What is your opinion of Mark Warner on a scale of 1-10?

[UrbScotty]

Poll question: What is your opinion of Mark Warner on a scale of 1-10?

I know, I really shouldn't be discussing 2008 until after the 2006 elections are over. And yes, I'd like to see Mark Warner run for Senate.

Having said that, I can't help but wonder what DUers think about a Warner White House bid. Check this out from another forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=120925&mesg_id=120925



IMO, he's no FDR, but nor is he Joe Lieberman.

(BTW: He doesn't have to be your fave for you to rate him a 9 or 10.)

[livinginphotographs]

1. We Virginians pretty much want him to run for Senate in 2006

Not president.

He's polling ahead on a potential Allen match-up, and I hate Allen more than Rick Santorum, if that tells you anything.

[katamaran]

28. I'd rather him run for senator

He needs to beat the crap out of that idiot George Allen to make sure that Howdy Doody's presidential credentials are stained. Allen and all the press he's getting scares the bejeezus out of me.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

2. Hell, I live in his state and can't get excited about him...

but he does appeal to the gun-toters and/or Nascar crowd so maybe he has a shot (pun not intended).

[FrenchieCat]

3. His national security and Foreign policy creds

are for the Democratic Party to die of! :eyes:

Wish us good luck in Iraq, and Iran, and North Korea, and rebuilding our alliances in the world! A 1992 "its the Economy stupid" election ain't gonna happen in 2008...even Clinton would tell you that (and Warner does not have the Clinton charisma...which certainly helped along with Perot in 1992).

The 2008 election will be "it's fucking everything that's wrong, stupid!"

By the way, does anyone know where he stands on Iraq? Is he gonna divulge that one day? I don't want to be suprised...or have to wait for him to see where it goes before he takes a stand.

I'm sure those who rated him a six or higher can tell us! :shrug:

[JHBowden]

40. Security creds are neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for a win

Bush and Clinton won without creds, McCain, Kerry, and Clark lost with creds.

Political skill is not the same thing as security experience.

[Texas_Kat]

45. Times have changed though, haven't they,

[JHBowden]

50. Politics is the same.

If a candidate isn't good at rolling around in the mud, no resume will save them. Moreover, a candidate without security creds but with political skill will beat the shit out of one with security creds with no political skill everytime.

I know, ceteris paribus, security creds are nice, but all things aren't equal.

[rndmprsn]

4. 7

[GracieM]

34. Me too

But don't ask me how I arrived at it...

[quisp]

5. I met him and being a Virginia Democrat

(a rare breed these days) he is very, very smart. I like him a lot more than John Edwards.

[AntiCoup2K4]

6. I know almost nothing about him.

Except that he's DLC, and that's not a good first impression ;)

A lot of the DLC'ers around here think he's qualified for President (isn't this his first term as governor?) but I don't believe anybody's said WHY they think he's great. Other than being a DLC governor from a red state. And that's not a good enough reason.

[FrenchieCat]

7. It's the 1992 strategy being pulled out of the drawer....

after all, it's the last strategy that won....so many Dems hope if they can get a moderate red state governor, somehow, we'll win!

I will say that those thinking this strategy underestimate Clinton's charisma and the effect that had back then.

I don't think that 2008 will be 1992....so I ain't gonna go with that time machine strategy.

PS. Maybe someone will answer about his thoughts on Iraq, about what was done and should be done....in this thread. Just don't hold your breath.

[Catholic Sensation]

38. I believe Virginia governors can only have one term

[Clark2008]

61. No. They can serve for as many terms as they want -

just not consecutively.

Theoretically, Warner could serve four years, wait out four years, serve four years, wait out four years, serve four years and so on.

[Catholic Sensation]

62. oh

i'd say that's stupid, but i guess it's better in that the governors won't be trying to get re-elected in their first term

[fujiyama]

8. I've heard he's been a good governor.

I want to read more about his policies and want to know if he's made any statements on foreign policy.

But the interview I read with him on salon didn't excite me very much. It sounded like standard DLC talking points.

But I think he'd made a stronger candidate than any of the DLC senators that are thinking of running. He has some accomplishments to speak of, which is more than I can say for Hillary, Biden or Bayh (though I am unfamiliar with his tenure as governor).

[wisteria]

9. He doesn't measure up to John Kerry!

No foreign policy experience, just for starters.I get the impression people think he would be a good choice because he is a Democrat able to win in a Red state and he is a Governor. IMO, this is not enough to win the presidency.

[BlueIris]

73. Indeed, he is not. But to me, no one is. :-)

"IMO, this is not enough to win the presidency."

It's also not enough to function effectively as President, especially given what a goddamn mess this country will be in 2008. As most here know, this is why I felt we should have Kerry in '04. I thought he was the only person with enough diverse, relevant experience to manage the complex job of serious damage control the country would need from here on out. Since by '08 I doubt America will even be recognizable, I still think Kerry's our best bet.

However, even I acknowledge Kerry might not get the job next time. Which is why I can't go for some unknown like Warner. I thought I would be one of those people willing to promote any Dem with a shot at winning but I can't. The job is TOO HARD. In this case, "anyone" is not actually better than "any Republican." I mean, I'll be voting for whatever is beneath Democrat on my ballot, but we do actually need to work as hard as we can to get someone who understands, after years of national service and international travel and networking, where the problems are and how to fix them. That's why my top choices are Kerry, Clark...I've reconsidered on the others in my top five, so I'm not posting anymore but--someone like Warner won't even be on my mind, unless we have to start scraping the bottom of the barrel. It's not about partisanship, regional prejudice or ageism, it's about qualifications.

[mvd]

10. 5

and add 2 points because I think he's one of the moderates that could win. If he gets someone like Clark as VP, that could help him. I prefer someone more liberal than he is.

[FrenchieCat]

11. But, but, but....

Clark as President of the Senate (VP)....and Warner as Commander in Chief during the time in our history when our Foreign policy reputation is at it's worse...and won't be getting better anytime before 2008....the GOP will make sure of that.

Why do this to ourselves?

Guess, just cause we can!

[mvd]

12. I don't really think you need a lot of foreign policy experience

Hopefully, he'll want to get out the war by then. Warner will need common sense and could learn.

That said, Clark as President might be better.. I still have to watch him over the years.

[FrenchieCat]

13. You don't think that he'll need foreign policy experience?

Do we really need some "training on the job" type like the last governor from Texas? I "hope" not!

"hopefully" Warner will want to get out of the war by then? Geeze.....here's for hoping. I don't even know Warner's current stance, do you?

And Yeah-A.....Clark as President would be better for these times....cause 2008 ain't gonna be 1992. That's for sho'!

[mvd]

15. No , I really don't think he will

Some people are just naturals.. Clinton didn't have experience, and while he was too hawkish, he was much better than Bush.

[mvd]

19. BTW

We agree that foreign policy experience could be a plus in the campaign. Maybe Warner knows a lot about international politics - I'm not sure. Bush has gotten us into a situation where maybe we need fresh thinking. It's certainly not one where foreign policy vets can give us easy answers.

[FrenchieCat]

21. We'll have to agree to disagree....

I'm not from a mindset that we need someone running in 2008 that has no foreign policy or national security experience. The GOP are doing such a bad job at it.....it certainly could be one of our winning issues....but not coming from someone who don't know jack! Might as well hand the GOP the election, in that case...cause they will come up with a "Crisis" (see Bin Laden Tape in '04 election in October).

We see how well Hackett did....and now, the lesson that we got from that is to run someone without even an opinion on Iraq? Good Lord! :eyes:

To those stating that Clinton didn't have any Foreign policty experience...so it's ok.....I don't know what to say...other than to remind you that Clinton was hamstrung throughout his entire presidency in reference to defense issues...which is why he ended up picking a GOP Sec. of Defense. 800,000 Randwans lost their lives because Clinton couldn't even budge on defense matters without worrying about GOP attacks....and people are saying that was ok? Is this DU, or some strange planet that I have just landed on?

We now have this bloated 400 billion a year defense budget...that could be reprioritized to find a hell of a lot of money to shore up Social Security, and pay for some healthcare....but of course, Democrats would rather Democrats politicians promise a bunch of programs and say they'll just repeal the 2001 tax cuts. Yeah...repeal my ass! That's not how it will sound to voters.

Based on all that we have suffered through since 2000 with Bush, the fact that we lost 2004, in large due to this very issue of national security....I just don't see how this issue is now being rated as "oh well, so what?...the candidate can just learn when he becomes President".

Is there a smiley that hits his head in wonderment that I could use?...cause that's how I feel.

[mvd]

23. Yep, we'll disagree

I just think Bush has gotten us into such a bad situation that the prevailing wisdom that a person with FP experience is best might not hold true. Clinton certainly had the gift of diplomacy to begin with, even if I didn't always agree with him. I'm amazed he got done what he did.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Yep....but those 800,000 rwandans are not quite as happy as you.

Clinton may have been a good diplomat....but...Clinton was'nt all that peachy keen when it came to foreign policy. Wes Clark tried to get him to intervene in Rwanda....but Clinton listened to his Republican Sec. of Defense instead. Clinton finally listened to Clark on Kosovo. Thank heaven for that!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
The Rwandan genocide was the slaughter of roughly one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus during a timespan of 100 days in 1994.

For many, the Rwandan Genocide stands out as historically significant not only because of the sheer number of people that were murdered in such a short period of time, but also because of the way many Western countries responded to the atrocities.
snip
Clinton was also advised by others close to him to "stay out of Rwanda" because of the possible political backlash similar to what occured just a year earlier in a failed attempt to help the country of Somalia

Clinton "feels the pain" of Africa
In Rwanda, Clinton delivered another apology, this time over the failure of the US to halt the mass slaughter which claimed a million lives in 1994. Clinton vowed, "We must have global vigilance. And never again must we be shy in the face of the evidence." He suggested that the US must be prepared to intervene militarily in the event of a similar outbreak of violence in the future.

The mea culpas from the US president suggest that both the atrocities in Africa and the sins of the United States are things of the past. Apologizing is somehow supposed to wipe the slate clean. The historical relationship of oppression and exploitation supposedly has been transformed into a "partnership of equals." However, the rhetorical breast-beating raises many more questions than it answers.

Even as Clinton spoke in Rwanda, civil strife continued between Hutus and Tutsis in that country. Because of security concerns, the Secret Service determined that Clinton could not leave the airport even to walk 150 yards to a genocide memorial of human bones erected shortly before his visit.
http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/mar1998/afr-m28.shtml

[mvd]

25. It wasn't all his fault.. and Clinton had had experience by then

I have to get off - it's almost 3 AM here. We have both made our points. :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

26. Genocide in Rwanda occurred in 1994....

So no....Clinton had only had the Somalian experience at the time...

Somalia was nothing to brag about either.

So yeah....Clinton learned on the job, and 800,000 Rwandans paid for his education...with their lives.

Yep, let's do that again! :sarcasm:

Btw, I'm on Pacific time. See ya!

What was your point again? Oh yeah, we don't need anybody with any Foreign Policy experience or National security creds. :shrug:

Nite! Sleep tight! :hi:

[mvd]

30. I see it differently.

It was not from "learning on the job." I stand by my position. Foreign policy experience might help, but it is not needed.

Again, Rwanda was ignored by many leaders! Many with more than 2 years of experience. I'd say 2 years as President counts as experience anyway.

Also, the neocons are fighting a conventional war when things aren't so conventional anymore (terrorism for one.)

This discussion is just going around in circles now.

[Jai4WKC08]

59. Clinton was not without some foreign policy experience

Not extensive. But he had interned for Fulbright while at GWU, and according to his biography, he worked foreign policy issues. Also, he had a lot of exposure to the issues while a Rhodes Scholar. Strobe Talbott (who at the time was working on someone's memoires... Stalin's I think, but can't remember...) was a classmate and close friend, as were some others who would go on to be heavy fp hitters. Plus he was always extremely well-read.

Not saying that last is not true about Warner--I dunno. But seems to me his previous life was mostly building up Nextel. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but Clinton was always in public life and watching national level politics, to include the foreign policy piece.

One problem Clinton had, tho, was picking Les Aspin as his first SecDef. Aspin was not well liked or respected in the Pentagon, and not without some cause, so when Somalia went south, they both looked very bad and it added to Clinton's problems with the perception he couldn't handle foreign policy, which in turn made it harder for him to get support for what he wanted to do in Ruwanda, Bosnia, and Kosovo. Had Clinton had more inside knowledge of the national defense community early on, maybe he wouldn't have made that mistake. Or the one of selecting a Repub SecDef (Cohen) when Bill Perry retired.

Please note I'm not blaming either Clinton or Aspin for the Somalia debacle, just saying that Clinton's credibility and effectiveness suffered much more because of the choices he had made.

[mvd]

67. I'm sure he did

I was talking about experience as a commander in the military or a higher political position. Maybe someone can fill us in on if Warner has had any study of foreign relations. U.S. history shows that Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Truman are among some of the greats in foreign policy - and they didn't have the experience - so, I'm willing to take a risk for the right candidate. For example, I think Dean had Bush figured out earlier than Kerry did. It's too early to tell if Warner is a winner yet, but he seems to be a popular person.

[karynnj]

47. I agree with you, but what of the on the job training of Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton came in with no foreign policy experience. He did make mistakes in the beginning - in the more turbulent scene (like now)the consequences could have been greater.

He mostly ignored Iraq for 8 years, keeping the Bush era sanctions, and no fly zone flights - and sent missles in to respond to provocations in 1998. Afganistan festered while he watched. Most damaging is that he, like Bush, refused to take steps needed to cut the tentacles the terror groups had create to fund thenselves and communicate. Kerry's BCCI committee was concerned with people like Pakistan's Khan, but both parties shut the committee down. He ignored Rwanda.

As bright as Clinton was, he wasn't as good on foreign policy as he was on domestic issues.

[rfkrfk]

14. no gravitas n/t

[snowbear]

17. gravitas?

Ah c'mon.. he's got gravitas.. maybe not nationally.. yet.. but he has all the time in the world! ;)

p.s. Did Bush have gravitas when he was a dud of a Governor in Tx?

[FrenchieCat]

22. Bush doesn't have gravitas now....

so I don't get the comparison.

How does this help us?

[flaminbats]

16. 4

I can think of a few Democrats worse than Warner, but not many. He is one of the three most progressive Governors in the south! :shrug:

[JDPriestly]

18. He's a phony opportunist!

[snowbear]

20. Uh....

How so?

He brought the state of Virginia from the bottom of the barrel to the "best managed state in the nation for 2005"

The ONLY state that got an A.. http://results.gpponline.org/StateOverview.aspx?id=138

How is he a phony opportunist? :wow:

[JDPriestly]

33. Bilderberg.

Why would a real Democrat want to hob-nob with all those phony power brokers. What is his stand on unions and working people? Good management for whom? For the Bilderberg crowd, for the bureaucrats that really run Virginia or for you and me and other working people? What percentage of Virginians are uninsured? What has Warner done for public schools in Virginia? What about housing for low-income people? What is Warner's stance on out-sourcing? on CAFTA? on Bush's War against Iraq? These are the issues that he will confront as president. Maybe I should describe him as a phony, ambitious and very competent bureaucrat. Does that make you feel better?

[Freddie Stubbs]

35. Perhaps for the same reason that John Edwards would

http://www.guardian.co.uk/netnotes/article/0,6729,1231830,00.html

[election_2004]

27. Well....he'd probably be a better candidate than Hillary

I admittedly can't say a whole lot about Warner viscerally, but his resumee, while not as long as I would prefer, looks pretty good.

[FrenchieCat]

29. Warner's resume....since no one else is posting any information about him.

Guess I'll have to do it.

If Democrats want to support someone with an unknown Iraq view.....I say, knock yourselves out. If things don't turn out that great, don't blame me. K? :(

Resume:
Harvard Law grad
co-founder of Nextel
Governor of Virginia
chairman of the National and Southern Governors Associations

Views on War and Peace:
http://www.issues2000.org/states/VA_War_+_Peace.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/Governor/Mark_Warner_War_+_Peace.htm


Here's Wikipedia on Warner:

His business experience, Southern base, fundraising connections within high-tech and venture capital circles, and record of working with black leaders add up to an attractive political resume, though only having served one term as an elected official so far may be considered too little experience to move up to President - the same point was raised about John Edwards' one Senate term.

Warner's theory (claim) is that he has cross-over appeal to what are, or have become GOP constituencies. He has some evidence to back him up, from his campaign, and from a major legislative victory in Richmond. He reached rural voters in 2001 by signaling his respect for cultural touchstones such as NASCAR, and by promising to bring broadband and the other engines of the digital economy to the countryside.

Faced with a big budget deficit, he enlisted corporate business types to support a tax increase -- and got the Republican-led legislative to approve it.

He has positioned himself as a centrist on social issues, which may be right where "country club Republicans" are: wary of too much emphasis on gay-rights or women's rights, but essentially tolerant people.
http://decision08.blogspot.com/2005/06/candidate-profile-twenty-mark-warner.html

Let's put the caveats up front. He is relatively young (50), has zero experience in defense or foreign policy, has no military background or national organization, and strikes some people who know him as unusually hungry and manipulative. Also, he will be out of office at the end of this year (Virginia has one-term-only governors), and who knows what will happen between then and '08 to affect the national landscape. We are in a dangerous and unpredictable world.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8063367/site/newsweek/

[UrbScotty]

32. 50 isn't young.

Teddy Roosevelt was 42 when he becanme President; JFK was 43; and Clinton was 46.

Warner would turn 54 just after the election.

[JPZenger]

36. Let Him Get Some Senate Experience First

I don't believe he has enough experience to run for President. Let him run for the Senate, get some depth on foreign policy, and then we'll talk about a future Presidential race.

[dolstein]

63. You're kidding, right?

When was the last time Senate experience was actually a plus for a presidential candidate? John Kerry's Senate experience certainly didn't help him. It provided tones of fodder for Republicans. In addition, after spending a few decades in the Senate, he no longer talked like a normal person.

Sorry, but the last thing Mark Warner needs is to spend time in the Senate. He's a doer, not a talker.

[wyldwolf]

39. what I find most interesting about this post...

...is you sound like the Deaniacs did in 2003 in regards to Clark. They bitched about his lobbying. His ties to corporations. blah blah blah.

If Clark is such a good candidate (and I believe he is), why would one of his biggest supporters on DU take the initiative so often to tear down another specific candidate?

Do you believe Warner is the biggest threat to Clark?

[JHBowden]

41. " "Do you believe Warner is the biggest threat to Clark?"

Ding Ding Ding!

[Catchawave]

55. Agree!

Unfortunately, it seems we have to throw out the highest votes on these polls to get a clear result of the question :hi:

Nor does it seem I'm allowed to learn anything about ANY OTHER candidate without having biased insults lobbed at them.

As an Edwards supporter, he gets creamed here almost daily, it's just not fun.

[FrenchieCat]

57. Self delete

This post should be read after my next....

[FrenchieCat]

56. I think you have me confused for someone else....

for I have consistently believed that a Democratic nominee, since 9/11 occurred, should have Foreign Policy and national security credentials.

I posted Warner's resume....and have asked over and over again, what are his thoughts on Iraq....cause I found that resume while looking on the Internet for some information on his foreign policy stance. So far, I know that he backed going into Kosovo, and had a few things to say about Bush and 9/11 very recently (kind of the Johnny come lately on that one, but OK).

Where do you see me asking or downing Warner for anything else?
BTW, Do you have the answer on his stance on Iraq?

You can defend the DLC if that's what you want to do....and I ain't commenting on that...cause it's neither here nor there for me...I personally stay out of those discussions, if you haven't noticed.

I want someone strong, independent, honest and not in anyone's pocket...I don't give a rat's ass what organization the individual belongs to.

In reference to my post on Warner's relationship with Black folks....I am an African American....and another African American asked about an incident that had occurred in Virginia....to which I responded. Hope that was OK.

Did you want to back up your assertion of my intent with some evidence?....as I stand accused.

[FrenchieCat]

58. and Mr. Bowden.....

did you want to back up your Me too post while you are at it?

[wyldwolf]

44. More of Warner's resume:

Governor Warner's positions on traditional liberal issues, gathered from his press releases and general news articles:

Civil Rights: Governor Warner has given greater support and encouragement to minority owned businesses. Governor Warner has worked to put an end to racial profiling by signing a bill that requires police officers to undergo training and education to eliminate the abhorrent practice. He will also seek to encourage the recruitment and hiring of more minority law enforcement officers. Finally, Governor Warner supports hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation. Governor Warner followed through on his pledge to support minority owned businesses by instituting the SWAM project, which was established to provide enhanced procurement opportunities to small businesses and to businesses owned by women and minorities (SWAM). According to www.blackcommercemall.com, the Commonwealth of Virginia is rated the friendliest state for black-owned businesses in a new annual study of The State of Black Business. And, according to Sharon E. Davis of www.quepasaWashington.com, "with a little over 18 months left in his administration, Warner has appointed nearly twice as many Hispanics to state boards and commissions than the previous two Governors combined. For the first time, the Latino community really does have a 'seat at the table' and a chance to contribute to the direction of Virginia. The efforts made by Governor Warner to include Latinos and other underrepresented ethnic and racial minorities in his government and in the political and policy decision-making will no doubt be one of his legacies when he leaves office in 2006."

Abortion: Mark Warner is pro-choice. Governor Warner supports the Roe v. Wade decision that protects a woman‚’s right to choose. Governor Warner does not support the parental notification law, but has pledged to follow Virginia law. Governor Warner supports a ban on partial-birth abortion with exceptions that protect the life or physical health of the mother. This position is no different that Hillary Clinton‚’s position. Finally, in 2004, Governor Warner signed a veto-proof fetal-homicide bill, after the Virginia General Assembly rejected his amendment to add language affirming a woman‚’s right to choose. After he signed the bill, Governor Warner was quoted by Michael Hardy of the Richmond Times-Dispatch as saying that "iven that clear legislative intent and given my support for legislation that punishes violent acts against women, especially any violent act that results in harm to or death of a pregnant woman or her fetus, I have signed these bills into law.‚” These positions and others are available at www.roanoke.com/roatimes/election2001/gov.html.

Environment: On March 24, 2005, according to Governor Warner’s press release "Governor Mark R. Warner signed eight bills that significantly strengthen Virginia‚’s ability to protect its environment and to conserve its natural resources. This legislation provides funding for the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, strengthens enforcement of environmental laws, and rewards companies and local governments that have outstanding environmental protection records.” You can see this quote and the content of the bills at www.governor.virginia.gov/Press_Policy/Releases/2005/Mar05/0324.htm.

Affirmative Action: In response to the Supreme Court's ruling that the University of Michigan can retain its policy on affirmative action, Governor Warner said "I am heartened by today's rulings. I come from the business world, and I think most business people will tell you that they want to recruit employees who were educated in an environment where they were exposed to diverse people and ideas. The Court was clearly persuaded by the overwhelming number of briefs in support of diversity filed by business, military, and civic leaders." He went on to say that "s I have said many times in the past, I believe race should continue to be considered as one factor among many, and I continue to be opposed to the use of quotas." You can find these quotes at http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Press_Policy/Releases/2003/June03/0623.htm. And because actions speak louder than words, Governor Warner’s commitment to equality and fairness can be seen in his successful effort to reinstate Virginia Tech'’s affirmative action policy after the Board of Visitors voted to rescind it. To find more on this issue go to http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Press_Policy/Releases/2003/Apr03/0406.htm

http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/blogger.html

He was born into a family of modest means.

· He was the first in his family to attend college.

· He has a law degree from Harvard.

· After losing his shirt in his first startup businesses, he went on to make a $200 Million
fortune in the cell phone business.

· In 2001, he ran & became Governor of a "red" state with a $6 billion deficit.

· He was and is strongly supported by labor even though he is known for his pro-business approach to governing.

· His stance on guns neutralized the NRA, which did not endorse either candidate in the 2001 Governor's in race.

· He turned Virginia's $6 billion deficit into a $1.4 billion surplus.

· He Salvaged Virginia's threatened AAA bond rating.

· He provided the largest increase in education funding in Virginia history.

· He revamped the tax code enabling 140,000 VA citizens to no longer have to file or pay any state income tax.

· His child health care initiatives have expanded access to health care for tens of thousands.

· He was a Governing Magazine "Public Official of the Year" in 2004.

· His peers - Democrats and Republicans - elected him Chairman of the National Governors Association in 2004.

· Under his leadership, Virginia is recognized as the "Best Managed State in the Nation."

· One article says "there is hardly anything in Virginia that is not done right and done well."

· He will leave office in 2005 as one of the most popular governor's in Virginia history.

· His "Education for a Lifetime" iniative has been well received across the country.

· Mark Warner is an able campaigner who connected with rural voters as well as those in metropolitan areas.

[terrya]

31. 5

Not that impressed with him, IMO. Precisely what the Democrats don't need right now.

[FrenchieCat]

37. Can any of the 22 people that voted 6 or more for Warner

please tell me what his stance is on Iraq?....or are these just "vote and run" folks that, like Warner, don't want to say what that position is (or just plain don't know) cause it's not really politically expedient to his candidacy? :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

42. Do you believe Iraq is going to be the #1 issue people vote on in '08?

[FrenchieCat]

48. I believe that any politician should have an opinion on it....

especially one with presidential aspirations regardless if "polls" show that this issue is #1 or not, is what I think.

I don't know what are gonna be the issues....but if no point is made on how the GOP got us into an immoral war based on lies that killed 1,800+ soldiers and drained our treasury of more than 300 billion dollars.... than we are in deeper doo-doo than can be imagined.

If this issue is no longer relevant or can't be made relevant by Democrats....as to why voters should vote Democratic in '06 and '08, than we are just plain f*cked.

[wyldwolf]

51. ok

:)

[Guaranteed]

49. If we're still there?

Hell yeah.

[FrenchieCat]

53. And if we're not,

we'll be elsewhere.

The point is that Foreign policy issues are not to be erradicated from view. And if they are, then the GOP wins the next election.

[Jai4WKC08]

60. Exactly right

If Bush pulls out any troops from Iraq, it will only be in preparation to go into Iran and/or Syria. Or God only knows where else. And probably timed to coincide with the 2006 elections.

Bush is NOT gonna return this country to peaceful footing. The GOP and its corporate backers have too much to gain in votes and money by our being at war.

[autorank]

70. Now, Ms. Francois...

He endorsed the war...dumb, dumb, dumb but there's more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1993325&mesg_id=1996083

[Pithy Cherub]

43. Get back to me when the 1st African American Governor of VA,

Doug Wilder, now the Mayor of Richmond, has grounds to say something positive about him...:eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

52. Yes Pithy....that's right!

As an African American that does concern me as well. I did read about this a while back......

Here's some info on that bit....

"...To this day, Warner and his second, Kaine, are rarely seen in joint personal appearances throughout the state as well as campaign trail. Matter of fact - Warner makes it a deliberate routine, often making silly little excuses for the distance between him and nice guy Kaine.

Many Richmond natives noted the lack of Democratic cohesiveness during the Kerry campaign.

Lt. Gov. Kaine endorsed Richmond Mayor-elect Doug Wilder, while our governor remained strangely silent. Warner has yet to call Wilder to congratulate him on the election victory...."

"...Then-Richmond Mayor Timothy M. Kaine stunned two veteran state legislators in his first statewide race.

Meanwhile, rising African-American political star Del. A. Donald McEachin of Henrico County split the ticket with his primary opponents, Sen. John Edwards of Roanoke, Sylvia Clute of Richmond and Del. Whitt Clement of Danville, and won the nomination with no less that 33 percent of the statewide vote tally.

(Shortly after the governor's election, Whitt Clement's loyalty was rewarded with an appointment as the secretary of transportation.)

Yes, it rained on Warner's parade!

Feeling spanked on his Democratic gubernatorial nomination night, Warner, who had drained his personal bank account, probably had a temper tantrum that primary evening.

He hurriedly and hastily distanced himself from the other primary ticket nominee that very night of the Democratic primary election in a press conference.

The Blue Dog was simply amazed how the more high-profiled and wealthier Warner treated his fellow Democratic candidates as mere appendages in his statewide campaign for the governor's mansion.

At the trio's first joint press conference, it was more than noticeable to many who described Warner's behavior as downright rude.

But that political move to create separation with Kaine and McEachin only a few hours after the final primary results should have been a red flag to Democrats, as well as Republicans..."

"...The Post's Michael Shearer wrote, "Three years ago, Warner persuaded voters in an overwhelmingly red state to put him in office with a NASCAR-loving, pro-death penalty, pro-gun rights, fiscally conservative campaign."

"Since then, he has backed some restrictions on abortion, signed more than a dozen gun-rights bills, balanced the state's books and persuaded a Republican legislature to help him pass a $1.5 billion tax increase."

Yet conservative Warner continues to seek contributions and assistance on the liberal end of the Democratic campaign trails with pro-choice and gay and lesbian advocacy and activist organizations.

Warner's political actions are proof positive of his untrustworthiness with Democratic core constituents. Warner compromised hot-button social legislation in 2004 by mincing words and performing tomfoolery with the General Assembly, the media and Virginia Democrats.

Warner's lack of vetoed legislation during last year's General Assembly session further proved that he has rather thin political skin with those liberal organizations.

It's a real mystery to the Blue Dog and other political observers exactly why pro-choice and gay and lesbian organizations continue to endear Warner as a like-minded individual...."

http://www.augustafreepress.com/stories/storyReader$29258

[dolstein]

64. Sorry, but when was the last time Wilder had ANYTHING positive

to say about another Democratic governor? He was constantly feuding with Chuck Robb. I voted for Wilder, and thought he was a better governor than he's often given credit for. But the fact is the Democratic Party pretty much self-destructed after Wilder's four years as governor, and he never got along with other top Democrats in the state.

[Pithy Cherub]

66. LOL! That paragon of lost virtue

Senator Robb had a few issues. The top elected AA politician in the state and now Mayor of a fairly sizeable city isn't running for president. Who needs whom more? The one that wants to be President has an opportunity to show if he has the prerequisite diplomatic savvy...if not stay at home, bake cookies, have teas and make Virginians happy.

[autorank]

69. I'll say many positive things about Wilder.

Wilder took over the sate in 1989, a tough year here with a real crash in the tech market. Many layoffs, etc. He governed extremely well during hard times, like Warner did but Wilder's were a bit harder. He didn't back down on key issues and actually got gun control legislation passed (you can buy no more than 1 gun a month, as opposed to the previous truck load). He was a bit testy and feuded with Chuck Robb. I liked Wilder a great deal, a strong personalty, a bright guy who didn't make the folks in Richmond feel beneath him due to his superior intellect, and real righter when people attacked him. The pink tutu's at DNC and others in the Senate should look at Wilder tapes for lessons on "kicking ass" and doing it with style, flair, and intellect. He goes down in history in my book.

...and I say many positive things about Warner.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1993325&mesg_id=1996083


Northern Virginia Democrats are reasonable people who are fairly nice to each other. Something happens when you're between Kings Dominion and Petersburg, i.e., Richmond. Big feuds - Dem on Dem -- Rep on Rep -- Dem on Rep. Quite frankly, it's the era of chivalry playing itself out in the capitol of, ugh (I'm not from here originally), of, well, you know what. They all need to grow up, our Democrats, support each other and kick some Republican ass. VA Republicans are truly frightening.

[WI_DEM]

46. I don't know enough about him except I want him to run for Senate in '06

since the polls indicate he has a good shot at beating Allen.

[loudsue]

54. We DON'T need any more CORPORATIST Dems ...ANYWHERE

Not in governorships, not in the House, not in the Senate, and most certainly NOT in the White House!

This country's citizens have been economically "cold-cocked" by the corporatist agenda, and it's starting to piss a lot of us off.

The republicans start with trashing "WE, THE PEOPLE", and then take away every right we have thereafter.

The "United Corporate States of America" is NOT what my forefathers/mothers died for. But THAT is who Warner is... another corporate lackey.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Stinky The Clown]

65. As a Senate candidate against George Allen, I give a HUGE 10 .......

.... as a pres candidate in 08 .... not so much.

[autorank]

68. I'm a Virginian so multiply my "9" vote by a factor of 10!

Excellent Governor in very challenging times. He truly cares about health care and started a foundation for Virginia's poor prior to being elected. He's pro business, tech and knowledge based, and Virginia has a dedicated nano technology program that is state-university-business funded (we ARE where the internet started when it was called the Public Data Network...remember Telenet). He says stupid things like he supports the Iraq war. But he gave a great Jefferson-Jackson speech somewhere in the deep south on why he's a Democrat-based on FDR's new deal (holy cow!!!).

Guy inherited a "balanced budget" by law in VA that was cooked by the Republican Gov on his way out. He fixed that. Inherited a tax scheme to end the car tax and replace it with, well nothing. He maintained social services at an acceptable level (not where they used to be). He's pro biz, pro education, pro black, pro civil rights, pro health care, and he vetoed the insane Republican legislature's anti-gay bill (they over-rode the veto but he "walked tall"). Oh, yeah, he started Nextell way back when or one of those very successful companies. Instead of becoming the next Gates, he cashed out and focused on public service. He's not poor by any means, but he could have been mega-rich the way he was going (his companies actually provided excellent service and made money).

[FrenchieCat]

71. Thank yee Autorank

Thanks for providing some information on the man.

So he's good domestically, it appears :) ...and endorsed the War. :(

So I guess he's not too different from most of the Dems that will run in 2008....except that he's a Governor!

Well, we have time, and we shall see.

He certainly gets good press and seems to be number 2 after Hillary on the media push list to date.

[autorank]

72. "Sell on the news" He and Hilary peak early. Warner for Senate 06

He's smart enough to know that he needs time and he can't do it.

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Leaders who did not support the faith-based war for oil

Leaders who proudly say that they are a "liberal."

Leaders who fight for their cause and fight back when attacked.

CLARK FOR PRESIDENT 2008.