VIDEO- Mark Warner Waffles about Bush Breaking the Law-Spying

[liveoaktx]

He does not impress

[still_one]

1. then bring on the likes of hackett

and lets get rid of these fence sitting democrats

[OzarkDem]

5. So why is Hackett running

against a Dem who is not a fence sitter, but a long time, outspoken progressive? Its good to encourage Dems to replace elected Dems who are fence sitters or are not getting the job done. But I question the need to run against Dems who have been doing a great job.

Its important to make that distinction so we don't start weakening our own party even more than it already is.

[still_one]

7. Because the guy he is running against DID sit it out

until Hackett showed that he could win in Ohio, and then jumped in the race

sorry, but my support in Ohio goes to Hackett

we don't need a democrat who first says he won't run, and then says he will.

[leesa]

2. DLC. Are you surprised?

[jackpan1260]

3. Not great, but I still like him.

Hopefully he can get over the Kerry-isms soon.
If so, Feingold and Warner 08!

[PWRinNY]

4. Chicken!

Why so scared to take a stand!? Why can't he stand up for the American people!? Why can't he stand up for the Constitution!? Great, now I have to go find some tums for the bile this has me spitting up. Leader my ASS.

Anyone reading this who is thinking of running for pres in 08: STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR US FOR GODS SAKE!!! Take a stand! No waffling! JUST LEAD!

[ruggerson]

6. Why do you want little Georgie S. to PUSH someone into making a statement

that they will then get attacked for?

You like it when the media plays these games, which they do more with Dems than with Repubs?

Evidently you do. Because you fell for Georgie's little trap.

[liveoaktx]

8. No, I want a Dem running for office to say, clearly, that the law

says that even the President must use FISA, and therefore it appears that Bush has broken the law.

[shraby]

12. Feingold has, and he sure sounds like he's running. n/t

[ruggerson]

13. So then your litmus test - any Dem candidate MUST call for impeachment

Because that would have been little Georgie's next question if he had been able to pin Warner down publicy for saying Shrub had broken the law.

After all, how can you think a President broke the law and then not support impeachment?

And the headlines the next day would have been "Warner Supports Impeachment", thus attempting to marginalize him as out of the mainstream.

Do you not know the games the press plays with Democrats? Do you not watch the news?

I think Warner has to get more focused but I think it's ADMIRABLE if he doesn't fall in to their stupid, little traps.

Do you want to elect a President who will move the country in our direction, or do you want to lambaste a candidate because he doesn't fall for Dem-baiting press trickery?

You can't have both.

[liveoaktx]

16. Oh, please, one does not follow the other..... to say that you

believe that Bush broke the law can ALSO lead to a statement that only a court or Congress will be able to determine if that happens. That IF it turns out... yadaya.

You see questions about how someone actually STANDS as Dem-baiting trickery, I see it as giving someone an opportunity to take a position.

[ruggerson]

17. Wait just a second

now YOU are advocating waffling. So, it would have been okay for him to say the President definitively broke the law, but then the inevitable impeachment follow up question should have been dodged by saing "only a court or Congress will be able to determine... yada yada yada"?

That's exactly how he DID dodge the first question. So how come it's ok with you to dodge lil' Georgie's inevitable impeachment trap question, but NOT ok to dodge the question trying to publicly pin Warner down as to whether shrub broke the law?

[liveoaktx]

18. That's not waffling... one can have a strong opinion that someone is

breaking the law but still hold out that, until a court or some other authority makes a ruling, it is not set in stone.

[ruggerson]

20. Oh, please

I agree that Warner could have been far more articulate in answering this. But, I don't WANT a candidate who will be pinned down by the games the press plays.

The press hounded Kerry for weeks to answer the question about whether if he knew then what he knows now about WMD's would he still have authorized the war. When he finally DID fall into their trap they CRUCIFIED him.

I don't want a Presidential candidate definitively saying Bush broke the law. You and I can say it, but it's plain dumb politically for a Presidential candidate to make legally definitive statements like that.

And YOU are falling for Georgie Steph's little scheming Dem baiting trap. Warner didn't, but you are.

[liveoaktx]

22. We don't agree about this... the problem I had with Kerry is that

IMO he should have said right away what he meant and then he couldn't have been crucified by the press.

I WOULD like a candidate to have said that Iraq was a mistake and he or she made a mistake voting for it, just as I WOULD like a candidate to say that in his or her opinion Bush is breaking the law, but only a court, etc can determine that for sure.

[ruggerson]

23. The appropriate answer to Stephanop's Dem-bait question

should be that CONGRESS has to make the determination whether Bush broke the law.

And one can make some strong remarks about the importance of preserving privacy and civil liberties, even in times of foreign conflict - how it has to be a balancing act.

Again, Warner was not very articulate, but I would rather have had him dodge the inevitable crucifixion that would have resulted from answering definitively to this than falling for the bait.

[liveoaktx]

24. You're making the same argument that Alito no doubt used in his

confirmation hearings, that it would be better to give an ambiguous answer to questions posed by Senators than to let out his opinions currently on issue he might vote on.

and it isn't only Congress that could make the determination whether Bush broke the law. IF someone or a group that has been spied upon by the NSA were able to prove it (and I saw an article yesterday that a Quaker group believes it has been spied upon by the NSA), it could become a court matter aside from Congress.

[ruggerson]

25. Alito's going to get confirmed, ain't he?

Do you want to win this time, or do you just want to shout powerlessly some more?

[liveoaktx]

27. As I said, we don't agree-it isn't "shouting powerlessly" to speak

an opinion.

I also, in the same vein as what I said about Bush's judgement being final through Congress OR the courts, don't believe that Alito will necessarily get confirmed, despite all the happy ass media talk to the contrary-at least it ain't over till it's over and it's defeatist to say that he's going to get confirmed until it happens.

[ruggerson]

29. If you don't think Alito will get confirmed

you are utterly out of touch with the reality of modern american politics.

It's not defeatist at all to deal in a reality based world and to make decisions based on what will win elections and what will get you crucified.

That is, if your goal is to actually gain power to change the world for the better.

If your goal is to make yourself feel better by shouting powerlessly for another four years, have at it.

[PWRinNY]

15. Me too!

Anyone who does not come out and tell the TRUTH to the American people is doing us all a HUGE disservice. We're not stupid. We know it's against the law, what Bush did with the warrantless wiretaps. Anyone who does not come out and stand up and say it like it is does nothing but give credibility to Bush and the neocons who are LYING, trying to tell us that it's legal. STAND UP AND TELL THE TRUTH!

[Clark2008]

9. Because Warner hasn't taken a stand on ANYTHING.

He was a decent governor and my family in Virginia loves him, but he hasn't taken any stands on most anything Dems care about on a national level.

No stand on Iraq.
No stand on spying.
No stand on national health insurance.


The guy is a good manager, don't get me wrong, but is he a leader? Well, we don't know because he won't say.

[JDPriestly]

10. Warner did not answer that question well.

He won't get my vote just based on his queasy responses. He doesn't stand tall on privacy issues. He's a good technocrat, but I wouldn't trust him with the power of the president. He doesn't get the concept of abuse of the power of the president. So what if you can make some theoretical argument that the president has the power to wiretap law abiding citizens in their everyday lives. It's still an abuse of power because it isn't necessary. It is just harassment. The president can wiretap anyone he wants through the FISA process. Bush abused his power when he failed to use that process. That's all there is to it. Does Warner want Bush listening in to his calls? Doesn't Warner understand what Bush's violations of FISA mean for our democracy?

Warner is off my list. Privacy is a litmus test, and a good one at that.

[Pithy Cherub]

11. Warner is not ready for prime time.

His foreign policy credentials because he is commander of the Virginia National Guard - which is in Iraq. Gimme a freakin' break. That was actually painful to watch. :eyes:

[Coexist]

14. As always, thanks...

[Upfront]

19. He Sold Me

I now know I don't want him!

[creeksneakers2]

21. I only watched for a few minutes

I was struck by how gutless Warner sounded. I had to change the channel.

[Kahuna]

26. I caught that and was not pleased. He sounded weak and indecisive.

If I want to back a non-leader, I'll consider Hillary. We need a leader. Grow a set Warner!

[David Dunham]

28. Feingold is not going to be the nominee so he can answer these issues

Feingold, a three-time divorcee, is too much on the fringes to be the nominee.