Mark Warner out of VA Senate Race in 2006....

[17th and B]

Presidential bid possible. The governor will be announcing this later today. He has said he does have future political aspirations.

I would support him as a presidential candidate for 2008!

[Clark2008]

1. Too bad he spent time at Bilderberg

I think he could win, but I will only reluctantly vote for him should he be the nominee.

He has a better chance at winning than Hillary, though.

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. So did John Edwards

[1932]

21. Why did Bilderbergers want to hear from a med malpractice plaintiff atty?

That sounds like an odd guest for a conference on spreading the corporate net arround the globe.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Perhaps because he was running for Vice President

[1932]

31. So did he tell them there shouldn't be caps on liabilty for negligence?

[FrenchieCat]

42. It's super duper secret......

what anyone says in these Bildeberg conferences.

So no one knows, except those who were there, what was discussed.

[flpoljunkie]

2. Warner enthralled with Friedman's "Flat Earth" book, enough to disqualify

him right there.

[17th and B]

3. We should judge people based on the books they read...

not the views they put forth or the policy they propose...

good idea.

The man happens to be charismatic, progressive and fiscally responsible. What he has done for VA is incredible - he is a great executive, but would make a weaker legislator.

[nickshepDEM]

5. Im with ya'.

As someone else on this board said, "Whatever Governor Warner touches, turns to gold."

[FrenchieCat]

43. Well Then.....

Is Warner gonna "touch" the Iraq Issue? I would love to see that turn to gold.

I'm just asking........

[nickshepDEM]

48. If he's smart he'll leave it alone until the campaign heats up.

Theres no telling whats going to happend in Iraq. One day the majority of the US supports the war, and the next they dont. Id wait until 2007 before I even touched the issue if I was Warner.

[FrenchieCat]

49. so are you saying that Mark Warner

is a man of "finger in the wind" as opposed to a man of "conviction"?

Encouraging a potential candidate for the office as "leader of the Free world" NOT to have opinions on the current state of our country is kinda of wimpy.....I'd say.

[calimary]

12. Welcome to DU!

Glad you're here. Now, roll up your sleeves - there's PLENTY of work to do.

[Totally Committed]

25. Three words for ya:

"My Pet Goat"

Maybe what people read is an indication of their views, and the policy they will propose? Just a thought.

TC


P.S. Friedman's book is nothing but a few hundred pages of agreement with the status quo, globalization, and the Bush Doctrine. It is no progressive tract. (imo)

[17th and B]

30. Ive read a ton of things I dont agree with

Being pro-free trade and pro-globalization does not make you any less of a progressive or Democrat.

[Ce qui la baise]

39. Assumes Bush reads. That isn't a sure thing. :)

[Ce qui la baise]

40. Fineman wrote a great article on him. I'd vote for him.

[FrenchieCat]

44. Pourquoi?

I mostly dislike Finneman by the way. He is a MSNBC whore who doubles as a Newsweek Hack. Saw how he worked the primaries and the general election in '04. He's about as good as "Friedman".

[nickshepDEM]

4. President is a definite possibility.

Worst case scenario: He loses the primary, but raises his name id. He'd be on the short list of potential VP's. If he fails to get on the ticket in 2008 he can run for Governor again in 2009 or possibly Senate in 2008 if John Warner retires. If elected he could use either of those positions to run for President again in 2012 or 2016.

[flpoljunkie]

6. LATimes article on Warner: "Democrats need to attract moderates."

No, Governor Warner, Democrats need to stand up and fight for the core principles of the Democratic party--namely economic justice, for starters.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-06090...

Virginia Gov. Warner: Democrats Need to Attract Moderates

By Janet Hook
Times Staff Writer

2:41 PM PDT, June 9, 2005

WASHINGTON — Conceding that Republicans now command a national political majority, Virginia's Democratic governor, Mark Warner, said today that his own party needs to do far more to appeal to moderate voters and to offer alternatives to President Bush's policies, and not just block them. (Isn't this what the Rethugs say about the Democrats--"the party of no." )

Warner, speaking at lunch to Los Angeles Times reporters and editors, argued that Democrats cannot simply cater to their liberal base if they are to succeed on a national scale. (Cater to the "liberal" base--you mean like when the Democrats caved on every bill on Dubya's wish list this year?)

"I think Republicans are a majority party in the country at this point," said Warner, who is in the final year of his four-year term and is considered a possible contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. Under the state's term limits, he cannot run for a consecutive second term.

"While we have to do all we can to activate every person who is part of the traditional Democratic family, ultimately we also have to go and convince some folks who have been voting Republican," he said. (Sounds like Al From's plan to regain power.)

more...

[17th and B]

7. All this hate toward moderates

How did Clinton get elected?

Whether the liberal activists want to believe it or not - they cant be ideologically elitist and actually win.

[flpoljunkie]

13. Clinton got elected because he talked populist rhetoric and has charisma.

[17th and B]

14. More to it than that

He talked about welfare reform, Abortion being a bad idea (but should be legal), and brought abuot NAFTA.

Warner could be the next Clinton.

[FrenchieCat]

18. There can only be one Clinton......

although there is another one by the name of Hillary.

People like FDR, JFK and Clinton were and are one of a kind, which is why they were/are so attractive and revered. Any attempts at re-incarnating any of them will fail badly because of the contrast and compare legendary aspects which will leave a Wannabe looking like a poor imitation.

Recapturing the results of an "era gone by" by finding a poor clone for a future era is pure folly and a lame approach.

[17th and B]

27. Thats clever rhetoric

but Warner isnt a Clinton clone... perhaps you'd prefer me to phrase it as Warner is the next FDR/JFK/Clinton... or can there never be another great Democratic President?

[FrenchieCat]

45. If Clever Rhetoric means

you stating that "Warner could be the next Clinton" does not mean that "Warner could be the next Clinton" then Clever is not what I come up with in reference to your phrasing.

Please provide the qualities and achievements of Mark Warner that elevates him to the status of the next FDR/JFK/Clinton, in your mind.

Thanks! :hi:

[17th and B]

54. I just said

I think he'd make a great president

I'll leave it up to him to convince you. I dont run his campaign. If you want to make your mind up ahead of time that he's worthless go ahead and vote for Kucinich... b/c this year with a wife, maybe he'll win.

[blm]

55. and also because Kerry exposed IranContra and BCCI, so those scandals

in the news from 1986 - 1992 didn't help Bush's poll numbers once the facts started coming out. That benefitted Clinton and his campaign.

Too bad the news organizations nowadays are mostly corporate beasts protecting BushInc instead of exposing it.

[FrenchieCat]

23. I don't see "hate" in this thread.....and that is a pretty potent

emotion to label anyone with. I suggest that we temper down the inflammatory rethoric as it is not required.

As this is a debate forum....debate is what is called for.

If one as a view to propose to others, one must be ready to justify such in a logical manner sourced and substantiated. One subjective article posted doesn't necessarily "do" that.

It is true that moderates are certainly a voter demographic that we should work to attract, but that doesn't mean that there are not more than one way to have this happen....hence the debate.

[17th and B]

29. hate in the colloquial term

sorry, I'll post a definition for every term I used - I hope that this wont upset your sleep too much.

[FrenchieCat]

35. Sorry, but hate means hate to most unless otherwise noted .....

Unfortunately, it may be wise and necessary that you post the definition of your terms, if the words that you employ to convey your sentiments do not accurately reflect what you meant to say.

[17th and B]

37. I find it hard to believe

that you were really all that offended.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Don't worry, I'll sleep well tonight,

as I do most nights.

My posts in this thread actually do not convey the emotions that you are describing and based on my posting history are to be interpreted as "way" calm.

If and when I am offended by anything that you post, it will be super duper clear to all readers!

I will add that the debate to be continued on Mark Warner and what he "believes" should not be detracted by this bit of teeny weeny nonsense...certainly.

[FrenchieCat]

10. You mean attract the "Moderates" who voted

last time based on National Security issues?

Ironic that the pundits in the corporate media won't address Mark Warner and his lack of creds in the biggest issue we lost to in 2004. Wonder why?

[17th and B]

15. Kerry had the credentials

and didnt win.

Unless the Democrats start focusing on their strenghts: social justice, education, and civil rights - they will never win. Social justice specifically plays a role in every policy and can be implemented to frame all policies.

If the Dems focus on only national security - the GOP will win everytime.

[FrenchieCat]

17. I disagree with you on your sentiments as they are put here.....

Running on your already perceived strength does not make you a winner.

Kerry was not all about National Security during the '04 election. The fact that he had fought in Vietnam +35 years ago....was not a national security issue....although the Kerry Camp mistakenly thought it was.

The National Security and Foreign policy issue that lost us the election had to do with Iraq and the War on Terror....not Kerry's Vietnam service.

Please read this post, cause this is my sentiment on running Warner in '08 as of today....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2045196#2045927

[17th and B]

26. Kerry's service in the Senate

made him credible in terms of National Security.

Bush wasnt credible in terms of national security when he took office either - he was a governor just like Warner.

So was Clinton.

[FrenchieCat]

36. The compare and contrast examples that you are using are

inadequate.

1. Kerry's service in the senate was not highlighted to the voters during the 2004 election, beyond certain votes that were used against him.

2. Bush was elected in 2000 during a time of peace and prosperity.

3. Clinton was elected in a time where we lacked prosperity but we had relative peace. He was not elected because of his "draftdodging" status as the RW put it at the time, but because he understood that the economy at the time was the overarching election issue.

4. 2008 will not be a time of peace...and if it is, it means that the GOP achieved it, and so they win.

[Genki]

24. 2 words: Republican Lite.

Won't get my vote.

[montana500]

34. I won't be supporting Warner

I want a democrat , not Bush-lite.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Too bad that he didn't run for senate.

That would have helped us a great deal! Hope they have another great candidate lined up...cause this would have knocked the current "R" out of the Presidential race.

Since the issues for the next few upcoming elections, apart from immigration and energy (both linked directly to foreign policy, IMO) will be how do we regain credibility in the world and keep Americans safe still, yes.....let's just run someone who has none of the Foreign policy and "security" experience. Then we can wait for the White House (who will still be in power) do what it can to arrange for a "crisis" with just the right timing to illustrate that weakness in Warner.

So my tea leaves say that we lose in 08 with Warner at top of the ticket, as Warner is nothing but a re-thread strategy based on a winning 1992 recipe (sans the charisma or great articulation of a B. Clinton) for an election in a totally different era; the 2008 election.

Wrong election, wrong year, wrong candidate, IMO. But don't let that stop anyone.

Go ahead and support someone whose view in Foreign policy areas we don't even know. **sigh**

Added note: Since the GOP ain't letting go of their Defense trump card, and will use it...we are back to square one (no added advantages).

But ok...What-E-ver! I give up! :sarcasm:

[nickshepDEM]

11. And we go with someone with no domestic policy

experience and get blasted. Sounds like a winner to me! :sarcasm:

You keep bringing up 1992. Do you happend to remember the last time a non incumbent Democratic candidate was elected president? Maybe we should be taken notes.

[FrenchieCat]

16. You've made my point NickshepDem

1992 was the last time we won, but not analyzing fully why we won, and only attempting to repeat the "formula" strictly based on selecting a candidate that may resemble a bad clone (due to the lesser degree of charisma, charm, governing experience and oratory skills) without looking at the current mood of the nation and the differences between now and then is a simpleton's approach, that can only bring you defeat if the reasons "why" are not correctly analyzed.

In other words, you do a disservice to your potential candidate if you don't start providing us with answers to our questions and if you only focus on selling him based on his perceived marketability based on an era gone by and his watered down assets.

Those thinking "Warner" without knowing how he stand on a lot of issues that are "Key" currently is approaching the 2008 potential field pretty much uninformed on about 1/2 of what matters. I think for those hungry for a "new" face, and I can see why some would feel that need, selecting Warner as of now doesn't make the most sense compared to why others might pick other potentials and it certainly doesn't make him the most viable candidate. Those who want a DLC Bildenberg candidate with no opinions (or experience) on foreign affairs will certainly get the Corporate media's help, but that still doesn't make him the most viable candidate, or assures us anything close to a win.

I notice that you don't mention anything about the points I raise, i.e., the defense trump card and what Warner could do to assure this nation that even on a war footing he could get the job done. Plus, you haven't provided any of the "views" Warner has about Foreign policy and yet he is your chosen? Why is that?

The difference between Warner and Clark are clear. Domestically, you know where Clark stands...as he ran in the most recent primaries and expanded on his views then....views and policy proposals that are still relevant today. In addition Domestic policies are directly tied to National Security and Foreign policy (see energy, immigration, deficit, trade issues) stances and finesse, and so regardless of whether you know or don't know exactly how Clark would govern, at least you know where he stands on both domestic and foreign policies, and if one understands his life story, one knows that he usually stands up for what is right when the going gets tough.....which is an important trait of character and leadership to get this nation out from the "funk" that it is in.

The way that Warner has succeeded in being a "good" Governor in his tenure to date has been by approaching the business community (with which he has good relations due to his founding Nextel) and getting them involved in helping push his agenda and convicing Republicans that tax increases were needed (very admirable). But whether his approach would translate on a National setting, and whether the "Business" angle can work for all things is a shaky proposition. We saw Bush, the MBA CEO President make a mess of things, so Warner's approach isn't so impressive to me.

So if I don't know what Warner's views are on Foreign policies, then his rhetoric in other areas becomes moot......at this particular time. You see, if his approach is gonna the same as it was in Virginia; raising taxes and offering incentives to the business community for their support-- and yet not discuss our Foreign policy as it stands today or the National Defense budget, then he is only showing up as a small picture man. That makes him handicapped on the national scene from jump street in my opinion.

If the GOP come up with a candidate who has foreign policy experience, then Warner becomes a weak candidate in a General Election because he doesn't strengthen one of our most perceived weakness. Dems are known for their strong Domestic stance, other than taxes.....and so Warner comes to us without providing any real advantage (that many other candidates have) besides the fact that he won an election in one southern state.

When I put my check marks on Warner's ledger, currently he has more against than for.

But I will end on a positive note to say that time is on his side, as it is with all of the potentials...

But as of right now, selecting Warner has not been rightfully analyzed or justified, IMO.

[FreedomAngel82]

9. I think he'd be a good VP

I don't trust the whole Bilderberg thing either.

[1932]

32. What matters is what he said at Blderberg.

[FrenchieCat]

47. It can't matter.....

cause we will never know! It's a secret!

[1932]

50. So should we judge him on something we don't know is true?

Why can't we judge him on his policies and positions?

[FrenchieCat]

51. We know that he was there, we just don't know what was discussed

I ain't judging him on that though......I'm judging on what I don't know.....which is a lot!

[1932]

52. So you don't know anything about Warner

except that he attended a meeting in Europe?

[Mass]

20. Too bad - he was needed as senator.

[FrenchieCat]

28. The point of the link between Domestic policies and

foreign policies are highlighted in this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2045851

What are Warner's Foreign policy views?

Since you support him to lead this country, do you know?

[17th and B]

33. Does it matter before campaigning starts?

I dont know anyones, really. Especially since it will all change when they announce their candidacy

[FrenchieCat]

38. If it doesn't matter to you

where Warner stands on the issues of War and peace, then by all means, support the man! :shrug:

However, if you are gonna recommend him as a good possibility for the Commander in Chief position for the near future, it would behoove you to let us know what he believes and doesn't believe in the area of our current biggest issues. Non?

If Mark Warner chooses the "safe" approach by not voicing any opinions on the topics of today.....as we all deal with them and wait for tomorrow...., how does that make him a leader that I would want to follow, exactly?

To say that when "politics" forces his hand, we may then find out what Warner thinks about the most important issues (according to voters) that have been with us since 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005.....sounds pretty calculative and sums up the kind of individual that Iam attempting to stay away from.

a very simple job description for POTUS from Scholastic:

The Constitution assigns the president two roles: chief executive of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces.

As Commander in Chief, the president has the authority to send troops into combat, and is the only one who can decide whether to use nuclear weapons.

As chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.
http://teacher.scholastic.com/researchtools/articlearchives/civics/presres/prsnapsh.htm

[17th and B]

53. HE'S NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT

why would he tell us what he thinks?

However, I think he would make a good president.

[WI_DEM]

46. Too bad, he could have won Senate Race

I term as Governor doesn't make him a president. Another example of too much ambition.