I just got back from a meeting with former Virginia Governor Mark Warner at the Ritz Carlton hotel. The meeting was arranged by Jerome Armstrong, and was attended by Markos, Chris Bowers, Duncan Black and me…plus a guy doing a documentary pitch for the Sundance Channel on the rise and influence of bloggers.
Warner sat down with us with no staff and we had a bull session for about an hour and a half. We covered a surprisingly large amount of territory. But first, I want to say that I was impressed with Gov. Warner on a personal level. The fact that he agreed to spend time with us was nice, and he was enagaging, told jokes, had fun, listened closely, engaged in debate, and showed absolutely no arrogance whatsoever. On several points he was challenged quite forcefully and he showed no defensiveness, and was willing to grant points and carry forward a constructive conversation.
We talked about the spat between Emanuel and Dean, and Warner was generally supportive of the 50 state strategy (without allowing himself to take sides in the recent flap). Bowers pressed him on the fact that Virginia is the only state with two uncontested Congressional seats and he had a very informative and humble reply. Basically, he acknowledged that, as Governor, he had focused more on building up the team for state races. And he went on to discuss the characteristics and difficulties of the two districts in question.
We talked about our prospects in the midterm elections and a few of the individual campaigns. We had a long discussion on the merits of doing things to satisfy and mobilize the base, disagreeing somewhat on whether the base was already mad enough to go vote, or whether too much of its anger was directed at the toothless Democrats. I brought up Russ Feingold’s stratospheric rise in on-line polls after he took a stand on the Patriot Act and called for censure. Markos and Bowers filled him in on the details of the polling.
We discussed the leftward and anti-American movement of Latin America in recent years. Warner made a statement about Chavez undermining democracy in Venezuela and throwing around a lot of oil-money to foster anti-American sentiment and policy. I challenged him to give me some evidence of Chavez’s dictatorial tendencies. He mentioned packing the Supreme Court and cracking down on the press and trade unions. Then Duncan and I talked about our worry that we were trying to create another Saddam out of Chavez, and that we had seen enough meddling in the affairs of democratically elected officials in Latin America. I hope we made an impression on him.
We all pressed Warner on Iraq. He opposes the timetable for withdrawal and bases that on a calculation that it will not be helpful to declare a deadline in our negotiations with our allies in the region over what to do about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. He also discussed the tenuous situation in Palestine, where Hamas has come to power. He feels that a date certain for withdrawal will also take away a potent argument from the struggling Iraqi government: namely, that the Iraqis need to support them or they’ll never get rid of the Americans. His reasoning was well considered, and based in part on a recent trip to the region and a meeting with the King of Jordan.
I don’t think any of us were satisifed with his answer, but I could tell that he had been thinking about it, that he had sought a lot of advice, and that he was as torn about the terrible mess and poor options as everyone else. He wasn’t dogmatic about his reasoning even as he made a sustained defense of it.
It was a fun meeting and I’d like to thank Jerome for inviting me to attend it and Governor Warner for setting aside the time. There are many policy issues on which Gov. Warner and I dont agree and I didn’t agree with everything he had to say today. But, I was very impressed with him as a person and as a politician. He has all the attributes our current President lacks: intelligence, curiosity, humility, a good sense of humor, and a willingness to listen and change course.
Sounds like a blast. What are his views on women’s reproductive freedoms?
that is not a topic that came up. I believe he is pro-choice but I don’t know all the nuances of his positions. We couldn’t cover everything. Too bad there were no women bloggers there. We need Susie to tell us what her new email is, because efforts to contact her bounced back.
Miss Susie if you’re reading this.
Hi Tehanu,
I work for Governor Warner and wanted to share some info on his positions (excuse the talking points cut&paste, but it’s the fastest way to get it right, I’ll stick around for more discussion):
I hope that clears up where he stands on the issues.
thanks
Nate
Thank you. This is an issue of critical importance to many women and men. I know many of us would not be able to support any candidate who did not grant us the sense to make these crucial life decisions for ourselves.
I must say this is also the first time I’ve ever had any direct response from a candidate or the candidate’s team on this issue. I’m from Colorado where an anti-choice Democratic candidate is running and no one can get a real statement from him.
My pleasure. If you have any other questions you can always pop on over to the ForwardTogetherBlog and drop it in the comments there.
His positions seem to jibe with his state. Not what we’d like to see, but still fundamentally pro-choice. There is a new book out called Foxes in the Henhouse by the consultants that got Warner elected. It describes their strategy for getting southern Democrats elected.
I expected to hate the book, but I found it was pretty good. They focus much more on using the right messages than they do on muddling the message or running to the center. I think there is a lot of good advice in their book, and is not the bland centrism I expected, but a more forceful defense of populism.
what you call bland centrism is actually bland leftism in retreat. Beware your own affinity for useless labels.
The center is where the elections will be won, over and over forever.
Not necessarily by “bland centrists” but by people who have found an approach that appeals to the centered people of our country.
Feingold is another example. McCain may be one on the right (hold your tongues, I am not a supporter.
The bland center is where Hillary has spent the last six years trying too hard to get.
Hi Nate,
I’ve researched Gov Warner’s positions on all manner of things including this. I’m not exactly jumping up and down with joy about this presidential candidate but I must say that your honesty and openness about who you are and who you work for, your honesty about his positions and the fact that you’re not at all condescending is all quite admirable. If you and this thread are any indication, Gov Warner knows how to hire staff.
Thanks Colleen!
Governor Warner does support some modest, common sense limitations on abortion, particularly those that recognize the vital role of parents.
I’ll say from the outset that this so-called “modest common sense limitations” play right into the wingnut linguistic trap. That “what about the parents” stuff is just bunk, but if a teenager felt she could go to her parents, she’d go ahead and do so, and the wingnuts want to take that choice away from parents.
This is the same twisted logic that limits my rights to birth control. Someone else’s opinion is impacting my health care (especially since there are more uses other than controlling reproduction and even encouraging reproduction later). Are we going to stop selling Viagra b/c a teenage boy might buy it?
A “less bad” option is to lose the “limitations” (they are not common sense and they only reinforce the Pat Robertson set) and stress that he understands “concerns of parents.”
Having said all that, can you elaborate on the above point? Thanks kindly.
I don’t like it when wingnuts use “nature” to make Jane Crow legislation & social pressure. If God made their eyes bad to they not own glasses and not drive cars?
I’ve had coversations with people being “reasonable” about abortion — who are walking the walk and helping women and families and children before and after birth — but any time they want “reasonable limitations” about abortion it seems all the help & utopia they want to give or work towards is based on “if we can improve the environment enough then women will accept their lot.” Is he trying to do something to make things better, or stressing the “rights” of parents (& community) to the detriment of choices for pregnant girls & women?
That isn’t to say I want no limits on abortions, but that’s something for medical standards, not politicians. Is Warner OK with doctors rather than politicians setting medical standards?
As a voter, it’s a big turn off for any national or local politician who thinks abortion is a community decision. Ditto Gay Marriage.
Sounds like a fascinating afternoon you had, BooMan. You paint a relatively positive picture of the man, and I’m sure he is quite affable, intelligent and has a great sense of humor. Would I support him in 08? Very slim chance to none, given his close ties to the DLC and Clintonistas. He’d really have to make a major break away from them for me to even consider throwing my support his way.
I don’t know about others’ stances on him, but I didn’t swallow the “electable” argument last time, and sure won’t next time around. If Gore decides to run again, I’m with him all the way… especially if we were to get a Gore/Feingold ticket, my personal dream team.
Thanks for the insight there, BooMan. Gives me a bit more information about one of the current DLC “flavors of the month.”
I’m glad that Jerome invited you and that you had the opportunity to meet with Governor Warner. You are both articulate and progressive so I’m sure the Gov. benefited from hearing your concerns and your points of view.
Thanks so much for the meeting summary, BooMan. This is very helpful and informative, the next best thing to being there. LOL. Too bad about his Iraq position, I just don’t get that, but it sounds like he is at least open to hearing other points of view.
to be fair, he is generally disposed to limit our stay in Iraq but doesn’t think making a date certain is a helpful move at this time. I disagreed with him on that and he went to considerable effort to justify his position.
I think everyone who ponders these issues is really torn by our lack of faith in the administration.
Warner was not immune from showing frustration with the problem of our leadership as it pertains to trying to make the right choices on Iraq. I draw stronger conclusions from that lack of faith than Warner does. I think we need to get out now because we are not going to improve things over the next 6-9 months with our current plan. He wants to hold the line for a little longer to assist the current government and to present a more united stance against Iran.
It’s disppointing, but he has well thought out reasons for taking his position and he understands why I disagree with him.
Part of what I like about him was that he was not dismissive of what we had to say even when it was counter to his positions.
Overall, it’s just really heartening when a civilized and respectful discourse is taking place between people with differing viewpoints. It’s part of the healing that’s so desperately needed for this country.
As for Iraq, obviously, there are no simple or easy solutions. If I were Queen for a Day, I would get our troops out and get the Red Cross and the UN in there on the double.
If I were Queen for a Day in a dialogue with GWB helping him save face for his tragic failures as a leader, I would say take responsibility. That’s what we’re paying you for, buddy.
I really believe that the only answer for Iraq is to remove Bush, Rummy, and Cheney from their positions. I felt that way in November 2004, and nothing has changed. We cannot prevent disaster with them at the helm. And I really think it is a matter of repairing the damage and limiting the fallout at this point. And we can’t get started until they are removed from office.
Impeachment makes policy sense as well as good solid constitutional and moral sense.
I don’t think that there is an answer that does not involve disaster. That is the trouble with lying and cheating and stealing and aggression. Once you do them it gets the situation you are trying to manipulate out of control. I say pull out of Iraq, not because I think it will help the situation there much, at best it will start the civil war before the parties are amed more fully and there may be some fewer casualties. The truth though, is that we have probably doomed that country to extinction as a country. Whether it ever was a nation-state in the absence of a dictator I don’t know.
I can’t think of a leader from now or from history that I believe could put this poor place back together again. The best I can see is that we turn the thing over to the United Nations and get the check book out and start paying reparations. A journey to the Hague from those you mention would be helpful also.
oh good, a bunch of center, center-right men all gathered together. Nothing about civil rights, I’m guessing, or the environment, or certainly not about women’s autonomy over their own bodies. We know nothing about where he stands on choice, because he’s a coward and refuses to make it clear.
Warner is a DLC hack. Thanks for the report,and thanks for reinforcing that he’s another lazy and over-cautious Democrat who I would never cast a vote for.
I find it confusing when I am called a center or center right man. I also find it stupefying when Bowers is referred to his way. And in my dealings with Duncan I can find no evidence to support that characterization of him either.
I am fairly confident that all 3 of us voted for Pennacchio in the election Tuesday, and we all took our opportunity today to press Warner to be more aggressive on Iraq, and on oversight, and on a 50 state strategy.
Why the hostility?
No women, no active leftists … no GBLT folks. Surely there must be SOME of those in Philly?
Perhaps it’s not fair for me to describe you as a “centrist”, but that’s how you and Bowers appear to me from your blogging and the candidates you support.
The hostility is stirred up by that hack Warner, and some of it, probably unfairly, hit collateral damage. I swear, everytime I see an interview with him, everytime I read the mealy-mouthed crap he says, I like him less. Warner sums up EVERYTHING that is wrong with this party.
EVERYTHING. Another empty suit, like Schumer and Emmanuel and Clinton and Hoyer and and and …
Bowers is almost definitely further left than I am, and I am to the left of most people. Basically, it was a meeting of the three biggest blogs in Philly, plus Jerome and Markos because they were on that leg of their book tour. Susie Madrak of Suburban Guerilla would have been invited but she has changed her email address and no one could get in touch with her.
I don’t have a problem with the criticism that Duncan, Chris and I are white men, although there is nothing much we can do about that. But these characterizations of Bowers, Duncan and me as centrists is somewhat insane. I’d bet we’d all vote for Feingold, and I think we all voted for Pennacchio.
Madman, you attack attack attack, but you are often just way off base. I’ll sit down with any politician that is thinking of running in 08 from either party. It’s not an endorsement. And if they are as personable and curious and respectful as Warner was, I will say so and compliment them for it.
fair enough.
I’m not trying to be weird or critical or whatever, so don’t take it that way, but Susie’s current email address is in the upper left hand corner of her website. I only mention it because I put it there myself.
For some reason I find that every time I hear more about Warner, I feel more comfortable about him. (Is he really a member of the DLC, the rumour keeps floating in each direction?)
To me he sounds thoughtful and considered, to you he sounds mealy mouthed. To me he sounds like he listens to others, but you point out that he disagrees with you (and with me) on many issues. I accept that the country isn’t ready to accept many of my more liberal ideas and I want to work to shift he centre until my ideas are closer to mainstream, meanwhile I will support candidates to my right when I think that they can represent the people well.
PS Booman and Chris Bowers really are not centrists they are both pretty far left. Bowers described himself as a professional activist/ politician.
Is he really a member of the DLC, the rumour keeps floating in each direction?
I can’t imagine who would be saying that he’s not. Here’s a link to a speech he gave
I want to work to shift he centre until my ideas are closer to mainstream
It’s my belief that the electoral strategy and a great many assumptions the DLC and centrists have sold as conventional wisdom for the past 15-20 years have resulted in a constant stream of electoral losses for the Democratic party and a very rapid and terrifying shift towards an unrecognisable America. The strategy you outline above is the same one that folks have been settling for for a very long time.
The opposite has happened. Likewise the DLC has gone further and further to the right. I mean there’s a reason that the same people who fund the Heritage Foundation likewise fund the DLC and that reason has nothing to do with anything that’s written in the Democratic Party Platform. The DLC is a failed organization and one whose antipathy towards your and my values and political goals is much stronger than their antipathy towards the theocrats, corporatists and fascists on the right.
I agree with much of what you say, but possible disagree on what to do now. I think that we need to stand firm on what we have fought for, fight to prevent the centre from shifting rightward and eventually shift it leftward.
I don’t think that we do that by staking our dreams on every national campaign.
I am in favour of choice, but hope to never have to help make it and understand people’s and politicians misgivings on the issue. I am for gay marriage, eventually but we won’t succeed in shoving it down people’s throats; until then let us promote civil unions for everyone. I am opposed to the Iraq war, but now that we are there I hope we can withdraw our troops without leaving chaos behind.
We will not win in one massive blow, America is not looking for the next FDR. We will win in small pieces encouraging our politics to progress. Does that make me a moderate? I don’t think so. It just means that I accept that I cannot always get what I want.
PS your link to the speech Warner gave does make it seem pretty clear that Warner is a member of the DLC, I thought I had seen it said both ways.
America is not looking for the next FDR.
We’re not going to win at all as long as we keep running ‘centrist’ politicians from states where church/state seperation is a thing of the past.
I get depressed when people start talking about what ‘America’ does not want. It does not mean anything.
The DLC has always been right-wing in that way. It’s their entire reason for being–push the party to the right and win the presidency. Right now, they are holding on for dear life their status as presidential weigh station, even though they are really the High Church of Clintonism, since he was their biggest and only success.
Of course, that stupidly ignores getting the Congress back. All they care about is winning the presidency. No Conyers or Murtha or Boxer or Feingold to worry about. It’s also why they oppose the 50 state strategy–because it’s all about ’08. Actually build up state parties? Only if they will vote for a Democratic president. Which of course,can’t happen if you don’t build up the party on the local and state level.
How counterproductive, and quite frankly, how friggin’ lazy!
Anyway, IMO, Mark Warner is a DLC type in the same way that Howard Dean was. I recall lots of people saying that Dean wasn’t really a liberal–well no kidding! But what set him apart from everyone else is that he looked at how we went to war and said then what mainstream folks are saying now (sheepishly, b/c of course, they all knew better): this is stupid. And for that, he was branded a pacifist. Not that this is a bad thing, but that’s not what he was, then or now.
What I’ll be interested in is Warner’s view on trade. Now that he’s no longer in office in Va., where will he come down? He won in part because he paid attention to areas hit with severe economic distress ignored by Happy Gilmore (my nickname for Warner’s predecessor). This was the 90s after all…everyone was doing well, right?
My pre-caffeinated thoughts. Sorry they are a jumble.
The other difference between Dean and the DLC is that he wanted to bring citizens into the political process and not just continue to let the corporate world provide funding and therefore call the shots. I would need to know more about Warner’s alleigance to this part of the DLC before I could even think about supporting him.
Fair enough.
I didn’t even look Dean’s way because I knew he was DLC. I read about him in their house organ. And when I did think about him, I thought, Why is this guy from Vermont running for president? The DLC has more than enough representatives.
But then I saw the man was getting hundreds, even thousands of people at rallies…WAY before “real people” were supposed to be paying attention. And once I listened to him, I was hooked. Not so sure Warner can pull that off.
He’s got enough of a job to differentiate himself from Clinton/Bayh/Vilsack set without being a John Edwards clone (southern boy who was first in his family to go to college getting rich but not forgetting where he came from–they both have that story in common).
And, completely OT–hopefully, Diane Sawyer (or is that Mrs. Nichols?) won’t be confused about his wife since she kept her last name. If people didn’t go nuts about in Va., can this please be a non-issue next time?
Oh let me respond to this. The difference between Dean and Warner, and it is a Grand Canyon difference, is that Dean went everywhere and worked from minute one for common cause.
Dean’s power, back then, was that he ”folded the left in first”.
Warner has already distanced himself from any but the “moderate middle”. I wish him luck.
He/Warner handled his toe in the water trip to San Francisco very badly a few months ago. And did an LAT op/ed to take a public hot shower.
And what is more, he still whines about that trip.
I got the message: Only for some of the people. And ran like a bunny. Lest he catch some communicable disease. Rather at variance wtih the mantra of Jarding (who I like – and Jarding was one reason I had been willing to look at Warner).
He forgets, we are Americans out here, voters. And what is more, deep pockets.
The DLC insists they don’t need anything, nationally, but the ever righward migrating ”middle”. It does not work. But despite all the soft talk that their power is failing, I would differ. A party at full drift will latch on to anything. The entire line up of hopefuls is official DLC, but for Russ Feingold.
And I had planned, back in ’04, in 2004, as he burbled like a baby in his pol’s crib, to take a look at him.
It is my take he is running for the Edwards’ spot. Veepessa in a Hillary run.
LOL… I wish him luck.
Marisacat
Hey, hey, Marisa. Long time no type, I know. How’s it going. And yes, I’ve been to your new site.
How will I ever get any work done???? And I have a shitload of it.
Anyway, do tell me more about the SF trip. You’d think he’d be comfy at least with some segments since he speaks tech (IOW, familiar w/ their issues, etc.).
It is my take he is running for the Edwards’ spot. And he can’t do that and be successful. Being more progressive would distinguish him from the pack.
Not to mention, save the country.
just “one more”.
You can google for his trip, he loves to bring it up to solidify his congealing “moderate” cred. LOL funny I always hear “white” when he pulls that stuff out of his pockets… And I think the LAT op ed is still accessible.
IIRC one of the parties at the dinner that night, and mind you it was one lousy fucking dinner that he ran from… was Susie Tompkins Buell. Of the old Esprit corp. I think from her alone about 1 to 2 million a year, straight to Democratic candidates and groups. For years.
Should money determine all? No, but it should still mean your money, your vote and your interest, is as good as anyone else’s.
I get that ”old timey” whiff off Mr Warner, he prefers the South. And for several reasons. IT does not truly challenge him.
I am open to the South having spent much time there thru out my life, but they have to prove a lot, too.
Hey Marisa, not sure which of Governor Warner’s trips to California you’re panning but I assume you’re basing your info on the Matt Bai story in the NYTimes Magazine. That’s a pretty limited view.
Governor Warner’s taken several trips to California and gotten a good reception each time — Dave Johnson of Seeing the Forest blogged one Warner event and Steve Soto of the Left Coaster has had good things (and some honest criticism) of Warner.
He was a guest at a fundraiser for Francine Busby on one stop as well. Judy Ki and Dr. Ellin Lieberman, two local activists working on the Busby race, both had good things to say about Warner and wrote “testimonials” on the Forward Together blog.
Governor Warner will be headed back to California soon — he’s not writing anyone off — the 50 State Strategy is what his Forward Together PAC is all about.
Not California. San Francisco. I understand the effort you are making here, but as a native born San Franciscan, able to read widely:
I am not reliant on Matt Bai.
I also am able to discern “churn” writing that seeks to achieve a specific political end.
LOL My view is not limited, but, for your purposes, it is not pro-Warner.
He does miss the full bore of “national”. And he has used the SF event, his reaction, to solidify “middle”. The LAT op ed and his subsequent squeamish references to the SF event, are mostly rather sad.
Oddly enough, tho I read this entry at BMT I had not intended to comment. I observe the soft retail sites for the party, but rather decline to participate, esp as Mid-Terms approach. But some of the party tropes are just a bit silly… and demand some push back.
Marisacat
Just wanted to be sure you were getting a bigger picture — your conclusions are your own.
Did you actually read any of the links I included, none of them are “churn” — all independent bloggers or journalists, and Dave is from SF. The two testimonials from the Busby volunteers on our blog are in a different category of course.
i took the ‘churn’ to refer to Bai’s piece, but maybe I’m wrong.
ah, that makes more sense.
Guess I need to get a new dictionary of political terms — mine doesn’t have “churn” in it.
: )
????
Very good question.
I’m nothing but trouble. I’m one of those “shrill single issue” voters you’ve heard so much about, one of the “women’s studies crowd”, a damned peacenik hippie, one of the reasons the Democrats lose.
Just ask around.
Thanks, Madman, this explanation totally relaxed me! LOL!!!
I’m all about spreading the love.
And I am all about a single payer health care plan and disability rights, in addition to spreading love.
You are my hero, Street Kid!
Warner’s position and record on choice is very clear. Please see my comment above.
Um, you’re not “strongly pro-choice” if you insist on these:
A woman either owns her body, or she doesn’t. There is nothing “common sense” about any of those.
I didn’t expect you to like it, was just frustrated by this remark of yours “We know nothing about where he stands on choice, because he’s a coward and refuses to make it clear.”
You can say what you want about Governor Warner, but he’s not a coward and his positions and record on choice are very clear.
I have watched several interviews with. He’s ducked the question each time. Thank you for clarifying what I already suspected: he’s a forced birther who looks at women as beings to be controlled, for their own good, of course.
Appreciate your help.
And what is Warner’s position on my right to marry as a gay man?
Here’s another talking point cut & paste:
Marriage
* While Governor Warner does not support same sex marriage, he also believes we don’t need to rewrite the United States Constitution to address marriage.
LGBT Issues
Adoption:
* In Virginia, judges decide what’s best for the child. As governor, Mark Warner asked that the Department of Social Services respect that system rather than interfere (as there was some evidence the previous administration had done).
that would be a “no” then, but you’re free to pay for expensive lawyers to set up elaborate protections for you and your partner, protections which might be subject to the whims of some judge in the future if someone challenges them after you’re dead.
Gotta love them Dempublicans.
As there are no 2nd Class citizens there should be no 2nd Class Laws.
Governor Warner would NEVER have my vote as long as Senator Feingold is in the race and I’ll do everything in my power to make sure he has the nomination. He believes in me, Governor Warner thinks I don’t deserve the very rights he feels entitled to himself.
I’m not surprised Booman would like Warner after having a sit-down with him. He’s very personable.
Now–you and Madman are my blog brothers (or, so I’d like to think–that may be very presumptuous, esp. since I’ve done so little writing as of late) so I know you’ll be disappointed when I say that I like Warner. Which isn’t to say that I agree with him on everything. Honestly, after the California Confederate and then Jim Gilmore, Warner was a HUGE improvement. You cannot know how huge.
I wouldn’t call him a centrist unless I was his fundraiser at a DLC shindig. He is that very rare technopopulist, (my own word for him) able to bridge Northern Va. with other regions (Southside, Southwest, etc. and believe me, the thing that joins the state’s different regions, including Richmond, is that they all hate NoVa, and NoVa doesn’t care), and is just as comfortable in the Dulles corridor one day, at Nascar in Martinsville the next, and among Richmond’s young black professionals the day after that.
He’s also learned to “finesse the social issues,” which basically means he doesn’t talk about them unless he’s addressing them. Part of that is because this is Virginia, where I can go home right now and be bombarded by that goddamn traitorous ass confederate battle flag several times before I walk in the door.
But part of this is the fact that our silence on the issues kills us. I remember my sex ed classes which, late as they were (9th grade–and by then, 3 girls in my class were already pregnant) actually discussed abortion and birth control. Perhaps not in great detail, but at least the info was presented in a straight-ahead manner. I can only imagine what it is now. IIRC, one could be pro-choice governor, if memory serves.
As far as rights for gay men and lesbians…IMO, that’s the new Black, which means that that looks bleak. You’ll likely be left alone in NoVa, Roanoke, some parts of Richmond…but actual rights? With the nimrods running the legislature? And to think they’d be taking orders from liberals, Washington, DC, or worse, NoVa (gasp!)?!? That they think homosexuality is “immoral” is almost besides the point. Ramming down social issues is their preferred way of showing who’s boss. They’d override a veto before the veto ink was dried.
Long way of saying he’ll be the politician. If he knows that will have no support in the Assembly and will only piss people off (the majority of the Dems will say What about us?? We don’t care that you’re already a lame duck. Noooo!!)
Don’t forget that Falwell and Robertson both live well and run their scams…from Virginia. The only way Virginia will do forward-thinking things is by a Supreme Court case, plus another one for foot-dragging. (I’m sorry I’m not more hopeful. That’s one of several reasons why I don’t live there.)
So…these are the dynamics in which Warner had to work. Also remember that governors in Va. cannot succeed themselves. They’ve got 4 years with a retrograde Assembly and they’re done.
I’m not condoning any of it. But that’s the general weather down there.
Hope that’s added some insight.
all of that is fine. If Virginia wants to wallow in its backwards ignorance, if it wants to shit upon the legacy of the man who founded the University of Virginia, the owner of Montecello who challenged us to build a better world, then let it. I don’t care. I will happily support any progressive there who is trying to save the south from itself.
BUT.
I don’t want anymore of this Clintonian bullshit exported to the national stage. It’s bad enough that I am confronted by fucking NASCAR everywhere. It’s bad enough that here in WI rednecks from the north are trying to drag this once progressive state south, but having the so-called party of the left putting forward one ignorant southerner after another as NATIONAL candidates only encourages this country betraying the cause of freedom more and more.
Virginia can keep his pandering ass. I want nothing to do with him.
If Virginia wants to wallow in its backwards ignorance, if it wants to shit upon the legacy of the man who founded the University of Virginia, the owner of Montecello who challenged us to build a better world, then let it.
And the owner of slaves. Even the Jeffersonian ideal wallowed in willful ignorance. To this day, there are these confederate groups still pushing some confederate history bullshit. It’s not the whole state, but too many that don’t have enough to do.
Warner was a welcome balm after the willful ignorance of the previous 8 years. He’s not ignorant; he’s a politician–he did enough to win. He was comfortable among the business set and the more rural set without waving a confederate flag or a bloody fetus. I guess you had to live there to understand. He didn’t pander.
I would not describe him as Clinton-like (yet?), if for no other reason that the reason Clintonism exists is to advance Clinton. He can’t do that (yet?)–there’s already one running.
What we suffer from is the slaveholding legacy of letting small states having a disproportionate say in the presidency. Which is why all the presidential candidates have to suck up to the South. Which is why dullards like Bayh and Vilsack are seriously considered to have so-called “presidential timbre.” Bleh.
We in fact have a segregationist government, without the obvious segregation.
I’m not at all sure how he’ll come off as a candidate and where he’ll stand. Running for president is different than being governor of a state.
But Al Gore as VP (and certainly right now) was MUCH different than he was a Senator from TN. A big reason why he didn’t win his own state.
My question is this: do we change the candidates or change the electorate or can we do both at the same time? Right now, I don’t care as much about the presidency as I do about our neutered Congress. If there’s a chance to get one body back, then great–though again, I’ve been to this party before, so I hold no illusions. And given the Nagourney article on Sunday, there are too many “Dems” who are perfectly willing to let Congress go in their stupidly counterproductive lust for the presidency. They make no sense.
OTOH, are people really ready for change? I know we have to give folks a reason to vote Democratic beyond “we’re not them” but there’s a big part of me that feels like people got what they voted for…only we all suffer. If you’re stupid enough to vote for someone b/c you think you could have a beer with them, then you get what you deserve–I just wish that you wouldn’t make me pay for it, too.
Now–can Warner be a progressive AND attract the rural/working class/so-called “NASCAR” vote (or whatever the hell the marketing term of art is today)? Will he? I dunno. Will it make a difference, even if he was the great progressive hope? I dunno.
I guess what I’m really asking is that does it matter where he or anyone is coming from as long as we can push them left? And when we do, will people vote for them? I can’t see that happening without a congressional body to begin to make the case, but perhaps that’s another subject.
But don’t totally dismiss him without measuring his entire record: choice, education, trade, healthcare, foreign policy (now THAT will be interesting, given that he’s a governor), immigration. He’s not interchangeable with the California Confederate.
Jefferson wrote in many letters of his hypocracy about slavery. One of the things he hoped for from the new union was that debate and law would evolve to call people to their higher natures, to make freedom the reality that it wasn’t when he wrote the Declaration and his other works. I ask not that the PERSON have no flaws, but rather for leaders who call for us to be more, to be better. Most colonists probably weren’t ready for a revolution, let alone forming anew nation. Hell, the Articles of Confederation are strong evidence that the majority of the people weren’t ready to move away from our feudal past. Leaders took stands, debated, faced opprobrium, TOOK CHANCES, to move where people stood, to change what people believed.
Do you see any leaders like that now? Precious few, and the media and the party leaders do everything they can to silence them.
Warner is merely a politician, merely some local boy made good. In his interviews, in his issues, that’s all I see is a poor-man’s Clinton. Let him stay in Virginia.
Jefferson wrote in many letters of his hypocracy about slavery. One of the things he hoped for from the new union was that debate and law would evolve to call people to their higher natures, to make freedom the reality that it wasn’t when he wrote the Declaration and his other works.
He could have done that himself. He chose not to. He couldn’t live the lifestyle to which he became accustomed and write books about his own hypocrisy by actually doing something about it. Our stupid “electoral system” is the still-living by-product of that. And Jefferson could have. Robert Carter did.
(It’s true that I’m dismissive of ol’ Tom but it’s because my ancestors got the raw end of the deal. Probably more than my fair share of dismissal, though, is the state history taught when I was in school that deified him and the slave-owning rest of them–visiting plantations as a reward for being on the honor roll and such. So maybe I’m bitter.)
Leaders took stands, debated, faced opprobrium, TOOK CHANCES, to move where people stood, to change what people believed.
Having said all that above, we agree.
Warner is merely a politician, merely some local boy made good. In his interviews, in his issues, that’s all I see is a poor-man’s Clinton.
We just disagree on that. Oh my gosh, it must be a first! :<)
But it’s cool, and not just for debate’s sake. If Warner can rise to a greater challenge–to have the courage to ask boldly how we can make ourselves better while he runs for the nod–then we can all reassess.
As far as Feingold–damn, am I ever impressed. My only fears are that he’s 1) a senator and that track record isn’t good and 2) from Wisconsin–will he be able to connect? I’m not interested in Feingold being a protest candidate, a la Kucinich. (Who, incidentally, pissed me off b/c he and his campaign seemed to whine when Dean spoke out about the war…like Dean “took” his issue. Anyway…) If he runs, then I want him to do the damned thing and WIN the damned thing.
But back to Warner, I think he has that potential. I’m not going to write him off yet. Or Feingold. Or Edwards. Or Gore. Or even Obama…though he better hurry up and do something soon.
Clinton/Vilsack/Bayh and, I’m sorry, but Kerry too? Yeah, I’m willing to write them off.
not to defend Jefferson’s slaveholding (I can’t), but his whole point was that sometimes men are too weak to do what is right in instances like slavery. He was a weak man when it came to this, and a coward. At many times in his life he was flat broke: his land and his slaves were his only holdings. He was selfish, and weak. Many other slaveholders at least released their captives upon their deaths. He failed there too.
Despite all of that, and maybe BECAUSE he was imperfect but strove to create a better future, he’s one of my heroes.
how could Jefferson not be a hero? What person can compare to him in what he granted to posterity?
Easy. To me, he was who he was. No more, no less. (The founding fathers just look way different to these brown eyes, sorry.)
Unfortunately, Jefferson’s ideas don’t seem to have the currency that his actions have these days. (Being broke, knowing better and not doing better, etc.)
But I’m sorry I got sidetracked on him. The idea is to not crap on anyone’s heroes (sorry if it seemed that way, Madman) but to demonstrate that even the “heroes” don’t always get it right and the less obvious ones sometimes have much to offer.
DISCLAIMER I am not saying that politicians can match Dr. King. They can’t hold a candle to him. But Dr. King wasn’t always Dr. King. He didn’t grow up wanting to be a civil rights leader–he wanted to be a preacher in a middle class church like his father.
Howard Dean didn’t start off wanting to change the Democratic party. He wanted to be a doctor.
LBJ didn’t set out to be a “great president.” He wanted to be a powerful one.
I’m just pulling names as they come to me, but the point is the same–leadership, and even great leadership, can come where you least expect it.
As for Warner, I think he has potential. It’s up to him to make it happen.
If he doesn’t, then I’ll be crashing at Madman’s place helping Feingold.
Madman: I don’t take up much room. Honest. :<)
Whenever I read this sort of commentary, I think of Loving v Virginia.
If it, change, should only come when people are ready, it will never come.
The SCOTUS is gone. Love how people hang onto it. But better to face it.
That leaves, legislative change, office holder change. Fine if there were a comprehensive and coherent, albeit diverse, Democratic Party. But in too many parts and piece they have signed on to be the handmaiden of the Extreme Right. SO little opposition. SO many games.
One should always work for a better day, I never argue other. But people will find different ways, without a political partner. In light of the malleability of the DP. LOL I refer to them as “fucking fried shrimp”. It is pathetic ot watch.
The strangle hold on the party from the Clinton wing (it is most certainly NOT all about the single named candidate) is a modern political horror. (Rahm is an excellent example).
Oh they trumpet “majority”. mY guess is two seats in the Senate. And the Dems want Casey to be one of them. And by the way, Reid himself on the floor of the senate, during filibuster LOL “debate” in spring of ’05 said the same: ”two seats”, other would be a “miracle”. You think the Republicans are not ready with the ads using that?? For all the battleground states? I suspect it is perfect for CfG ads.
They are not about majority. Nothing they do invigorates or emboldens or activates the electorate. They still want it by some reverse Hail Mary pass of the White Supremacist Party.
What utter guff. Not a national political party, not a real one.
What a pity for Zell to be right.
Marisacat
I agree, but maybe not in the way that you might think.
You either work to get elected or work for change. I no longer believe you can do both. I used to, but not anymore.
If you want to get elected, you choose the issue you will not fold on and finesse the rest. If you work for change, you are working to change a world view that you may never live to see–if you’re lucky. The change you see may not happen at all.
As far as change in this country…I’m not hopeful. I hope I’m wrong. But it took 100 years after the Civil War for basic rights. The Congress ignored it (thanks to Dixiecrat filibuster–so ironic we’re fighting for it today) the President ignored it and the SCOTUS damn sure ignored it.
Meanwhile, corporations can be considered “people” but have more rights than people. There is still no single-payer healthcare.
Given the history, if you have a chance to do at least something right, you take that chance. Sure that’s coming from a place of lack. I admit it upfront.
But in too many parts and piece they have signed on to be the handmaiden of the Extreme Right. That doesn’t inspire me to make change. It makes me believe that Dr. King in fact integrated a burning house.
But before I either find an exist or burn to a crisp, I have to make a decision…how long can I hold off the fire? And what’s the best way to do it?
I don’t have an answer. While I’m here, I do the best I know how.
As for Warner, I’m going to wait and see. He’s not Ben Nelson or worse–Joe Lieberman. He’s not waving a flag or a fetus, and while he won’t get special dispensation from me (cue Chris Rock: “That’s what you’re supposed to do. Whaddya want, a cookie?”) he has built rapport w/ the NASCAR (or insert political marketing term here) set. I’m willing to see where it leads. Or not.
So Jerome wasn’t there too? He’s working on Warner’s campaign, no?
Jerome was there. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
When I first started thinking about possibilities for 2008, Warner’s name came up on my shortlist. I didn’t want to like him at first, didn’t really think he was “my kind of democrat”. But every time I hear about him I see him more and more as the right man to win and the right man to govern our country.
Boo’s description of his personal interactions were heartening. He is describing a man who can take criticism, listen to opposing viewpoints, and take advice. Those are all things critical in a leader.
I am not truly in the Warner camp, but I feel the most comfortable with him as our candidate. I think he has the capability to repair the damage that has been done over the last six years. When people whisper the question, “So who do you think its going to be?” I have started to whisper back “Warner”.
Ah the vast majority of successful politicians that I’ve observed at all levels of government ACT like that. Is Warner really that way? I don’t know.
It is clear that he is trying to have it both (or many) ways on the issue of choice. If a guy is going to waffle about something like that, I don’t see leadership qualities that I would care to support.
True, there is a skill to appearing to listen as opposed to actually listening and I have to hope that Booman can tell the difference.
On issues like Iraq, I tend to think that there is no right answer until we actually have the power to implement it. What I want to know is that he is troubled by the current state of affairs and that he has an intention to draw down the troops. He has no ability to force a withdrawal two years before the ’08 elections.
I don’t think that he is waffling, I think that he has a consistent position it is just a moderate one.
Ah the vast majority of successful politicians that I’ve observed at all levels of government ACT like that.
Don’t be too sure. Some of them, I swear I wonder–just how did they get elected?
That’s mighty presumptuous of me, so I should add: YMMV.
to understand that his military is broken. My take from what is above is that he still feels that we are coming from a position of power where our military is concerned. Did he say anything about the condition of our troops and our lack of new troops coming in? Well, accept for those very blessed people who can’t wait to sign on that dotted line and go to Iraq so they can kill them some Sand Niggers. Hate to say it, but I think we can all pretty well guess at the mentality we are attracting for new troops. Of course it isn’t the mentality of everybody joining now, but you can’t tell me that that mentality isn’t the prevailing one right now in our “new” troops replacing the “old” troops that are getting the hell out of Dodge as quickly as they can because they didn’t sign on for this abuse and insanity. It’s scary as hell thinking about who is willfully signing on for this abuse and insanity though.
I find it interesting that argument about court packing. It is very hypocritical that we can pack out own courts but those in Latin America can’t. What hell is appointment of our Justice system. FDR packed the court. Every President packs the court. In fact, their Consitution allows the citizens to impeach a justice. Can we do that? NO! So what is up with all this anti-Chavez meme that Warner is spewing. And tell me how is Chavez closing down the press when television and radio stations often advocate killing him and on a regularly basis. If that is censoring, then the definition changed. The press has more freedon over there than here.
I am glad you defened him.
FDR tried to pack the courts. He didn’t succeed.
As for Chavez, I don’t know the facts on that.
Have you been following Kid Oakland’s two essays (here and here) on, among other things, looking for “connectors”? Did you have the impression that he could be a connector for us?
I hit post instead of reply, maryb.
perhaps. He seems like a good retail politician, a good guy, and a person with a high likability factor. His biggest problem in the primaries is going to be where he positions himself on the issues. I don’t sense that he is going to light us on fire with hot rhetoric. He is positioning himself as a sane alternative, not a firebrand. If I see a weakness it is caution. And that is a weakness that most activists are not in the mood to tolerate.
But I also see some hope that he won’t stay this way. Hiring Jerome and actually listening to him is an indication that he can and does think outside the box. I would not write off his candidacy over his intitial positioning.
He would be a formidable candidate in a general election. And if I am worried about an overreliance on the wrong kind of consultants, I can also take comfort that he is listening to people like me.
I’m not sure I can see his path to victory in the primaries right now, but I can see his path to victory in the general.
We will be an asset to what I consider to be a pretty strong slate of candidates that varies from Hillary, to Fenigold, to Clark, to Bayh, Biden and Richardson. Gore would add even more depth.
Compare that to Brownback, McCain, Guiliani, Romney and Allen. No contest.
Positioning himself as a sane alternative is perhaps a good strategic move not only for him but also for us.
I agree with KO that the first major obstacle to the success of the Democratic party has been that we’ve allowed some voters to think they have to become “liberals” in order to vote for a candidate of ours that they agree with. A candidate that allows voters who agree with “us” on the issues to vote with “us” without having to become one of “us” (or even to necessarily like “us”) would be an asset .
Assuming of course that he is able to successfully run incredible litmus test obstacle course that “we” make our candidates run.
It appears that he is going to try to do just what you suggest. He has the potential to pull it off, but I remain skeptical on a number of fronts.
Personally, as I told Duncan this afternoon, if Feingold ever gets the momentum that Dean had, he won’t lose the nomination. He is going to feed the same beast, but do it with far more formidable political skills than Howard brought to bear.
If the moderates remain on the sidelines they will be swept aside as it becomes a battle royale between Hillary and Russ.
Sorry, but I don’t see Feingold doing it. So far my personal experience with non-blogging democrats is that they don’t even listen to Feingold and won’t listen to anything about Feingold. He’s been labelled a liberal and that’s all they need to know. They may agree with EVERYTHING he says, but they don’t know it because they simply don’t hear him. To them he’s like the Charley Brown teacher, droning on. Yet another liberal to block out.
So, much as I like him personally, I don’t see him as a connector. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe he’ll start to connect. Maybe he’ll be able to convince people that a vote for him will NOT label them a liberal, will NOT mean that they have to become part of the tree hugging, anti-religion, communist part of the Democratic party. But right now? Nuthin.
The people that connect with “us” are NOT the people that can necessarily connect with the majority that are needed to win.
I’m not pushing Warner’s candidacy BTW. I know next to nothing about him, that’s why I wanted your impression.
Yeah, but I never say ANYTHING in Dean, and yet the mere willingness to tell the truth made him the favorite to win the Dem nomination until he started displaying chronic foot-in-mouth-itis.
Russ won’t make that same mistake.
Well it’s not like I want you to be wrong on this, I’m just not convinced he can do it. But there’s plenty of time for him to prove whether or not he can break through. We need to get through the mid terms first.
posted in orange.
I’m surrounded by conservatives at work here in WI. A lot of them LOVE Feingold, especially on the NSA spying, the PATRIOT Act, and even on the censure resolution. They like that he says what he believes in, then stands by it. You should see the man campaign, you should see his campaign ads. The right here throws all of the usual winger bullshit at him when he runs, and he smacks it all down w/ humor and aplomb.
Booman is right … if Feingold makes a run, he won’t make the same mistakes Dean did. After his very theatrical walkout yesterday (how better to draw attention to a dark-of-the-night meeting?) I’m convinced that he’s running, and he’s making more of an effort to really establish himself as an alternative to the usual DC politicians.
Feingold is a real populist, and I think he could pull it off.
It does seem that Warner is already positioning himself exactly that way. As its shaping up, I am starting to see Warner and Hilary in the middle with Feingold on the left. If Gore enters I see him as taking votes from both Hilary and Feingold.
The path through the primaries will be pretty difficult this year, but I think that you hit at least one of the nails on the head when you say that Warner has a clear path through the primaries. Gulianni or McCain might give him a real fight, but any other repub would be minced meat against a Democrat who can deliver Virginia out of the gate.
As I said elsewhere, Warner keeps growing on me, but I am still not comfortable with him. Democrats need more reasons to vote for him than the belief that he can win in a general. That isn’t enough to excite us.
What Warner really needs to do is avoid the mistake that Casey made and approach the base and the activists well before the primary is over.
I hope you’ll be able to meet other candidates and share the give and take. This is one of the best give-and-take threads I’ve seen, and I know our level of intelligence and debate are already high.
I obviously can’t speak for Madman (and he can obviously handle that himself) but I don’t know if any of this is bitter, or even harsh. Just no BS. And I think it’s GREAT!! It brings clarity. And I say that as someone who thinks Warner has potential.
You did good, Boo. I can’t wait for another one.
:<)
clarity is one thing sorely missing in the public sphere these days.