Warner Republican's Worst Nightmare

[dtotire]

Privately, is the Republicans' worst nightmare," said John Gizzi, political editor for the conservative Human Events magazine. "Warner could be a (Bill) Clinton-plus — he's got a business background and a very strong marriage. And he can say he is a true moderate."

Warner's biggest draw, said Evans, is he was elected governor in a Republican red state and made it work. " can turn a red state blue," said Evans. "He is electable, and to his credit he's hired a good staff and he's raised a good deal of money

[Avalux]

1. Link please?

Thanks. :hi:

[dtotire]

3. Warner Republican's Worst Nightmare

Got it from Fox News.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210220,00.html

[Avalux]

6. thanks. n/t

[ananda]

2. This is Mark Warner!

Yay.

[SaveElmer]

4. One major difference...

Warner is not a gifted public speaker...and can come across a bit halting and very dry in a one on one format...

Still...Warner could be formidible...no doubt

[Kahuna]

5. You say that as if it's a FACT!! I don't agree so it can't be

a FACT!!!}(

[SaveElmer]

8. To which part?

Speaking style...or

Formidibility!

And I am ALWAYS right

:evilgrin:

[DinahMoeHum]

9. "gifted public speaker". . .you mean like Dubya ???

:evilgrin:

[SaveElmer]

11. I'm thinking...

By November 2008, folks are gonna want someone the exact opposite of Bush...

Having said that, I didn't mean to imply Warner was somehow no better than W at getting his message across...I was simply comparing him to Bill Clinton.

[skipos]

7. Warner and/or Clark and/or Schweitzer for me (right now)

I accept the fact that DU is never going to be crazy about him, but he seems pretty genuine to me. His speeches have improved as well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Warner's 2008 "advantage" is conventional wisdom and I don't trust it

Of course it is easy to jump to a conclusion that a moderate Southern Ex-Governor would make the strongest Democratic candidate for President, since the last two Democrats to manage to actually occupy the Oval Office fit that bill. But that is predicting through a rear view mirror, which I have found is a terrible tool to use when I want to drive my car in a forward direction.

I'm not saying that Warner isn't a talented Democrat or that he might not have significant strengths as a candidate for President, I am just not buying this bill of goods as to why he would be the Republican's worst nightmare. Consider the source, a political editor of a Conservative magazine. In recent years the Republicans play their friendly media sources like an orchestra to pound home the messages that they want delivered, but actions always speak louder than words.

The National Republican Party continues to try their previously tried and true "National Security" card to win elections of national importance. They are not at all subtle about it, they repeatedly say that Democrats do not know how to keep America safe in a dangerous world, and that Democrats can't be trusted with our National Security. Warner has zero, as in zilch, experience with foreign affairs and national security, and that is painfully obvious to any voter who looks at his record for more than ten seconds. John Edwards got some flak last time for not being a National Security heavy weight, but at least he had served in the United States Senate. congress at least theoretically has the sole power to declare War, and the U.S. Senate has to ratify all international agreements entered into by the United States etc. Last time I checked very little of that activity crosses the Virginia governor's desk.

It is quickly becoming obvious that the international arena is anything but stable; what with the mid east crisis with Israel and Lebanon, with Iraq moving into open civil war, with Iran gaining confidence and power, with North Korea on the verge of underground nuclear testing, and much more. In 2008 we will not be running against George W. Bush. I predict that whoever the Republicans run, he will distance himself from Bush enough to attempt to reclaim the mantle of competence in foreign affairs that most of the American public traditionally associates with the National Republican Party, however undeserved that might be. Having a foreign affairs rookie like Warner to run against could help the Republicans pull that off. We are no longer in the world of 1992 after the Soviet Union collapsed and the United States had only relative blue skies ahead in the area of National Security. I won't pick my candidate using a rear view mirror.

[nealmhughes]

12. The Republicans true "Worst Nightmare" is a Gore/Clark tagteam.

Tennessee and Arkansas again...

Two Vietmam vets...both saw fire...both have strong bases. Clark is everything that Bush wishes he could be. Al has been campaigning for awareness of global warming, but does the public know that it is about a book and a movie and not a return?

Al Gore won once, and can again. Clark would slaughter any candidate put before a microphone beside him. That is the Republicans worst nightmare, not Gov. Warner.

[Impashund Ubique]

13. Warner is like Clinton? Yeah, except the political talent and intellect.

I like Warner, but the guy has a hard time stringing together a coherent argument on most subjects, something Clinton was a master of. Plus, he is not a wonk like Clinton, meaning that he has scant policy knowledge. Most of our presidents were far from wonks, so that is not a negative. But Warner must do some learning (especially in the FP area) to make it to the national stage, or else he will stumble badly. Plus, he doesn't have the Clinton charm or charisma, but that can be developed if Warner is skillful enough.

If he improves on his public speaking and gains knowledge about national and international issues, he would be an impressive candidate. Until then, I'll take the word of the editor of the despicable Conservative Human Events magazine for what it's worth: nothing ;)

[SaveElmer]

17. Warner is extremely intelligent...

I agree he has a halting speaking style in a small group format...but his points are intelligent and ultimately coherent....

[Impashund Ubique]

18. "extremely" ... ?

Nothing yet has led me to believe so. It is not just his speaking style, but the lack of his grasp on issues. I've heard him talk but beyond presenting a litany of items he has accomplished in Virginia, there is a real policy gap on the national issues. He really comes across as pretty bad in the Q & A part of his events.

Like I said, there is still time to improve and learn. But as of now, he is not ready for prime time. None of his Sunday Talk Show interviews have been hits. Difference in judgment, I guess. * shrugs *

[SaveElmer]

19. Well as a Virginia resident...

I have heard him numerous times on his radio call in show, and in interviews...his grasp of Virginia issues, and his political acumen were quite impressive. It is yet to be determned whether that will translate to the national stage, but his innate intelligence and ability to grasp the issues and develop strategies to deal with them was impressive.

[wisteria]

14. Sure he is! n/t

[Sparkly]

15. When conservatives hype a Democrat, I listen carefully....

... and take their "free advice" for what it's worth.

[venable]

20. exactly

we should be looking for who they trash - Gore, Edwards, Clark.

If I hear one more right winger gush in awe at HRC's electability, or how formidable Warner is, I'm going to ask them to please mind their own business.

Warner is probably a decent guy, but come on now, is he the most impressive national candidate we can muster with the world in the state it's in?

His main claim to fame is that he probably helped someone else win the Governor's office in Virginia...at least that's when he started getting bandied about like this.

[Sparkly]

21. Although....

... they kept claiming Edwards was the "formidable candidate they really worried about" in 2004.

Dean, Clark, Kerry, yes Gore -- they trash and/or black-out, no doubt about it in my mind.

By all accounts, Warner was a popular governor in VA. I agree -- that's fine and good. He would have been GREAT against George Allen and I wish he'd run there!!! But he's out for more, without the fp creds; and while I don't doubt he's a Democrat, he's certainly shown he's less than a "team player," shall we say.

(And he can take the phrase "sensible center" and RETIRE it, as far as I'm concerned. Nothing against centrists, but puleeeze!)

[Awsi Dooger]

30. Newsflash: they were right about Edwards in '04 and again with Warner

Our handicapping is so incompetent I can't take it. There is already the predictable chorus of nonsense in this thread, like it's not 1992 anymore.

Oh yes it is. You need 270 electoral votes. Warner is by far the most best ticket to that number and beyond. He can and will win Virginia's 13 electoral votes. That alters everything.

I see poster after poster hung up on issues and centrist and crap like that. Just get a Democrat into office and I'll take my chances. The states are moving apart in terms of polarization. No matter who we nominate only a handful are in play and it's vital to identify the person who can sway that handful. In 2004 it was Edwards against an incumbent. They got it exactly correct. You don't defeat an incumbent with a goddamn resume you do it with charisma and likability, traits that sway the otherwise contented center. Kerry was the buffoon choice. His only chance was Bush to implode to a favorability rating similar to that of 2006. Well, the calendar and luck didn't cooperate.

This is precisely what I've feared. The electability angle was misapplied to Kerry in 2004 so now we'll ignorantly reject it when it correctly fits Mark Warner.

[ShortnFiery]

23. Yes, the Republicans have LIKED Lieberman for a long time ...

even before "the kiss."

They like their opposing party members like their women (their wives, that is, NOT their mistresses and media mouthpieces), soft spoken and highly submissive to authority figures. :puke:

[Sparkly]

25. Oh yes, another one they supposedly feared....

Formidable, I tell you! They'd just haaaate to run against him!

Back in 2003, H2S and I were at a neighborhood party and naturally we started talking about all the great Democratic candidates. One GOPer neighbor (career army, as it happens) declared that the only one he could really get behind is Lieberman. And why? Because he liked how he struck a "perfect balance" regarding Clinton's affair with Ms. Lewinsky. Of ALL THINGS to CARE about!!!

(Btw, hope you're hangin' in there and feeling better, Short! :hi:)

[ShortnFiery]

27. Yes, thank-you

I'm pleased to have misjudged Sparkly - I don't like to be proved wrong - but in this case, I'm happy. :-) Thanks again and have a good week. :hi:

[Sparkly]

29. Short...

You are not to give that another thought or mention it again.

Glad you're better. :hug:

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tkmorris]

22. The Republican's Worst Nightmare

Does anyone really believe that if the Republican's even have a "worst nightmare", that FoxNews would publish it? Come on guys, Murdoch is pushing an agenda here.

We really need to choose who our candidate will be based on what WE think, not what the Republicans do.

[OregonDem]

24. Warner doesn't have the Elvis that Clinton had.

n/t

[Sparkly]

26. I'm a bad judge of "Elvis" -- I loved Tsongas and Dukakis...

But it's the rest of what he doesn't have that concerns me.

[Ninja Jordan]

28. Only downside.

His nasaly voice.