Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mark Warner

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
dtotire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 02:22 PM
Original message
Mark Warner
Meet Mark Warner, the Next U.S. President
AO's citizen economist makes a bold prediction.

ericjanszen | POSTED: 03.22.06 @07:00
I'm going to go out on a limb and make a political prediction: Governor Mark Warner will win the 2008 U.S. presidential election.

I don't make this statement lightly. Three weeks ago, I attended a private roundtable held at Charles River Ventures in Waltham, Massachusetts. We had gathered to hear ex-venture capitalist Mark Warner, a conservative Democrat and ex-Governor of Virginia who's running for President in 2008.

Most of the audience was comprised of venture capitalists. You'd be surprised how many Democrats occupy the high-risk, high-return, low-liquidity segment of the banking industry known as venture capital. I also noticed at least one card-carrying Republican in the audience. I interpret his presence as an indicator of how strongly the need for change is felt, even among stalwart Republican party members.

I was skeptical going in, though I'd read what little is available online about Governor Warner's positions on foreign policy, fiscal policy, energy, education, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=14412_0_24_0_C

I went for three reasons. First, because I, like most Americans, am looking for an alternative to the current administration, but one that isn't positioned primarily as a critic of said administration—that's too easy—and is instead able and willing to honestly confront the grave problems we face as a nation and lay out a plan to address them, including a clear explanation of the sacrifices each of us is going to have to make to turn America back into the country we want it to be. Second, because I was invited by someone I deeply respect. Third, for the novelty of meeting an anti-gun control Democrat, especially given that Governor Mitt Romney of my state of Massachusetts, who is also an ex-venture capitalist with presidential aspirations, is a pro-gun control Republican. Clearly, this is not going to be an election in which the two major parties run candidates along traditional party platforms.

Here's what I learned.


Iraq/Afghanistan Wars
I posed a direct question to Governor Warner on Iraq: "The Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq has been characterized by a conflation of dishonesty and incompetence. First we're told that the Iraqi people are behind us. Any talk of an insurgency and comparisons to Vietnam is foolish and unpatriotic. Then, after the insurgency becomes too large to ignore and sectarian fighting has become apparent, we are told that yes, there is an insurgency, but it's manageable, and any talk of civil war is irresponsible and ill informed. Recently Iraq's defense minister himself warned of the risk of an 'endless civil war.' How are you going to put a stop to this and create a positive outcome in Iraq?"

In response, we got a reasoned, well informed and passionate explanation. To paraphrase, Warner said that the operation has been too badly planned and executed to leave any truly good options at this point. But the least bad options available today are to 1) bring in outside help from other countries and non-U.S. corporations to begin to rebuild basic security and infrastructure so that most Iraqi citizens experience a degree of security and quality of life that builds good will toward the U.S. and its new allies, and 2) develop a plan with the Iraqi government and new allies that both prevents the country from splitting into three separate nations (which is likely to lead to a complete loss of stability in the region) and provides clear milestones for the gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops over time.

As for other pressing issues, here's what I heard from Governor Warner...

Energy
We need to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. For practical reasons, given the level of energy demand that exists in the U.S. today, that means that we need to put nuclear energy back on the table. (I've always been a fan of nuclear energy, to the chagrin of my fellow Natural Resource Studies classmates at UMass Amherst in the 1980s.)

Foreign Policy
We need to rebuild relationships with allies who have been alienated by the unilateral actions of the Bush administration.

Fiscal Policy
No free lunch. We need spending cuts and tax increases. The cuts and increases need to be fair, spreading the inevitable pain fairly among those who are least and best able to bear it, just as Warner did to balance the budget in Virginia.

Education
Prepare America's children for a future of global competition with relevant educational training and incentives, as Warner did in Virginia.

I liked what I heard and was impressed by Warner. The fact is, America needs an accomplished, honest, competent, effective and elect-able candidate for president. I have the same feeling about Warner that I had about Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou when I met him at another VC-sponsored event in Boston in the summer of 2005. Both are elect-able men who can bridge major political divides and lead their respective countries out of harm's way. (Emotionally, I prefer the Taiwanese president who better represents the ethnic majority—my wife is Taiwanese—versus Ma who is Chinese and is more closely aligned with the Chinese minority elite in Taiwan. But Ma offers a practical solution to a potentially very dangerous situation between Taiwan and China over the next few years.)

Warner may be labeled by many Democrats as a pro-gun Republican in Democrat's clothing, and by Republicans as a classic pro-tax Democrat. If Warner and Romney turn out to be the two front runners for the Democratic and Republican parties respectively, some Americans may wish they had a chance to choose between two candidates from more respectable professions than venture capital, like peanut farming or acting.

I'm not in the business of making political endorsements, but of making economic predictions (see the For the Record section at iTulip.com). I did not wish for the dotcom bubble to collapse, but I was able to foresee why and when it would. I favored gold over stocks in 2001 not because I have any special affection for gold, but because my analysis pointed to more upside for gold than for stocks when the Fed went into re-flation mode following the inevitable collapse of the stock market: gold was trading at 13% of its inflation-adjusted peak price while stocks were trading far above their historical mean. (And they still are.) Gold was cheap and stocks, even after their so-called correction, were still expensive. Since then, gold has increased from $270 to $540 today, while the stock market, adjusted for inflation, has declined.

My prediction is that Mark Warner will win the 2008 presidential election. I believe he'll do this on a platform of Honesty, Competence and Passion for his country and its people. Considering how early we are in the election cycle, and the fact that Governor Warner came in second behind Hillary Clinton by a two-to-one margin in a recent straw poll, you might find my prediction farfetched. I'll tell you why it isn't in a later commentary. But remember, as usual, you heard it here first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. lol!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. I hope we can do better. Warner is bland, Repub-Lite, DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerry611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. A far-left liberal won't bring the country together
The state of politics in America has become so hostile and hateful that there is no way a liberal or a conservative is going to bring this nation back together.

What we need is someone who is outside D.C. That town is just loaded with corruption. And it will take someone from the outside to go in and clean it up. We also need someone that can unite this country and stop this endless political hatred and partisanship from BOTH sides.

I know and understand why we would want a strong liberal as president. But nothing is going to get done because the political divide in this nation is far too wide. There is too much hatred.

I care about liberal causes and ideas, but I also care about America. And I want this country to be united as it moves forward. As Thomas Jefferson once stated, it is only a matter of time before a divided country falls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. Jimmy Carter was an outside governor from the South, too, and he
was blasted from office by a nitwit actor.

Warner has demonstrable virtues but not the only electable ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
63. "Far-left liberal" is an oxymoron. Liberals are moderate by definition.
Don't buy into the RW re-definition of liberalism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
72. The DLC is NOT moderate - it's pro-corporate.
A moderate Democrat who's not DLC (read: pro-corporate, anti-working person) would be fine, but no DLCers, please.

Let's go for a populist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
123. Are there any Maoists or Stalinists running for the nomination?
I mean, THAT'S an accurate use of the term far-left, so...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. An effective Dem Governor in a GOP State. Not perfect, but electable
I live in VA, and can tell you that he managed to keep the GOP dominated legislature from gutting the education budget. As a parent, that's very important.

As a progressive Democrat, I'd vote for him again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. Mark "come lately" Warner?
:boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. A plausible scenario. And the man has strong support in Virginia,
not known for its prevalence of blue landslides.

He is a bit staid. I'm spoiled, I admit, by the oratorical skills of Mario Cuomo, JFK and RFK, from a time when speech mattered.

And Christ knows Dubya's English is shitbabble.

I readily acknowledge that Warner is a success and must be taken seriously, and might even win. But he could use a little help on his stump style.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
6. the Polling rReport had him at only 2%
to Hillary's 38% in a poll done April 19-23. Not that it couldn't change, as it's still very early and we don't know who is going to even try to run.

Except for nuclear energy use, his is pretty much a standard Dem platform. It remains to be seen whether a former governor can be elected in a post 9/11 America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
78. Bill Clinton had all of 1% in 1990.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
8. Warmed-over Liebermanism.
:boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. I disagree. Joe's a total tool of AIPAC.
Warner doesn't seem to be in the pocket of anybody in particular.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I like AIPAC. Too bad if you don't.
AIPAC isn't what bothers me about Jagoff Joe. It's his Republicanism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Wow! A pro-Likud anti-Republican.
That must be tough line to follow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Tough? Only on DU. In the real world, it's no sweat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. I thought I'd seen it all.
What is it about AIPAC you like?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. They're pro-Israel and prosemitic. What's not to like?
:beer:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. that's like saying the GOP is pro-American
Edited on Sun Apr-30-06 03:41 PM by leveymg
Depends upon how you define pro-Israel. Depends upon how you define the Israeli national interest, and the American.

We'll leave the pro-semitic stuff on the side, for now.

:beer:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. You need to learn some tolerance.
Those who think like me ain't budgin'. Bucktooth Jimmeh chased us away and now we're back. Too bad, so sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. I'm not calling for anyone to leave. Just surprised you're still here.
The differences just seem so vast at this point. Do you agree with PNAC, too? Kinda hard to separate the two strands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Actually it's quite easy.
PNAC is basically about American Empire. AIPAC is divided on that - their basic thrust is Israel's security.

I'm not entirely the fan I used to be. A strict military approach is not feasible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. My impression as an outside observer is that those who oppose the PNAC
agenda have left AIPAC and work with other groups, such as Ameinu or Tikkun, if progressive, or the more centrist Israel Policy Forum.

Please tell us more about the split within AIPAC. I didn't think there were many progressives left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. My only connection was a $25 a year donation. Which ended about a
decade ago.

But when I see a rant about AIPAC, I check it out for hidden (and not so hidden) meanings. The whole tendency some folks have to drag Israel into a topic is suspect to me.

Kind of like this whole subthread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. So Warner was just speaking to AIPAC a month or so ago....
Edited on Sun Apr-30-06 05:25 PM by FrenchieCat
At last week's American Israel Public Affairs Committee, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner won kudos for his comments, with several insiders suggesting that he is the "Joe Lieberman" in the race‑a moderate Democrat who strongly supports Israel.
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2006/3/18/17548/3412

"Warner has their attention and he was pretty popular," he added. Several likely presidential candidates attended the conference, which focused on Iran and Tehran's threat to Israel, but only a few made a positive impression. One other was Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh. His speech was called "surprisingly loquacious." But the appearances, even the short one, by Sen. John Kerry were panned. "Kerry's so yesterday's news," said one insider.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/archive/january2006.htm

Here's a discussion on Warner's appearance before AIPAC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2523532&mesg_id=2523532





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItsTheMediaStupid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #13
68. Warner has his own money, which I believe he earned
I could be wrong about him earning it.

Having your own money makes you more difficult to buy, unless you're a worthless SOB like Bush, in which case you'd sell your mamma for an extra 2 cents per share.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
37. Oh that's just foolish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
9. no thanks
RE-ELECT GORE
2008
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caledesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
10. dt - good post. Got me interested enough to go here:
http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/

Still reading about him, but sounds interesting.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dtotire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #10
30. Warner
I went to that site, which led me to the site where he gave a speech at Harvard. There was a Q&A session after that. He is very well informed on all issues. I believe he would be the only candidate that defeat McCain, if McCain is nominated by the Republicans. While Hillary, Kerry, and Gore would make good presidents, they are polarizing, and the Repugs would demonize them. If Warner is nominated, at least 2/3 of the independent voters would choose him, and make the Democrats the majority party again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. oops......you forgot to state the reasons WHY
Folks would vote for Warner over McCain, considering that we are currently in a war, and are saber rattling towards another.

I faile to see what Warner "has" that makes him a superior candidate for these times over anyone with Foreign policy experience based on the times that we are currently living in.

Could you expand on your reasons? thanks! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aaaargh Donating Member (203 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
15. Why are we Democrats in the first place, folks?
Here we have people on this forum promoting presidential candidates whose positions on vital issues are simply NO different from the mainstream Republican agenda, and bear NO trace of traditional Democratic Party principles.

We're living in an era in which our government has embarked on a longterm program of imperialist militarism, of which the Iraq occupation is only the first stage; and when the middle-class standard-of-living which Americans have viewed as their birthright for generations now is being decimated by unprecedented 'free trade' policies, propogated under the faked-up concept of the 'inevitability' of 'globalization.' We can't afford, in these times, to compromise on basic principles, if we wish to preserve the way-of-life we and our parents have always known, and the status of the United States as a nation we can be proud to be citizens of.

Anybody who finds Mark Warner and others of his ilk to be attractive presidential prospects should look at the hopefuls on the other side of the aisle. You're certain to find a fine selection of candidates over there whom you'll find quite suitable. Lots of luck, and don't let the door hit you on the ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. well, speaking just for me
I'm a Democrat because I believe in traditional Democratic principles.

That's why I like Mark Warner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jerry611 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. Then we will lose every single election...
You want us to become the far-left minority party?

The political makeup of this nation is 45% Democrat, 45% Republican, and 10% other or independant. Are you telling me that a far-left candidate can win enough votes throughout this country to win?

Look, like I said before, I support liberal causes and ideas; however, you will NEVER get a liberal from the far-left elected president in this country. America is a centrist nation.

The best we are going to get is a center-left candidate. If we put up a big-name lefty...we are going to lose to a righty again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkansas Donating Member (701 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #24
35. I like Warner alot
but it isn't because he is "center left" or any of that. I want a candidate that I agree with on most issues, a candidate that is confident in his beliefs, and also a candidate that can be embraced by enough Americans to win. I don't see it as a center vs. left issue, as a leftist who has certain qualities could definitely do better in a general election than a centrist with baggage. Personal history, speaking skills, looks, voting record... tons of things factor into it, not just center vs. left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #24
66. That's how the Republicans have won all three branches of government....
...by appealing to the mushy moderates.....NOT!

THIS is where America is:
"It doesn't get covered by the corporate media (imagine that), but mainstream polls consistently find that big majorities of Americans are not meek centrists, but overt, tub-thumping, FDR progressives who are seeking far more populist gumption and governmental action than any Democratic congressional leader or presidential contender has dared to imagine. In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

8. Over 65% of all Americans believe that the Invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkansas Donating Member (701 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #15
34. Your logic reminds me of Nader voters in 2000.
And your calls for purging are equally lame. I'm sorry to tell you that the democratic party is big tent, I am surprised you aren't aware of that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkie1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
17. Do you also predict the weather more than two years in advance?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
19. What did Warner have to say about the Genocide in Darfur?
Any "passion" there?

Oh...I see that the Foreign policy issue is a sentence long, and what he has to say about Iraq is what's been said by many already, long, long ago..... :sarcasm:

Never mind, then. Cause I'm sure he'll come out with a statement on Darfur when it's obvious that everyone is talking about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clarkansas Donating Member (701 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
33. I like Warner, Clark and a few others as well but I can tell you that
most people here, especially the Clark supporters, will be all over this thread with hate.

Predicting he will win is ridiculous at this point, but so is counting him out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. DU loves to hate candidates who haven't been knighted...
by the left-wing blogs and MoveOn.org and Democracy for America.

It's a shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #33
62. Wow. Just wow.
....especially the Clark supporters, will be all over this thread with hate.

So if you have "Clark" in your name somehow you can make such statements without experiencing subsequent swarm action, huh? That is an amazing statement you made and the lack of comment on it is equally so.

How very, very sad.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #62
74. Oh double wow. "So if you have Clark in your name"
Edited on Mon May-01-06 11:20 AM by Jim4Wes
Does that matter more than what is posted (nonsense) by a self named Clark supporter Julie?

Really though, don't bother answering. I think it wouls be a waste of both your time and mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #62
77. JNelson6563......You're a "swarm" all by your lonesome.....
Whenever Clark is mentioned, no matter the thread, you appear!

Now, that's amazing!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. Almost
Actually, I don't comment on Clark all that much and often skip threads where he's mentioned. What I do find truly amazing in several respects is the very predictable (bad) behavior of you all en masse. It's amazing that you are so militant, boringly predictable and, most of all, allowed to practice such nonsense at DU.

Since it will go on through at least 08 primaries so I guess it can at least serve as an interesting case study in a somewhat controlled environment. I can poke the hive and know exactly what will be said to me and who those likely respondants are to be. Like clockwork, it happens.

Too funny. :rofl:

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #79
83. I don't know about that.....because IF you were consistent, you'd notice
Kerry Supporters commenting here, and I don't see one singing Warner's praise....and yet you have no comment on their lack of support for Warner. Why is that?

But while on the subject, what do YOU think of Warner?

I thought I'd ask, because it struck me that I don't even know your thoughts on him, although I know your thoughts on Clark supporters...as you never fail to mention those opinions on that earth shattering subject.

What's in that little mind of yours besides your obvious self important distain for those who support a candidate that you obviously don't?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-02-06 05:08 AM
Response to Reply #83
118. A bit early for me
to be slugging it out for the primaries. Warner doesn't interest me much, haven't seen much to impress me yet.

Oh, I am sure there are folks throughout this thread who supported someone other than Clark (cracks me up how you all still identify others by their 04 primary choice). But no supporters of anyone display the cult like behavior you all do.

Please keep the responses coming Frenchie, you help prove my point with each one.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #33
73. I don't hate Warber - I'm just tired of the pro-corporate crowd.
Especially those with no foreign policy experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
38. Mark Warner is a truly effective leader...
and why so many people here don't like him is beyond me.

Is it because he's from the south?

Is it because he was able to attain record high approval ratings in a solid "red state"?

Honestly, I don't know what it is about him that so many of the liberals on this board detest.

He left his state in a far better place, and in far better (democratic) hands, than when he first came into office, and those here who write him off as a "Republican-lite" or a DINO need to get real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #38
81. :: whisper:: Its because they fear him :: whisper ::
He's gobbling up all the press and people who dont support him cant stand it.

Especially the you know who'ies...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #81
88. Have those who don't support Warner for President provided you
with their reasoning as to why "they can't stand him", or not? Do you respect that others have opinions that may differ from yours? Is it possible that every person in this thread who is negatively inclined and who is not, as of yet supporting Mark Warner has provided a reason in their post?

Thus far, I have read many reasons in this thread given as to why certain INDIVIDUALS do not support Warner for President.....none which cites the Corporate Media hoe's support as a reason --

Do you have any constructive comments to negate these various opinions, from various posters who support various candidates.....and if so, what are they?

1. Warner is bland
2. Warner is pro-corporate
3. No thanks, I like Gore better
4. His views are not different from many Republicans
5. He has no Foreign Policy Experience
6. No Thanks, I support John Kerry
7. Warner has no credibility on National Security
8. Warner is charisma challenged
9. His recent Health Care comments don't align with mine. He seems to be for
Privatizing Health care.
10. Hillary would be a better choice, cause that's who he is like.
11. Warner's foreign policy sounds like a cross between Bush and Kerry.
12. Warner has a nasal voice that reminds you of the snotty nose kid....
13. Warner is not a alternative of the Bush Administration, as he does not want
to criticize them on the war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #88
121. Here it goes...
1. Opinion

2. We live in a Capitalist society, and if people want a candidate who is "anti-Corporate" (in opposition to whatever the blanket statement "pro-corporate" means) then maybe those people should be looking outside the Democratic party for their candidates of choice

3. Opinion

4. And many Republican views are similar to those of Democrats, otherwise, no bills would ever make it through congress. You can't have a candidate who does nothing but oppose the other party

5. History would seem to show that lack of so-called "foreign policy experience" weighs little on the minds of voters, as evidenced by the success of past candidates with little or no "foreign policy experience"

6. Opinion

7. Define "credibility"

8. Opinion

9. He hasn't proposed and specific national health care policy as of this time, so what's the point in writing him off so early?

10. Warner = Hillary? That's news to me.

11. First people say he has "no foreign policy experience" and then they bash his national security policy (which he hasn't even proposed yet)

12. Opinion (and a strange one at that)

13. Last I checked, Warner wasn't a big fan of Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #81
92. Warner as the future Secretary of Commerce causes no fear.
Besides, Warner has little presence or press in minority communities and we vote in primaries. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #92
95. We sure in the fuck do! Hear, hear...Pithy Cherub! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #81
106. You're right.
I think they're just jealous that their candidates aren't getting this much press so far out, and most of the coverage of Warner has been positive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #106
108. Which would make a "smart" Democrat , suspicious.....
when the Corporate media is willing to provide Publicity....for no apparent reason...It's not like he saying anything dealing with today's current events or anything.....

Yep....Just like with Hillary, when the Corporate media kisses ass, one has to wonder why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Clark2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #81
126. What press?
I live one state away and never hear about it in my local papers.

:eyes:

:whisper: Clark beats him regularly in both online and media polls :whisper:


So, see, there's no jealousy. I just don't like his pro-corporate views. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
40. Excellent handicapping by the author
Particularly when he mentions Warner and Romney emerging as the frontrunners for the respective nominations. That's where we're headed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackpan1260 Donating Member (361 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
41. I have been impressed with Warner
The fact that he added sexual orientation to the list of employment-discrimination protections scored points with me. He has done a lot for Virginia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Amen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #41
82. Hear, hear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
43. What about the fact he has no foreign policy experience...
Edited on Sun Apr-30-06 09:09 PM by zulchzulu
Granted, that's always something most governors don't have...but you know it will be exploited in the race. This is not meant to be a flame, just a comment.

Support whoever you want in 2008. There will be a few good candidates running and we all have our reasons why we back those possible candidates.

I do have a recording of Warner speaking with Al Franken recently:
www.kerrysupport.com/media/Franken-Mark_Warner.mp3
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. I don't see that as a weakness.
Especially if the other candidates foreign policy experience was gained in the senate.

Most Americans would probably rather have a governor who showed he could get things done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. If you think not having foreign policy experience in 2008 will not be...
...an issue, well then pass that pipe you're smoking. Warner has time (and his own money) to go on a World tour and at least get some photos as well as get schooled on those issues.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. I honestly don't think it makes a bit of difference.
And there's little evidence to prove that foreign policy so-called "experience" wins elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Thats one of the reasons I hope for a Clark and Warner ticket
Clark as good foreign and military credentials, Warner has good domestic credentials.

Every candidate has their weaknesses, and every weakness will be swiftboated. The question is, what will stick? Clark has no elected experience. Warner has no foreign or military experience. Feingold has years of senate votes and two failed marriages that will be distorted and abused by the right. Hillary has tons of baggage. Edwards has his senate record, limited experience, and supposed history of missing votes. Gore and Kerry lost in the eyes of most voters. Alas, there will be no perfect candidate 08.

Personally, I find no correlation between years of politcal experience and success as a president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. ..."lost in the eyes of most voters"
Edited on Sun Apr-30-06 09:35 PM by zulchzulu
Last I checked, Clark lost in 2004.

I was there in Madison when he dropped out and endorsed Kerry. Just 'tellin'.... I like Clark, have met him and respect him greatly...

Frankly, I think Feingold's marriages will not be an issue that most GOP candidates will want to bring up. As for Kerry and Gore, I wouldn't make any assumptions yet...and also, it's too early yet to speculate on who will be the "winner".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Well by that standard, Reagan lost too.
Most of America doesn't pay attention until the nominees have been chosen. Since Clark didn't run in Iowa, he was barely on the radar.

You must give republicans more credit than I do. I would think any party that sinks one of their own (McCain) by spreading rumors that he had an illegitmate child, would certainly bring up the failed marriages of the opposing party's candidate. Even though republicans have done really well going up against northern democrats, and a senator hasn't been elected in several decades, I am very certain they will pull out all the stops on Feingold and any other candidate we offer up.

I have never speculated on the winner. All I have said is that there will be no perfect candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. By that standard, so did Nixon
Edited on Sun Apr-30-06 10:16 PM by zulchzulu
I'm sure you remember that Nixon ran in 1960 and lost.

That's why he could never run again becuase he couldn't possibly win...Nixon lost in 1960 and by some decree, must have never been elected a President...if you run once as President and lose, then you can never run again...

Oh...wait...

:sarcasm:

Others who lost the first time but won later:
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
William H. Harrison
Martin Van Buren
Millard Fillmore
Grover Cleveland




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. What is your problem?
I never said Gore or Kerry can't run. I said that if they were to run, that their previous "losses" would be used against them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. No problem...just pointing out some historical facts
Don't go into flame mode. Please.

Your assumption that Kerry and Gore are to be tossed off because you assess that voters see them as "losers" doesn't jive historically. That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. WRONG.
"Your assumption that Kerry and Gore are to be tossed off because you assess that voters see them as 'losers' doesn't jive historically. That's all."

Please point out where I assumed that. Here is what I remember typing...

"their previous 'losses' would be used against them" and in case you missed it, one more time...

"their previous 'losses' would be used against them."

Could they win a election? Absolutely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #52
103. At least get your facts right when you post them.
See my post a few down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #50
102. Adams, Van Buren, Fillmore, and Cleveland are incorrect.
Adams didn't really run for president those first two elections since everyone knew Washington was going to win. In the first truly open contest in 1796 he won. Van Buren ran first in 1836 and won. Fillmore was never elected as president and the first ticket he ran on he won. Cleveland won his first presidential election, lost the second, and won the third.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #46
56. Just as long as Wes Clark is not used as Mark Warner's Dick Cheney.....
If Warner wants to be the President of the Senate......guess that could be OK.

But I don't want Warner as our CIC.

As an election arrives during some of the most difficult Foreign policy period in this world, I want someone with experience. Why want a candidate who doesn't have any......when if we chose someone who did, the opposition would have a much harder time.

I was just watching Pataki on C-Span, up in New Hampshire...and all he talked about was how we have to win the "War on Terror", etc.....

If we don't think that the Republicans are going to run on this AGAIN.....we will be sadly mistaken. It is their Trump Card still today. Why give them the advantage by starting out of the gate without any experience on our side? How is that "good" strategy on our part?

Do we really want to run a professional "triangular" type candidate who we think could win....if it wasn't for that the gigantic hole in his resume or are we hoping that the strategy that worked in a different era, 1992 is our only hope?

Quite frankly, I'm just not buying that Warner is right for these times. How could one figure that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-30-06 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
54. I will still support Senator Kerry. Kerry actually knows what is going
on in Iraq and has discussed options and withdraw for months now. Senator Kerry actually has inside Washington experience and is just far enough removed from it to be his own man, but use his knowledge to build ra pore and workable compromises.
Kerry does more than just criticize this administration, he offers plans and has a vision for the future. He also believes this current administration, should be held accountable for their actions which led us into this war.

Former Governor Warner has served his state well, but only for four years. It is my understanding that he was elected after an absolutely terrible Republican administration. It was so bad he had no where else to go but up in the eyes of the electorate in VA. He is inexperienced in foreign policy, and does in fact come close to presenting himself as a Republican. That might have worked in VA, but I am not so sure it will play out positively in the 2008 election process.

I think he would make and should be willing to settle for a VP position, if it is presented to him- he is not ready to be President in my opinion. I'll stick with Senator Kerry, the man who is knowledgeable and works hard to stay up to date on many issues, who has presented ideas and plans on the important issues of the day and a man who has proven he is a true leader. This is a man who learns from mistakes and uses them to grow with. I believe him when he says mistakes made in the past won't be repeated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dtotire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #54
71. Kerry
Kerry is a good man, and would make an excellent president. However, the Repugs would demonize him, and he probably would lose against a credible Republican. A voter who didn't care for Bush in the last election commented that Kerry was "another Massachusetts liberal". This is the way he is considered by many voters, although it is unjustified. Clinton had no foreign policy experience either. Bush I said of Clinton that his dog Millie knew more about foreign policy. Clinton went on to have a successful foreign policy. Superior intelligence is what is needed more than experience. I would want Warner to choose Kerry as his running mate, and handle foreign affairs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pithy Cherub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #71
75. Since foreign affairs dominate the current agenda and Warner lacks
Edited on Mon May-01-06 11:24 AM by Pithy Cherub
great knowledge, solid experience, national security leadership and geopolitical savvy in that area he is only at best a pundit! They have no experience either. To turn it over to the VP is the same model that Bush followed. Warner is a one term technocrat with a passport that is counting heavily on corporate types to vote for him. A rather tiny but rich constituency that doesn't vote in large numbers in the primary. Warner has also said privatize healthcare rather than a single payer system and lacks political knowledge by stating unequivocally that we shouldn't focus on how we got into the war in IRAQ. That's a neophyte on display.

Warner's definitely beneath Kerry in the credibility department!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeffR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
55. My dog has a better chance than Warner in '08
And he has tons more charisma, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #55
104. And who do you support?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gloria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 12:59 AM
Response to Original message
57. His comments on healthcare on Franken a couple of weeks ago
absolutely REEKED. Franken seemed to be genuinely taken aback.

The more I see of him, the less I like him. The Franken spot was the last straw. He was pretty poorly prepared in most of his answers and the substance of some of them was simply way too DLC for me at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:08 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. His last name isn't Clark
So he didn't stand a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. If one gives a list of reasons why they don't want a particular
Edited on Mon May-01-06 01:33 AM by FrenchieCat
individual to become the candidate for 2008....why do you feel you have to say something about it....when your reasons given don't even make any sense?

IF you were smart, you'd understand the following--!

1.Most Clark supporters support Clark because of his Foreign policy experience.
2.....meaning that most Clark supporters value Foreign policy experience in a candidate....
3. Mark Warner has none.
4. Therefore, if one connects number 1 thru 3 above, it would not be a far stretch to understand why many Clark supporters are not impressed with Mark Warner.

But my question to you is why do you feel so compelled to have anything to say?.....cause what you post ain't saying much of anything...neither about Mark Warner or about Wes Clark. More like you are attempting to diss Clark supporters, anytime a Clark supporter posts legitimate "REASONS" why they don't necessarily see Mark Warner as viable....as far as they are concerned.

If some Clark supporters don't "like" Mark Warner that much.....So fucking what? What's it to you? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #59
70. The only reason Clark supporters need
is that x Democrats last name isn't Clark. That's why you're always flaming away in x Democrat not named Clark threads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #70
76. Mark Warner hasn't done anything TO me.....nor has he done anything
FOR me.

But, you didn't answer my question...which was....

Why in the Fuck do you care so much about what Clark supporters do and don't do?

Further,
The only reason Bleacher2 needs
is for x Clark supporter not to ass kiss a particular politician who last name isn't Clark. That's why you're always flaming away at x Clark Democrats in threads.

Hypocrite!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #76
93. Boo freakin hoo
It's not that I care what Clark supporters do or don't do. I'm just pointing something out, which BTW, you personally do often.

This thread had nothing to do with Clark, yet jackers such as yourself did what you do best.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. You mentioned Clark, not the Clark supporter....
Edited on Mon May-01-06 03:15 PM by FrenchieCat
here's what happened.

Known Clark supporter said this (no mention of Clark's name)

Gloria (1000+ posts) Sun Apr-30-06 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
57. His comments on healthcare on Franken a couple of weeks ago
absolutely REEKED. Franken seemed to be genuinely taken aback.

The more I see of him, the less I like him. The Franken spot was the last straw. He was pretty poorly prepared in most of his answers and the substance of some of them was simply way too DLC for me at this point.


and then you posted this

Bleachers7 (1000+ posts) Sun Apr-30-06 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. His last name isn't Clark
So he didn't stand a chance.


So in essence, you are full of shit, Mr. Hipocritical "HIJACKER"! :rofl:

(not to mention that Gloria, who writes for Buzzflash, has her own opinions....notwithstanding her support for Clark)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #94
97. She is a noted Clark supporter
as are you. It's a Clark supporter habit of bashing and trashing any candidate who's last name isn't Clark. Just look up thread to see proof. Start with yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #97
98. If you are gonna start with anyone, maybe you should start with
Yourself.

Gloria started a thread not long ago, about hearing Mark Warner on Al Franken. As a respected writer, I hope she has that right...right? Wes Clark was not part of her OP.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2578769

AND LO AND BEHOLD, WHO COMES INTO THE THREAD?
Well, well, well.....if it isn't Hypocritical "HIJACKER" bleacher7, with the same ol' same ol'


Bleachers7 (1000+ posts) Wed Apr-19-06 11:53 PM
Response to Original message
51. Of course not. His last name isn't Clark.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2578769&mesg_id=2579425



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. Thanks
That's exactly what I was talking about. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. You can only confuse some of the people, some of the time.....
Mr. HIJACKER!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. Pot meet kettle
Mrs. Jacker :loveya:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #70
105. That's not fair
And is quite the broad brush statement. All the possible candidates have a few supporters who might be like that, but they are a minority.

I want Kerry, but I could live with Clark, Feingold and some others.

I suspect that those Clark supporters who fit the description being given here have been long since banned. You just can't spew hate for that long here if you are being uncivil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 02:10 AM
Response to Original message
60. If by "Mark Warner", he means "Al Gore", I agree 100%! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-02-06 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #60
110. Gore is running hard right now as a populist and he's comfortable.
He's also erudite, as in the January 16, 2006 speech in DC.

Warner could run as Gore's #2. Win VA automatically, period, no contest,probably Missouri, Tennessee, and Kentucky for sure. Warner would play well in CA and the NW. He just needs to shake the conservative Southerner image, for which he bears partial responsiblity. Nevertheless, he's a closet liberal and big admirer of FDR.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-02-06 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #110
114. I like a Gore-Feingold ticket, myself.
Edited on Tue May-02-06 01:36 AM by impeachdubya
I'm not too thrilled with Warner's comments vis a vis Iraq, and I'm quite curious as to where he stands on social issues (if he's not clearly and unreservedly pro-choice, he'll have problems in CA).

That said, there's plenty of time for me to find out more about the guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 04:16 AM
Response to Original message
61. Blech, worse than Clinton
I appreciate your commentary as it clarifies what I figured about Mark Warner. No thank you. Hillary would be a better choice than him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
64. Warner's delusional, apparently.
Where does he propose to find these imaginary "new allies" that are going to send troops and money to Iraq? What inducements could he possibly offer them that would outweigh the domestic political fallout? And frankly, proposing new reliance on nuclear energy is absurd, unless/until somebody figures out what to do with the waste besides burying it in Nevada. Warner sounds like a cross between Kerry (new allies) and Bush (nuclear energy)--the worst of all possible worlds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
65. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
67. .
"I went for three reasons. First, because I, like most Americans, am looking for an alternative to the current administration, but one that isn't positioned primarily as a critic of said administration—that's too easy"

Apparently not too easy. We haven't seen a president quite like this to the point where the administration boldly goes against the law. Yet, many don't want to criticize the war, bring the neocon movement out into the open, or seem too determined to slow any new confrontations on flimsy grounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
69. I'd support Warner
when I have a snowball fight in hell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
80. Great read! Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
84. Leftie Dem from VA here: Great Governor, Closet Liberal, Boldness Needed
Edited on Mon May-01-06 01:15 PM by autorank
Warner was an excellent governor. He inherited a $3.0 billion deficit, illegal in this state, and
handled it well. He was progressive on health (started his own foundation for poor kids & enacted
legislation as Gov.); environment; and social issues. He had a "know nothing" Republican faction to
deal with but leveraged power in a way that he got what he needed. He had an anti gay rights bill
dropped on his desk and, without any hesitation, vetoed the sucker. It was over ridden but he was
unapologetic on his veto. He's a brilliant manager. VA is wired top to bottom, has a nano technology
initiative that is quite something, and is the best managed state in the Union.

Now, here's the problem. What you heard is great but he needs to stake out a unique position and stop
letting himself get labeled as the moderate-right candidate. I worked for his successor and had a wee
bit of access. Wrote him a very nice letter and said 'pardon the 200k ex felons in VA who are denied
their right vote despite paying their debt.' He'd been good on moving requests through the system but
the denial of the vote is B.S. Got a letter back from Kaine saying "blablabla." If he'd done that it
would have confounded the label of Southern Moderate (he's neither, from OH, loves FDR).

He's got to think outside of the box if he wants the big prize. Even if he doesn't, he'd be one heck of
a VP candidate with Gore. And a great governing partner.

btw, The guy is clean in his past business dealings, his governance, and he is a decent person from what I hear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #84
85. In Virginia of all places...
"He had an anti gay rights bill dropped on his desk and, without any hesitation, vetoed the sucker."

If that doesnt show a spine, what does?

Great post, by the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #85
90. He's decisive and moves quickly as needed. In VA it's always a
battle to hold of the barbarians, the Paterson/Falwell chosen Republican ticket. I'm about 60% on Kaine but I worked my ass off for him because he was our guy fighting the forces of ignorance.

Nothing could be further form our heritage (colonial) than a theocracy.

Now, I do hope for the day when my Democratic Party here adopts the rhetoric of those great
rabble rouser's Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and captures the spirit of Bacons Rebellion.

Cheers and watch Webb for Senate...a great candidate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickshepDEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. By the way, he's from IN, grew up in CT, and has resided in VA
since college.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #86
91. Thank sk knew it was one of those MW states...IN is even better.
Edited on Mon May-01-06 01:42 PM by autorank
He resided and was a Virginian from Northern Virginia, which I should have mentioned.

No.VA is like Silicon Valley with a degree of restraint and discretion;).

We went 60-40% for Kaine and the entire Dem ticket in 2005 (up from a slight Kerry victory in 2004).

The percentages will hold and get higher (many areas, most affluent) were 65%-70% Democratic.

VA below Fairfax County is about evenly split. To be as popular as Warner is (70% approval)is quite a feat. He only had a 53% margin (which is good) when he won.

He needs to start swinging for the fence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dtotire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
87. Warner's Web Site
Here he gives his record, and his accomplishments as Governor.

http://www.forwardtogetherpac.com/pages/innercircle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddy Waters Guitar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
89. Mark Warner is not a conservative Democrat!
What kind of dumb label is this? While governor of Virginia, Warner passed some crucial tax increases to get rid of the state's overwhelming deficit left from the GOP idiots who preceded him, and he also managed to get passed the most sweeping environmental legislation that's been seen in many years in a particular state.

I like Warner's responses here-- he's cool and reasoned. He basically sounds liberal and opposes the madness of the Iraq War, but he actually thinks things through. Furthermore, Warner can actually win for us in 2008. If he could pass tax increases and such environmental legislation in firmly Red State Virginia, all this while remaining wildly popular there, he has a winning flair to him. I still like other possibilities like Wes Clark, Barbara Boxer, Brian Schweitzer and Al Gore, but Warner is quite high on my list as well. He's earned our respect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-02-06 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #89
113. He doesn't support Medicare for all
Edited on Tue May-02-06 01:28 AM by iconoclastNYC
He's a DLC impersonation of a Democrat. A Democrat only a Republican could love. He's a corporate sellout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #113
129. Do you a link to where Warner said he "doesn't support Medicare"?
You got 'em?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beachmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
96. Mark Warner was a great governor of my state
I like him a lot. He's on my list of potential presidential candidates, although not at the top. I don't see any need to criticize him here, other than his lack of FP experience. I'm going against the CW -- I want a senator for prez; one with lots of FP cred, and less of a learning curve. That may put me in the minority, but these are not ordinary times, and it calls for chucking the D.C. wisdom and going for the best. JMO.
Mark Warner is good, but he's not the best. But I'll keep him in mind in case my candidate doesn't run, and I certainly would consider him top tier for V.P.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-01-06 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
107. I Actually Like Warner a Lot
One reason I like him is that he's managed to pose as a "conservative Democrat" with respect to the media and middle America, when he's really not all that conservative.

Branding matters. Image matters. What the middle sees matters. And if we ever get smart enough to figure that out in the primaries, maybe we'll do better in the elections.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-02-06 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #107
111. About time we tried that approach
Edited on Tue May-02-06 12:30 AM by Awsi Dooger
Posing as a conservative Democrat. The GOP does that all the time in the general election, head faking moderate.

Just imagine a general election in which the middle roaders didn't consider our nominee more liberal than they are.

On a sports website I post on, in the political forum the moderates and even some rightwingers have high opinions of Warner. They despise and make fun of Gore, Kerry and Hillary. Deny or ignore at our our peril.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-02-06 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #111
116. I'm selling out no longer
Warner is no liberal, that's for sure. Liberal is a GOOD thing people! It's play for keeps time now - no more games, no more political bullshit. If we are going to save this country, and this planet, it needs to happen NOW. That means Gore, Kucinich, Boxer, or Conyers in my opinion. I mean GOD DAMNIT - if we have to put up with GEORGE W. BUSH for EIGHT YEARS then they can live with Gore (who won in 2000 anyways!). I could care less who says what mean comment about Gore, Kerry, or Hillary, I will NOT be bullied by conservative assholes and I will NOT choose my candidate based on who the EVIL SCUMBAG REPUBLICANS will accept. I will vote my conscience and if that means going Green Party due to Dems choosing someone like Warner, so be it. I GUARANTEE you we have enough liberal Dems who feel the same way - If the Democratic party thinks they can win without us, they are sorely mistaken. I've put up with a lot of political bullshit over the years from both parties, but that time is over. O. V. E. R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoveTurnedHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-02-06 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #116
120. Wishful Thinking
I love Howard Dean, but the "energize the base" theory did not work for him. And that was in a PRIMARY, not even a general.

Again, Warner is just not that conservative. But because he's a Southern Dem, people assume he is. It's the same thing Wes Clark had going for him as a former General, people just automatically put him in the "military" box which (like the "Southern" box) skews more conservative. Even though neither Warner nor Clark are conservative.

DTH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #116
130. Name one "liberal" who RAN as a liberal & then won the Pres. election
Edited on Wed May-03-06 05:14 PM by brentspeak
You have as much time as want to answer that question...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-02-06 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
109. Screw that - Gore won in 2000, he'll win again in 2008
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-02-06 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
112. Meet Mark Warner : Corporate Puppet
Mark Warner will not have a real campaign outside of millionaire corporate fat cat Dems and his DLC courtiers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight armadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-02-06 02:48 AM
Response to Original message
115. I'll pass
The simgle most pressing issue is global climae change. This statement:

Energy
We need to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. For practical reasons, given the level of energy demand that exists in the U.S. today, that means that we need to put nuclear energy back on the table. (I've always been a fan of nuclear energy, to the chagrin of my fellow Natural Resource Studies classmates at UMass Amherst in the 1980s.)


doesn't even begin to address the scale of our energy and environmental problems. The ONLY national figure who really grasps this is Al Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Walt Disney Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-02-06 04:46 AM
Response to Original message
117. I agree, he will beat McCain in a close election.
Clinton will not run.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muddy Waters Guitar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-02-06 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
119. Another reason to support Warner-- he'll split the GOP
I actually have a number of Republican friends (strange, but you don't pick your co-workers), and you'd be amazed at the amount of frustration and disaffection gripping the Rethugs these days. They're desperate for an alternative to the current GOP frontrunners. They can't stand McCain, would never support Rice, distrust and generally don't feel much of an inclination toward Allen, Huckabee or Brownback.

There's a common refrain I've been hearing among them. There is one, and only one condition in which they would put aside their frustration and vote for a nominee like McCain on the GOP ticket: A Hillary Clinton nomination by us. That's pretty much the one factor unifying the otherwise fractious and frustrated Republicans in 2008, opposition to Hillary. Only then would they continue to contribute to the party and come out to vote for the GOP nominee.

In contrast, they've told me with surprising almost-unanimity, that they would probably vote for a Democratic nominee in 2008 that didn't so utterly irritate them as much as the Clintons and who seemed to have the qualities of a uniter. By far, the dominant name mentioned among the group was Mark Warner. These are hard-core Republicans in some cases, people who haven't voted for a Democrat in decades, and they'd vote for Mark Warner.

Dtotire, don't worry about the current polls at this point, they're little more than name recognition contests. Remember, Kerry wasn't anywhere near the front of the group in 2004 (Lieberman had the big edge then), but it was Kerry who got the nomination. Bill Clinton in 1992 was similar, also Carter in 1976.

People are hearing Warner's name more and more, and he's attracting increasing support. He would be a great candidate and a great leader, a smart person in an important office. He has the strategy, the smarts and the support to pull off a big victory for us. He's possibly our strongest nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #119
125. There is more than one way to split the Republican vote
Picking Republican light as our nominee will also split our base.

We need to pick a Maverick candidate along the lines of what Dean was in 2004...someone who doesn't speak the language of DC politicians but rather the language of the common man. This person needs to talk about issues that matter to independant and moderate Republicans and run as an outsider.

Warner is a DLC insider. He's no maverick. And he's a puppet of the corporate class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
122. Hey "Dan"....
get paid much???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
124. Howard Fineman article from June 2005....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8062256/

<snip>

He's got a base
It's not quite the same thing as money. The late Lee Atwater, as cunning a political operative as there ever was, once told me that "politics is a base game." What he meant was, in the chaos of public life you need a reliable group of supporters who understand who you are and where you are coming from and who will remain loyal to you no matter what happens.

For many politicians, that base is geographical, but it's often something other than that.

For Ronald Reagan it was the conservative moment. For George W. Bush, it was his mother's Christmas Card list and the National Governors Association. For Warner, it's the high-tech investment community nationwide. He knows the players in Silicon Valley and Seattle and New York City -- and, more important, they know him. That matters.

<snip>

I'm part of his "base" :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
infogirl Donating Member (184 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
127. Liberal is somewhere between...
Bu*h and Castr*

liberal is not far left...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
128. "Democrats" who don't like Mark Warner are more likely a) Republicans
who are afraid enough of Warner winning in 2008 that they'll pose as "liberal" Democrats and try to convince the innocent reader that "Warner's a corporate tool".

or, b) Green party types

or, c) Not very smart.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
131. Help me, I have a Warner stuck in my throat
Lodged right next to Hillary. I wish folks would stop trying to shove these people down our throats. It's one thing to tell me when so and so has made a speech or DONE something, quite another to just cheerlead out of the blue like this.

Could we at least wait til after the 2006 midterms?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Left Below Donating Member (171 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #131
132. NEWSFLASH! There is no "liberal" Dem who can win a single
Edited on Wed May-03-06 06:40 PM by Left Below
fucking Red State! Not Kucinich (who would lose Ohio, not Feingold (who I LOVE) and CERTAINLY NOT Hillary Clinton (if she is a liberal).

Warner is electable - and the alternative is that fundie dumbass Bush clone - George Allen.


So go ahead and put another Dukakis/Mondale type in there. The whole world knew that Bush was a complete idiot in 04 and he still won!

So unless a Southerner steps up Allen is President in 08. (I LIKE EDWARDS!!!!!!!!! or Warner).


LOSERS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-03-06 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #132
133. That's nice. Get back to me after 2006 midterms, won't you?
Until then, I've got a Sensenbrenner to oust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC