calculated and polite face time. Decide for yourself if he is man of unassailable integrity.  And listen.

Then it's your call.

A word about Hilary Clinton, one of my heroes. I wish you could watch her in action working the state of New York. This is a great senator by any standard. But aside fom the whole electabilty argument, I urge you to consider one serious weakness that I am not sure is well understood.

I don't know how many of you have watched her up close or watched her do retail politics, but Hilary is not a natural, instinctive listener.  A person of deep beliefs, she has a very difficult time adjusting them when new data comes in that might call for a correction or adjustment. And while this might sound really off, as someone who has watched her up close,  she is surprizingly ill at ease around people. Hers is a calculated warmth, not well suited for the retail politics of early primaries.

Please take a close look at Mark Warner. What I thought was my permanent state of cynicism has been washed away by the thought that we could once again have a brilliant, thoughtful, compassionate and engaged President who is in  every sense a Democrat.

If you are sick of settling, give Governor Warner a close look. My experience is that virtually anyone who does feels nothing less than a new hope for the future of the party and the country. I know this sounds over the top. That's why I am not asking you to believe me. I am asking you to discover this for yourselves.

Trust me. I'm the last person who ever thought I would feel this way again. 1968, RFK killed, and optimism and idealism were over.

Well they're back!

by StevenG 2006-05-14 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case

I read the long New York Times profile on Mark Warner and tended to agree with the final assessment: he's an outsider whose seems unwilling to take an aggressive stance on anything.

Now he might make a great president but I'm really struggling to see how he can possibly win the democratic nomination, in a field consisting of HRC and a lot of tall white men. Regardless of his many qualities, his strategy for winning the nomination to date, comes across as being clueless; as though he has absolutely no understanding of the key constituencies and how the primary process works.

Listening and being moderate, being a genuinely nice guy, who was a successful businessman and then a highly competent governor, is unlikely to be enough to be heard above the media noise.

You only have to look at Feingold's numbers in the netroots' polls to appreciate the importance of having an opinion and getting it heard.

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that Mark Warner needs to figure out how he is going to defeat the other competitors for the right challenge HRC.

by kundalini 2006-05-15 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Until Warner repudiates the DLC his is HRC without the female vote.

by Bob Brigham 2006-05-14 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

It's going to be Gore again in 2008.  And, sorry, it won't be Gore/Feingold, even though it would geographically balance the ticket.  It very well may be Gore/Warner.  Why?  It carries Virginia and wins the election.

And, no, I don't think Hillary accepts the number two spot.  I sense, no evidence, bad feelings from how Gore did not use Bill in 2000.

by cuvdog 2006-05-14 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Vice Presidents don't carry states anymore.  Gore will never get the nomination.  At the very least, he kills any small chance Feingold has and perhaps hurts Hillary a little.  

Warner would be a great candidate.  No doubt in my mind about that.  He would be an absolute nightmare for the Republicans in the general.  He appeals to all the suburbanites who voted for Clinton and Perot and then went back to Bush the last two cycles.  

He'd also be a great Democratic President.  He'd have the ability to make the Democratic Party the party to choose if you care about pocket book issues.  Do you want to balance the budget?  Vote for a Democrat.  Do you want a pro-growth President?  Vote a Democrat.  Do you want a fair tax system?  Vote for a Democrat.  

We would finally be the party of financial responsibility, as we always have been.  

Warner can create a true national brand for the party.  

by Eric11 2006-05-14 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Who is going to vote for him? I mean which segments of the democratic party are going to support him in the primaries?

Feingold is going to get a huge chunk of the netroots' vote, with Clark and Edwards also getting at least 5% each.

Can't see the unions or the black vote backing him. Women are more likely to support HRC.

Warner appears to me to be a "great candidate" that has yet to realise there's a primary. In which case you could easily replace the word great with a rather less complimentary one.

by kundalini 2006-05-15 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Where does this analysis come from?
"Can't see the unions or the black vote backing him."

Warner has gotten strong union and african-american support.

He also has proven very strong in suburban and rural areas.

There is a large group of "Clarkies" moving over to the Warner column as well as former Edwards supporters.

We see it at the state convention and party events.

by sndeak 2006-05-16 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Why would she take the number two spot? She is going to be the nominee.

by Virginia Blogger 2006-05-15 05:08AM | 0 recs

This article is hardly supportive of Warner. He's a non-shrill moderate...he's from Virginia....he's a centrist!

The reason to support Warner is that he took a state that was in deep trouble and using Democratic ideas (new and old) and turned it around. His policy stands will be more pragmatist than idealist, but he's one of the deepest candidates in that regard and I respect him and Feingold the most.

Neverthless, the winner of the nomination has to compete with the Clintonesque media stratgies which will downplay this.

by risenmessiah 2006-05-14 11:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Uhhh

Clintons were centrists not moderates as well, they came from Arkansas, even more conservative than Virginia.  Bush won 2004 both states around the same margins 9% points.  Both the Clintons campaign against the moderate Jerry Brown to win the presidential nom based on the conserv program Welfare reform.  Edwards is a moderate.  Feinstein is a moderate. All of this will be taken into consideration before the general election.  And I believe Mark Warner or Russ Feingold will be the best bet.

by mleflo2 2006-05-15 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

I note that one point has been conspicuously absent from the discussion here -- one of your hosts at MyDD, Jerome Armstrong, is working for Warner.  Kos is also in favor of Warner, at least over Hillary.

I don't really see Hillary winning the general election.  She excites the GOP base much more than she excites the Democratic base.

Also, if you're thinking of backing her, read this first.

by auros 2006-05-15 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Rendell is going to win his election by a good spread, even though he comes from a catholic background, PA has Dems and well as Republican and his goveronence crosses party lines, lets endorse him as well.

by mleflo2 2006-05-15 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

Well neither Jerome nor Markos have that great a trackrecord of picking winners at this stage.

I happen to think there's probably not a great deal of difference policy wise between Warner and HRC. That Warner is probably a more skilled executive, technocrat etc. But that HRC is more likely to win an election (I know this goes against current received wisdom) largely due to the whole woman president thing and her star status.

So HRC for me. (Wouldn't mind Warner as president though, or indeed Feingold, Edwards etc)

by kundalini 2006-05-15 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Making A solid Case for Mark Warner

The public has had their fill of rhetoric.  They are looking for someone who's results speak louder than their words.  Mark Warner is the only candidate than can point to significant real achievements (and he accomplished them with only four years in office).

He also has a natural appeal to rural America and proved it with a plurality of 100,000 votes in traditionally Republican SW Virginia.

As a graduate of Harvard Law, he doesn't shoot from the hip verbally which will allow him to avoid the "you said" minefield in order to win the November 2008 election.

To see Mark in action, including a question and answer session, please see his speech at the Harvard Kennedy School at forum_video.asp?ID=2978

by microsrfr 2006-05-15 02:05PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads