MSNBC article on Mark Warner

[livinginphotographs]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8062256/

While I'm in the camp of people who want Warner running for Senate in 2006 to replace George Allen, and not as the nominee in 2008, it is still an interesting perspective on him

[Dr Ron]

1. Too much horse race

This articl e suffers from most political coverage. It's all about the horse race, with little real information about Warner.

With all the article on him lately, there's been virtually nothing on his reocrd or positions. This article says that he is a moderate on social issues. I'm afraid that doesn't really tell me much.

[rogue emissary]

2. Does that camp have room for one more?

Warner needs to bolster his foreign policy experience and a 06 senate term would help his international credentials. It's scary to see I basically agree with Fineman. Warner with a senate term and running in 2012 would be hard to beat. Frankly, I'm greedy and tired of being represented by three very conservative republicans.

[livinginphotographs]

3. I agree.

My priority is beating Allen. He's being groomed by some for the the Republican candidate in 2008, so I think a senate defeat would take him down a peg, and Warner would make a great candidate to run against him. In light of Warner's popularity in a pretty republican state, it'll be hard for Allen to tell Virginians that the guy they've liked for the past four years has suddenly turned into a "Massachusetts liberal" or whatever bullshit charge they regularly pull out on people. Plus, Allen seems to be trying to out-Santorum Santorum half the time, so getting him out of the Senate would be a major help to those trying to repair the damage the republicans have done to this country in the past few years.

[Stewie]

4. He's better off running for President

If Hillary doesn't run the field is awfully thin.

Allen is still relatively popular, and voters have to be given a VERY compelling reason to oust an incumbent. If Warner were to make any headway, the GOP would defuse it by accusing him of breaking a no tax increase promise.

Warner needs to run for president. Either way he'll likely face Allen, and Warner's got a better shot with folks not familiar with Allen and with no stake in the tax increase.

[livinginphotographs]

5. It would be way too easy to attack his qualifications for president.

Honestly, he doesn't have a huge amount of experience in politics besides Virginia's governor. I think his popularity in Virginia will help him much more in the Senate race than it will in a presidential race.

And the idea of Hillary getting the Dem nomination in 2008 almost makes me sick to my stomach. If the party really can't find someone better, I might as well leave.

[rogue emissary]

6. "I don't understand how one term as Governor . . ."

is going to propel Warner to the White House?

[Virginian]

10. He can't run for governor again until 2009

VA won't allow him to serve two consecutive terms.

[rogue emissary]

11. I didn't think he wanted to wait till 2009.

That's why I thought a Senate or House run would serve him better.

[newyawker99]

8. Hi Stewie!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Virginian]

9. I want to see him beat Allen.

There are plenty of viable presidential candidates. There are not as many viable candidates to take down Allen.
Let Mark Warner take down Allen in 06 and then he can be a good candidate for POTUS in 2012 or 2016.

George Allen has got to go!

[redsoxdem]

7. Warner vs. Allen

Mark Warner should do what is right for Virginia. He should run for the Senate in 2006 against George Allen, and forget about running for president. I agree, a one term governor does not have enough experience to be president.