He basically did pass the beer test to win Virginia. He got unprecedented support from rural areas and that was BEFORE he was so popular.
Warner’s real challenge is the primary. The nutty left is not going to make him “their guy.” He’s not all that interested in being the “anti-Bush” they are so dreadfully obsessed with having. His real chance is if he can position himself as the central Anti-hillary candidate.
Allen is the obvious front-runner now. He’ll run on the fact that his daddy owned a football team. Did I mention that his father owned a football team? He’s the guy that beat up your kids in high school, and has asshole written all over him: so he’s perfect for the Republican nomination. God help our country.
Uh, what evidence is there Allen was the type of kid that beat up other kids in High School? Are you just going to boldly trot out the stereotype that athletics is something only stupid, mean-spirited bullies engage in?
As far as qualifications outside of having a father who was a coach (not team owner) in the NFL he has been a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Governor of Virginia, and a U.S. Senator.
Yea, but who in the Dem field wasn’t charcterized as a severe-leftist (and for that matter, what Repub wouldn’t have been characterized as a severe-rightist)? Kerry immedietly got the same label upon becoming the presumptive nominee. In the beginning of Dean’s run, he was actally seen as a moderate choice (correctly, I think) due to his history as governor. Any Dem candidate that runs, including moderates like Warner, will have to deal with that label.
True, though with a sample size of 2 (I’m not counting Johnson since he could’ve been from Soviet Russia and still got elected due to being Kennedy’s vice) I’d be a little wary of making generalizations of what makes an electable Dem.
Don’t know where your going with the football thing (did he beat you up in HS?) but I do like the fact that Virginia’s one-term limit on governorship means there’s apparently an excess of successful one-term Virginia ex governors all eyeing the presidency.
The following Dem candidates would probably easily avoid the leftist label:
-Gore, -Lieberman, -John Edwards, -Harry Reid
Clinton was never really hit by the “liberal” label. Yeah, he was called too liberal by some on the right, but what matters isn’t what the far righters say, but what the public actually buys in to.
3rd. Any articulate Republican/Rice
On the Dem side, I’ve always liked Richardson but was dissapointed when he got involved in the Lewinsky job hunt and can’t believe he could be confused about getting drafted by a major league baseball team.
Before his run for Governor, I had never even heard of Mark Warner. Luckily for him, Jim Gilmore had just spent four years trying to bankrupt Virginia. Warner ran his campaign as the saavy businessman who could get VA out of the red ink.
Which he did.
But to go from a one-term Governor to the White House will be difficult. The Rebublicans would hammer him to death on experience. They would also try to use his recent death-row reprieve against him. ( However, if you saw the blitz of Kilgore’s similar attacks on Gov-elect Kaine, that strategy backfired )
Maybe, but Bush only served one and a half terms as governor, and a sizable chunk of that second half-term was presumably spent campaigning for prez. I imagine that Warner could use this fact to mute at least some of the Repub critisizm of his experience.
Could you outline, please, why you think she is electable? While she does have many loyal devotees, it has been my experience that a great number of people despise her, and she has a lengthy history of being thought of as a far-leftist.
I can’t see her getting a single swing or crossover vote, and those are really the key to winning presidential elections.
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp040715b.shtml
In 1961, President John F. Kennedy accepted full responsibility for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. It did not matter that the planning for the Bay of Pigs had started in the Eisenhower administration. It did not matter that the intelligence failures directly led to the foreign policy disaster that was the Bay of Pigs. President Kennedy stood before the Nation and the world and accepted personal responsibility.
At one news conference not long afterward, President Kennedy used his legendary wit and intelligence to sum it up. “There is an old saying,” Kennedy said, “that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan.”
http://www.house.gov/mcdermott/sp040709a.shtml
President Kennedy accepted responsibility. He had the CIA telling him things. He listened to them and he allowed it to happen, and he said “The buck stops at my desk. I made the decision. I was wrong.”
http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=132
Reagan, you’ll recall, eventually took responsibility – sort of – for Iran-Contra, borrowing a phrase from the Navy and saying that he accepted the blame because it happened on his watch.
http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/4346.html
In October 1983, terrorists in Lebanon drove a truckload of explosives into a building housing American marines, killing 241. That December, a Defense Department commission prepared to release a report castigating officers in the chain of command for failing to safeguard their troops.
A copy was sent to President Reagan before its release. He read through it, David R. Gergen, then an aide, recalled, and with little discussion headed for the press room. “If there is to be blame,” Mr. Reagan said before the assembled corps, “it properly rests here in this office and with this president. And I accept responsibility for the bad as well as the good.”
The commanders, Mr. Reagan said, should not be punished “for not fully comprehending the nature of today’s terrorist threat.”
Like Harry Truman is reported to have said. The Buck Stops Here. Admitting a mistake shows honesty and integrity. Covering it up and smearing others, or wrapping it in secrecy and the flag is dishonesty and cowardice. The presidency is an office of immense responsibility. Anyone aspiring to the office should be someone who knows what the words Respnisibilty and Accountability mean. If they don’t then they should never ever get the job. They don’t deserve it.
I agree completely with your analysis. But those are cold and isolated analytics. Into play as the campaign commences will come the more irrational factors, not the least of which is her unmatched skill at manipulation and ruthlessness. People do despise her, but when she is finished with her opponent, they will despise him more.
But she is not a far-leftist. (I wish!) And it has always been utterly ridiculous to think of her as a far-leftist or even a moderate leftist. And it is entirely possible that more and more people will realize that as 2008 approaches. Certainly she has been working hard to dispel the myth: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050606/sargent
I know it was written as a joke, but I have to nod my head in silent agreement every time I read the line, “Anyone capable getting themselves elected president should not be allowed to do the job.” (Paraphrased.)
What she is and how people think of her aren’t necessarily the same thing, and the latter is a lot more powerful than the former, at least in election run-ups.
:rolleyes: I moved to the southwest from the south about 3 years ago and I have to put up with this kind of shit every time someone asks me where I’m from or I inadvertently let slip the slightest tinge of my accent. I can only hope you were joking.
I have never heard Clinton’s fiercest critics even try associate either of those words with her, ever. Do you have any specific examples in mind?