Mark Warner (text of Fortune magazine article)

[moggie12]

In case anybody's interested, Fortune magazine had an interesting article about Mark Warner in their most recent issue. (Yes, I said Fortune magazine. Don't discount the source -- strangely enough, in the last paragraph they a swipe at Bush's SS plan).

takehttp://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,1012855,00.html


Edited to paste article (link didn't provide whole article)

The Great Dem Hope?
By 2008 the pragmatism of, say, Virginia’s Mark Warner may be just what the nation is looking for.
By Matt Miller


Sitting across from Mark Warner on tiny cafeteria stools at the Samuel Tucker Elementary School in Alexandria, I pop the question that everyone has been asking the Virginia governor since, oh, about 3 p.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 3: Do you want to be President? The desired qualifications listed on the Democrats' latest want ad aren't hard to divine: Given what happened on Election Day, maybe next time the party needs a (1) Southern (2) governor with (3) a record of business success—the kind of guy who (4) won by seven percentage points in Southern counties where George Bush beat John Kerry by 17.

Warner, a trim, young-looking 50-year-old who still plays basketball with buddies a few times a month, demurs, saying he wants to be "the best governor I can be" in his last year in office. It's the right answer, of course; the question is premature. Still, I'm spending the morning with Warner to get a sense of how the suit might fit.

Warner has an impressive story. The first in his family to graduate from college (George Washington University, Harvard Law), Warner co-founded the venture capital firm Columbia Capital and was an early investor in Nextel. After he amassed a fortune now worth $180 million, the political bug returned (Warner worked briefly for the DNC after law school). He lost a Senate race in 1996 to John Warner (no relation) before winning the governorship in 2001.

Having walked right into a post-bubble budget hangover—Virginia, as did most states, spent a good part of the 1990s enacting unsustainable tax cuts and spending increases—Warner spent two years slashing budgets and state jobs. But when he introduced the state's first six-year budget forecast, the "outyears" still showed red ink. The problem had become structural. Unlike many pols, however, Warner didn't paper it over.

Instead, he became the "PowerPoint governor," crisscrossing the state with his laptop slide show on the commonwealth's woes and his plan to fix them—a plan that included hefty tax hikes, even as it boosted investment in areas like education. When the dust cleared, Warner had joined forces with the Republican-controlled legislature to pass long-term reforms that landed him and his chief GOP partner on the cover of Governing magazine as "public officials of the year." His 49 peers around the country picked him to head the National Governor's Association. Today Warner's approval ratings—and remember, this is after a tax hike in a conservative state—hover in the low 60s.

Warner seems to get most energized when he talks about education and improving the way government actually runs. "We put the least experienced and most underperforming teachers in the worst schools," Warner says, explaining his efforts to buck this trend. He's lifted efficiency and effectiveness in areas from procurement to real estate management; consolidated dozens of government data-processing centers under one roof; and set up educational SWAT teams that help schools drive more dollars into classrooms. Warner also has some advice for his party.

"There was never any break with Democratic orthodoxy," says Warner of the Kerry campaign. "Whether we like it or not, in maybe two-thirds of America you've almost got to show you're not a 'national Democrat.'" Bill Clinton did that, he says. Warner did it in his own campaign—by stumping at NASCAR races and bluegrass concerts, and by courting rural voters and gun owners without liberal condescension. It may not be fair, Warner says, but Democrats must convince Southern voters they're not Ted Kennedy before folks are "even willing to listen to the rest of it."

When voters do get to "the rest of it," Warner's bona fides as a self-made entrepreneur are an asset. When unassailable capitalists like Bob Rubin or Jon Corzine or Mark Warner talk about how government can help poor kids get ahead or cover the uninsured, Republicans can't credibly cast them as Marxists.

Still, they can cast Warner as a tax-hiker. That, and the governor's low-key persona, may be his biggest challenges as he mulls a bigger stage. While Warner's earnestness and smarts are appealing, you don't get the "this guy's gonna be President" vibe Bill Clinton had.

But by 2008 voters may have a different steak-to-sizzle ratio in mind—especially when it comes to the grownup conversation the country needs on how to square the cost of the baby-boomers' retirement with other priorities. To date the dishonesty has been breathtaking, exemplified by White House talk of using trillions in fresh, off-the-books debt to fund Social Security reform. If these charades continue, a pragmatic governor who's shown he can work across the aisle and lead citizens in an honest discussion about the choices we face may be just what the nation is looking for.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Miller (www.mattmilleronline.com) is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and the author of The Two Percent Solution: Fixing America's Problems in Ways Liberals and Conservatives Can Love.

From the Jan. 10, 2005 Issue

[Machiavelli05]

1. watch out

Many people on this board dont like the following in a Democrat:
1.) DLC
2.) Southern
3.) Connections to big buisness
4.) Anything but vehemently outspoken on abortion issues
5.) Anything that isnt completely to the left of Karl Marx


Those that DONT dislike all of the above all think Warner would, at all initial analysis, be a great nominee!

[iamjoy]

2. He's Been On My Mind

Southern governor.
In the past forty years, that is the only kind of Democrat that has been able to make it to the Oval Office as President.

Of course, he has to get re-elected this year first.

But, I couldn't read the article because I didn't want to subscribe to Fortune & Bugmenot didn't work.

[NewJeffCT]

3. I thought VA term limits only allowed him 1 term?

So, he might go into the Senate next...

[Emboldened Chimp]

17. He'll probably pull a Dean and start campaigning after his term...

He'll be able to build a head of steam that will carry him into the primaries. And unlike Dean, the party heavies will be more receptive to his candidacy, which will help put him in the minds of the general public early and more positively.

[Pirate Smile]

4. His term is over in 2006 and he is term limited so he can't run again.

[Prodemsouth]

5. No. VA Governor is a one term job. he is term limited.

I just want to win and someone halfway normal. But most people here would rather have a moderate Republican who is more conservative than a DLC Democrat--Look at how they bash Lieberman (who has much higher progressive ratings than any moderate Republican) and go gaga over Snowe, Collins and Chafee.

[cosmicdot]

10. a Virginia governor can run again after sitting out 4 years

a governor cannot seek a second 'consecutive' term

Mills Godwin is the only person I recall who has ever done that ... first as a Harry Byrd machine "Democrat"; then, as a Republican.

[Pirate Smile]

6. Does anybody subscribe to this magazine?

We need somebody to copy and paste some of the good parts over here.

I don't think most people know much about Mark Warner. I don't but I want to know more.

[moggie12]

11. Full text of Warner article now on the post n/t

[Pirate Smile]

12. Thank you.

:hi:

[iwantmycountryback]

7. I think Warner would be a good choice

He's been very successful and is popular in a Southern state. He may not be as liberal as I like but he doesn't strike me as Republican-lite like Evan Bayh. I'd prefer Feingold among others in front on him, but he wouldn't be a bad choice.

[Prodemsouth]

9. I prefer that it be flipped - Senators have not had a good record winning

lately even though I do believe that Gore did win, still not sure about Kerry. Warner- Feingold.

[iamjoy]

15. I Doubt Feingold Would

go as some one's running mate. He strikes me as far too principled.

[Prodemsouth]

8. Like to hear from VA DU'ers. Do you see any tutu tendencies in Warner?

that is my biggest concern- don't care that he may be a bit more conservative than me- just that he is willing to do what it takes to win.

[latteromden]

13. I will not compromise on international involvement or vote for a pro-NAFTA

pro-WTO, etc. candidate.

What he had to say about international involvement:

*Foreign aid should be given to countries only when it is in the security interests of the United States.
*The US should participate in UN peacekeeping missions only when vital US interests are directly threatened.

Doesn't work for me. I don't care if he can win or connect or whatever. His stance on the UN is the most un-Democratic thing I think I've ever heard, and I won't stand for it.

[iamjoy]

14. Now Phrase That A Different Way

He sounds very isolationist, an attitude that hasn't really worked in over a hundred years. But, take what he says and put the right "spin" on it - that he will not commit American troops...He will not send our young men and women to die in some foreign land unless it is to protect Americans. The Constitutional purpose of the military is to "provide for the common defence."

That being said, one could twist his statement to mean almost anything. Remember, we went into Iraq (supposedly) because Saddam Hussein was a threat (to the U.S.)

He is taking a stance on foreign policy very comfortable and easy for a governor to take since he is never faced with those kinds of decisions. In the 2000 elections, George W. Bush said he opposed nation building or committing our military when the mission wasn't clear or there was no exit strategy (as is often the case with peacekeeping)

I didn't mean to defend Warner, although I guess I am, I just wanted to point out that his statement could be interpreted a number of ways. He's playing the political game. I think he might run.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Well, I just declare!

:boring: Nice to know that there will be peace on earth as of 2007.....before the Dem primaries start.

No more War on Terror....no more War in Iraq...no more strained relations with over North Korean Syria or Iran. Yes, blessed me, the world will be at peace once again.....and Republicans candidates will run on economics and not any national security (which will no longer be an issue). We could easily end up with a GOP ticket that has, at least as VP on it.....a McCain, Hagel, Rice, Powell.

Although National security is Republicans' strong calling card, the media will not make security an issue in 2008 (the media is liberal after all)....just like Homeland security and the push for a War in Iraq were not an issue in the 2002 election; ditto, the War on Terror and "who will keep you safe?" were not the issues in 2004 election.

Nope....Elections of 2006 and 2008 will be about "other things" and so a Southern Governor a la 1992 will just do dandy. And we can put a senator on this same ticket who may have sat on a couple of comittees.....and this time it won't matter if Dems are seen as "weak on defense"....cause we will be at peace!

Why do I think that we are on our way to committing suicide, once again? Why are Dems so unwilling to see the need for one who has experience in National Security to get Rethugs to stop using this as their winning issue? What did we learn?

PS: Kerry's calling card was not National Security Experience....it was military experience of nearly 40 years back. Edwards had nada....So no one should say that we tried running a ticket with NS experience....cause we didn't.