Va. Gov. Mark Warner hires Gore advisor...possible presidential run

[Dover]

Va. governor hires former Gore adviser

By BOB LEWIS, Associated Press Writer
Last Updated 6:06 pm PDT Friday, June 10, 2005

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - Gov. Mark Warner is taking another step toward a possible presidential run by establishing a federal campaign committee and hiring a top political aide to Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, two advisers said Friday.
Monica Dixon will begin working for the Democratic governor next month and will be paid through a federal leadership PAC Warner is setting up, said Mame Reiley of Alexandria, director of a state political action committee the governor controls.

Steve Jarding, a Harvard University political science professor who managed Warner's 2001 campaign for governor, said Dixon will work part-time advising Warner on a possible run for the White House in 2008. Warner's term as governor ends in January.
Warner, 50, has not said whether he will seek the Democratic nomination, but he has done little to quiet speculation about his future aspirations. He was in Iowa earlier this week to talk about high school education and prepare for a meeting later this year of the National Governors Association...cont'd

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/2471185p-10803227c.html
(may need to register...OR go to the AP source)

Earlier discussion on Warner here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1793241

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenArrow]

3. he won't rock the boat

.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenArrow]

6. the point of nominating him is to win

boat rockers don't win, and they don't get nominated to begin with. I'm by no means a Dean fan, but he would be w-a-y better than this slick turd.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenArrow]

9. I'm wrong about boat rockers not getting nominated

they do. They may even win on occasion. But I don't really think Reagan was a boat rocker. He offered the same old non-solution solutions, and sold it all with his down-homey manner. He told people what they wanted to hear, he played on their fears and hopes, and the profits rolled in for the powers behind the scenes.

I'll have to think about the Dean/Goldwater analogy. Based on what we see now, I'm not sure the current version of the Republican party has much basis in Barry Goldwater's ideology, nor has it for some time. Intriguing analogy, though.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenArrow]

11. that's what I'm saying

I don't believe that Goldwater is the model for what the Republicans have become. We'd be in better shape if he were. They used his defeat as a springboard to rise from the ashes, but not his ideology. Even Goldwater was disgusted with much of what his party had become. It's hard to imagine Goldwater supporting the Patriot Act, for example.

I just don't see much good coming from either party in the near future. The system is simply messed up and I fear we're in for some rough times no matter which party is in the oval office.

At least Dean inspires people. Warner is skim milk.

[nickshepDEM]

13. A little thing called.....

Winning. It would a kinda' nice to see a Democrat at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue again.

[GreenArrow]

32. geez ... what did I miss here?

?

[renaissanceguy]

18. Let's just say Zell loves him.

He has some good points but here are the reasons I wouldn't support him:

Supports a fair death penalty. (Nov 2001)
Supports NAFTA, GATT, and WTO. (Jul 1996)
Protect sportsmen’s rights & the Second Amendment. (Nov 2001)
Limit social payments to immigrants; support English. (Jul 1996)
Fight Internet pornography. (Nov 2001)
Promote “e-government”. (Nov 2001)
Require work to receive welfare benefits. (Jul 1996)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Warner.htm



http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/454063

[nickshepDEM]

19. Everything on the list sounds good to me except...

His support for the WTO, GATT, and NAFTA. But that was back in 1996. Im sure his position has changed more in favor of "fair trade".

[Orangepeel]

21. hmm.. which of those would Hillary disagree with?

I don't mean to hijack the thread. I'm just asking.

[GreenArrow]

25. like I said,

he won't rock the boat. Same old non-solution solutions, completely bereft of vision, imagination, and conveying a narrow world view. Completely safe, he's yet another professional politician looking to stuff the ultimate feather in his cap. Feh!

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Roland99]

2. Not surprising since he was just part of the Bilderberg Conference.

[GreenArrow]

5. mmm hmmm

It worked for John Edwards.

[Clark2008]

29. Considering that Edwards isn't the vice president - I'd say it

didn't work for him, either.

[GreenArrow]

33. but it did get him in a postion to claim the VP title

when Clark was a MUCH better choice.

[Clark2008]

36. I don't think Clark wanted VP

But - yeah, I'll agree that he'd have been a better choice. :hi:

[FreedomAngel82]

41. Yep

He's been going there for at least two meetings I know of.

[snowbear]

7. I don't know enough about him yet.. but..

I'll hear him out if he does run..

A few things I found when this was discussed earlier was this comment on KOS: http://kudos.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/3/74845/75162

And Howard Fineman's recent comments about him: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8062256/

Hey :shrug: ...anything can happen! Remember that Governor from Arkansas who they said could NEVER beat Bush 01?

...too soon to know who will jump in and float to the top ;)

[lynne]

12. Sorry, I can't get beyond -

- anyone seriously wishing to run for President hiring a top Gore advisor. :crazy:

[Hippo_Tron]

14. I'm gonna have to second that

I'm hoping that the Gore advisor is only for the exploratory committee.

[nickshepDEM]

15. Im a Warner supporter, and Im worried about this move too...

[snowbear]

17. Heck.. she was Gore's Deputy Chief of Staff..

She can't be all that bad.. :shrug: (edit to add: 1999 - 2001 http://www.americanpresident.org/history/billclinton/staffadvisers/nationalsecurity/officeofthevicepresident/h_index.shtml )

Besides.. Gore won!! ;)

[nickshepDEM]

16. Can't wait... Warner '08 baby!

Iowa... New Hampshire... 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue!

[quaoar]

20. This unfortunately means smooth sailing for George Allen

Because Warner isn't likely to challenge him in 2006 now.

[FrenchieCat]

22. This means.....

That we are going to try to run a 1992 candidate in 2008?

The man has no national security or Foreign Policy experience!

Why did the press keep repeating that mantra, over and over again that 9/11 changed everything? What happened since the last electoin? Is 9/11 and the Terrorists and the Iraq Invasion no longer issues. Did Bin Laden get captured or something and I missed it? Is the Iraq war over? Did the North Korea and Iran issues get resolved?

Seems like the Republicans' trump card is National Security everytime. I do believe that the Bin Laden Tape trotted out on 10/29 (the press forgot to call it the October surprise that it was) certainly did it's job.

So why are Democrats now forgetting about National Security in their choices for 2008 now that the 2004 election is over...and we lost, specifically on that issue?

Here we are in 2005, but yet Mark Warner is heralded; the perfect candidate for 2008 from the 1992 era minus the charisma. Is that really the BEST strategy? :shrug:

[phylla]

23. Clark/Warner for 8 years, then Warner/Obama for another 8 yrs

Then Obama/? for the next eight years.Then ?/my son for 8 years, then my son/? for another eight years.
Works for me.
Clark and Warner would perfectly complement each other.

[election_2004]

24. At least he has post-9/11 experience

Warner was elected post-9/11...

...whereas the biggest thing that Hillary's supporters claim on her behalf is the vibe of "Clinton Nostalgia."

Unfortunately, this is not 1992, and our world has changed too much since then. They can't assume that the same formula that worked for Bill Clinton in 1992 would apply to Hillary Clinton if she used it in 2008. The same way that Bush's strategy in 2004 can't be applied by Frist in 2008.

[FrenchieCat]

30. But I think that the 1992 formula applies more to Warner than to Hil

The 1992 formula was:
Moderate Centrist governor with charisma from a small red state.

Hil is a Senator from a blue state and the wife of a President that served 2 terms....which is NOT the 1992 scenario.

The differences between Warner and B. Clinton, however, are clear!
Warner = less time served as governor than Clinton
Warner = less charisma than Clinton
Warner = will be running in 2008, not 1992

[election_2004]

31. What I meant....

...is that the Hillary-in-2008 camp tries to claim that she can replicate the electoral success of her husband, based on the assumption that she'll be able to do the same types of things that Bill did when he took office.

The difference, of course, is that the political circumstances that the presidential victor in 2009 will have to face will be TOTALLY DIFFERENT from the political circumstances faced by Bill Clinton beginning in 1993.

But I know that you already understand that, Frenchie. You and I may support different candidates (you, Clark; me, Lincoln), but I think we're on the same page regarding a Hillary run.

[JHBowden]

26. Bush has no foreign policy experience either.

Besides, Warner has *won* an election in red state post-911, something we cannot say about other (cough cough Clark cough) candidates.

[FrenchieCat]

27. To use Bush as the "Prime Example" is not recommended

In addition, Bush came into the White House PRE 9/11. It's not like folks knew what would be happening later on. I don't believe that voters are going to agree that we need more "learning on the job" for a President on the subject of National Security...to any great extent.

You can looooove politicians and find them to be the only ones qualified as leaders. John Kerry was an elected politician.....the good that did him. So was Dukakis, for that matter. Eisenhower turned out to be one of the most decent president Republicans ever had, and he had been elected to nada prior to serving 2 terms.

Personally, you still didn't address the issue of National Security as being an important issue in the larger scheme of things. You only gave an excuse as to why you prefer an elected politician as opposed to a leader.

And that's the problem with many Democrats. They'd rather not face an area that they are weak on....so they ignore the issue all together and pretend that my point was not a valid one.

It's really too bad. Cause when the national security issue comes to slap Democrats in the face (during a "set-up" that the White House can easily engineer using it's media as a megaphone).....don't be taken aback. K?

[JHBowden]

38. Political skill trumps national security.

I'm not saying that political skill is a sufficient condition to win the presidency in 2008. But I do believe it is a necessary condition, and while I like Clark, he seems too newb at this political stuff.

Security credentials and a war bio were some of our biggest selling points for Kerry. However, Kerry's lack of political initiative hurt him in the primary when Dean painted Kerry as being a flipflopper on the war. The same lack of initiative hurt Kerry when the swiftsmear assholes went to town. Kerry did a lot of things well; I'm merely using this as an example.

Maybe I'm wrong about Clark; perhaps he'll actually be prepared and ready to go next time in 2008. However, I *am* correct about having political skill; shiny stars alone aren't going to win us the election.

[FreedomAngel82]

43. Right

Bush was a governor too and had no foreign policey. Most governor's don't. They're at a state level and not foreign.

[FreedomAngel82]

42. Uh duh he's a governor!

Governor's don't necessarily deal with too much foreign policey. No shit! :eyes:

[Clark2008]

28. Bilderberger...

enough said.

[AirAmFan]

34. What about his disfranchisement of blacks? Just like Jeb Bush,

Warner needs to be asked why he has not done everything possible to work against "lifetime felon disfranchisement" in his state, which disfranchises hundreds of thousands, mainly black men. Why hasn't he started a movement to amend the state constitution to get rid of this explicitly intentionally racist legacy of slavery? Why hasn't he restored voting rights to far more than just 2,157 people, considering the vast amount of discretion the governor of Virgina has in its undemocratic electoral system?

From http://www.righttovote.org/news_stories.asp?key=168&ID=74 :

"In Virginia, anyone convicted of a felony loses ... the right to vote.... Most states automatically restore a felon's right to vote once he or she has completed a sentence.... Virginia, however, is one of seven states where felons have their voting rights taken away for life.

The governor has the discretionary power to restore all citizenship rights, except for the right to possess a firearm. Felons convicted of nonviolent crimes must wait three years after satisfying their debts to society before they can petition the governor to have their rights restored. Felons convicted of violent crimes must wait five years. Warner simplified the process during his term in office by streamlining the paperwork. He reduced a 14-page application for nonviolent offenders down to a single page. He already has restored rights to 2,157 individuals, the most of any Virginia governor. He has denied 134 applicants, said Kevin Hall, a spokesman for the Democratic governor.....

Before Gov. Mark R. Warner leaves office, several grass roots groups, including STEP-UP of Norfolk, are making a coordinated, last-minute push to restore civil rights to 10,000 freed felons in Virginia. The groups want to take advantage of the last months of Warner's governorship.... 'This is the time to try to do it,' said Sandra Brandt, director of STEP-UP Inc., an acronym for Skilled Training, Employment Placement, Upward Progress. 'Between now and August 31, we're trying to mobilize as many individuals who want to get their voting rights back.'

In addition to STEP-UP, the groups include Richmond Community Action Program (RCAP), Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) of Roanoke and Virginia Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants (Virginia C.U.R.E.) of Northern Virginia. The four groups... will work with Advancement Project, a national racial justice organization..... Their goal is to restore rights to 10,000 freed felons statewide, including 2,500 in Hampton Roads, Brandt said."

[cajones_II]

35. He was in Los Angeles this week with his hat out

He schmoozed the Times Board mid-week, kissing a lot of ass. I attended a how-do-you-do in Beverly Hills which included the address of an "exploratory committee" where one could send checks.

[Vadem]

39. Sorry! He is too conservative for me (I'm in Virginia!) He should....

run for the Senate against George Allen! That would give him some legislative experience for his future run for the Presidency and then perhaps I would vote for him for President!

[johnnyrocket]

40. Boooring! He's actually pretty exciting for a Va politican...

...that is: he makes smart choices and compomises! But otherwise, he won't have national presidential appeal. It's just not in the cards.