I’ve checked quite a few resources on the Internet, but I can’t seem to find any dirt on former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, other than references to a few who think he is a bit too inexperienced to be President. He left office in January with one of the highest popularity ratings ever for an outgoing governor (75%) and turned Virginia’s massive deficits into a huge surplus.
Does anyone see anything wrong with this guy? He doesn’t really take a stance on any hot-button issues, but that’s pretty typical of all Democrats. I’ve been registered as an independent since I was 18, but I’m seriously considering re-registering as a Democrat for this election just so I can vote for him in the primaries.
How would he measure up to, say John Edwards or Hillary?
My brother, a moderate liberal in Virginia, likes him in a run for President as he thinks he has the best chance with the masses of social conservatives out there than any other non-blatantly-conservative Democrat. From what I hear about him I’m inclined to agree, or at least he would do much much better than Hillary. Heck, even though he seems a bit too socially conservative for my tastes, as does Hillary, I’d consider voting for him.
I am not a Warner expert by any means. My inexpert opinion is that his campaign is likely to imitate the meteoric performance of Wesley Clark in the Fall of 2003. Arrive out of nowhere, go immediately to number one in the polls because he superficially appears to have exactly the resume that Democrats want, then sink out of sight once people realize that he doesn’t have clear stances on the major issues.
I’ve been saying for a while that he seems like an appealing candidate. He’s probably too conservative for me to vote for him in a primary, but I’d be happy if he ran. The more decent candidates, the better.
If you’re interested, try to get a copy of the New York Times Sunday Magazine from March 12, 2006. He was the cover story.
It painted him as a good guy, a bit inexperienced, a bit uncomfortable, and a dark horse that might not have a chance because the Dems may have already annointed Clinton. He is also painted as potentially too nonpartisan to win Democratic support, tending toward compromise.
But, it makes a case that he might be able to challenge her just because he has a lot of wealthy friends in the business world, and may be able to keep up with her campaign finances.
This is the passage that got me considering him:
“When I asked Warner to name the issues that would be most important to him, the four domestic issues he ticked off, before he got to terrorism and national security, were fairly standard for a Democratic candidate in the era after Bill Clinton: slashing the federal deficit, improving schools, working with business to reform the health-care system and devising a new energy strategy. What makes Warner, the former entrepreneur, sound more credible than your average Democrat is that he comes at these issues primarily from an economic, rather than a social, standpoint. On health care, for instance, most Washington Democrats will, as a matter of both habit and perspective, talk about the moral imperative of covering workers and the uninsured – and only then might they add, as an afterthought, that the current morass is an impediment to business too. Warner, on the other hand, begins with the idea that if American businesses can’t keep up with spiraling health-care costs, the nation will lose the competition with India and China for jobs. The same principle applies with education and the deficit. His fixation on the global economy brings a coherent framework to issues that otherwise seem disparate and abstract.”
Really? He seems incredibly bland, albeit slightly less bland and less creepy than Virginia Senator (and Gov. prior to Mark Warner) George Allen. That guy has a permanent mannequin smile tattooed on his face.
Talk about creepy. Here’s a link to the front cover picture that they used for the front of the NY Times magazine article I mentioned. I can’t believe that no one on his campaign saw any problems with this. He looks like a 1950s gym teacher.
Haha. I didn’t mean that he’s handsome or telegenic. I meant that he obviously has some governing skills and can appeal to people outside of the standard ‘base.’
I know, I know, Democrats won’t win by being Republicans. I do think that’s true. But it’s apparent they won’t win by being Kerry and Gore either, and Warner brings credibility on an issue that they could really score points on in 2008: fiscal responsibility.
But wasn’t that one of the significant factors of the 1996, 2000, and 2004 elections? Bob Dole was old, rigid, and not nearly the charasmatic and persuasive public speaker that Bill Clinton was.
In the 2000 debates, GW Bush seemed to consistently surprise media commentators on his performance based on early speculation that Al Gore would mop the floor with him. Instead, Al Gore’s fairly dry and somewhat monotone voice further solidified his status as an “egghead” to George Bush’s “common man.”
Despite Bush’s verbal gaffes in the 2004 election and debates, the match-up seemed very much like a repeat of the 2000 election - Bush versus a stiff, unemotional “egghead.”
If the Democrats want to have a fighting chance to take the presidency in 2008, particularly in McCain or Giuliani will head the Republican ticket, then they need to nominate a very good public speaker who has charisma and not just paper credentials. Hillary looks good on paper and is certainly well-known, but she doesn’t very much charisma.
From what I’ve read (I hardly have an indepth knowledge of the man) he would be a solid candidate who would have wide spread appeal, especially from the undecided and moderate voters. So he has zero chance of being nominated by the Democrats…why worry about him??
Seriously, he’s exactly the kind of candidate the Dems SHOULD be looking at (at least from what little I know of him), but he’s also the kind that doesn’t stand much of a chance of getting through their nomination process because (afaik) his views on several key issues run contrary to the more left leaning factions of the Democrat party…thus rendering his chances of securing the nomination about that of a snow ball in hell.
Particularly at this stage, more than two years away from the election, I think it’s a bad idea to worry about those matters. I’d only guess at how significant those issues were for Dole (as well as Gore and Kerry). From what I gather from Republicans, Dole only behaved that way during the campaign. He’s not dull during his TV appearances these days.
I’m not often accused of having too much faith in people, but really, I think the Democrats concentrate on running quality candidates with ideas. If they don’t do that, nobody will give a crap what they look like. When I hear people complain about the Democrats these days, they’re saying that they aren’t offering any alternatives - not that they’re boring and ugly. Okay, maybe a President is different. But how much was Kerry helped by handsome, telegenic John Edwards? People said he was an inexperienced empty suit. Dullards can work on their delivery and presentation.
To tell you the truth, Bush can be charismastic, but he’s not superhuman in that regard. Neither he nor Cheney are handsome and neither is much good on the stump.
That’s no shit. I saw that out of the corner of my eye on the airplane last Mondey and thought that someone either had a really old magazine that they were reading, or that someone famous in the 60’s had passed away. Well, perhaps that photo and that look will have an appeal for conservatives.
The next race is going to be close, no question about it. MOST of the red states are solidly red and most of the blue states are solidly blue.
So, the winner will be the person who can swing a handful of purple states. I probably wouldn’t vote for Mark Warner, but he’d certainly give the Democrats a better chance of swinging a few key states (including Virginia, of course) than most other contenders.
Warner is charismatic and handsome (ignore that awful picture). He’s an awesome public speaker, and capable of improving on the spot in order to make people feel more special. His grasp of economics is amazing. He was also one of the reasons that Governor Kaine (VA’s current governor) got into office- those of us campaigning for him made sure to stress that he and Warner had worked together and that Kaine would continue with what Warner had been doing.
I love him.
