Does this mean Mark Warner is the next president?

[Ignatius J.]

I don't live in virginia or even near virginia. I don't even really know who this warner guy is. But if you read between the lines, I think the press seems to think that Kaine's win means that warner is not only going to win the democratic primary but also the real thing.

I can see why they would think this. Warner is a governor of a state that never goes republican. Given that Kaine's election seemed to be a referendum on warner, warner can probably count on winning virginia. He clearly has crossover appeal and can honestly say to conservatives across the country "people like you like me more than they like republicans."

I also think the nomination of Kerry means that democrats do think about electability. Either that or democrats like me are more prominent than people think and signify a massive shift to the right by the party. Either explanation bodes well for warner over clinton or whomever lines up against him. As I said, I have no idea how solid warner's conservative credentials are, but I can't imagine that there are democrats more conservative than a virginia governor. I mean, my guess is that we call people like him republicans in my home state.

So is it over? Do we need elections? Can we get bush out of office now if we've all already made up our mind?

[wskin44]

Warner wouldn't be the worst choice we ever made. He seems to honestly want to make things work, and he doesn't have the typical slippery feel that most politicians have. First of all he is a self made millionaire, so he appreciates the importance of business. He was elected after a Republican cut taxes without considering the consequences in a state where the constitution requires a balanced budget. When the recession hit the state, tax revenues declined and difficult spending reductions had to be made. The Va legislature is run by Republicans so the negotiations were tough. Eventually a comprimise was reached that cut expenditures drastically but drew the line at education. Some tax increases were passed over the dead bodies of several very conservative Republicans in order to make the numbers work and hold the agreement together. The voters did not want education cuts, so moderate Republicans had to agree to tax increases. Warner was pretty impressive working it all out.

[Johnny Punani2]

I don't live in virginia or even near virginia. I don't even really know who this warner guy is. But if you read between the lines, I think the press seems to think that Kaine's win means that warner is not only going to win the democratic primary but also the real thing.

I can see why they would think this. Warner is a governor of a state that never goes republican. Given that Kaine's election seemed to be a referendum on warner, warner can probably count on winning virginia. He clearly has crossover appeal and can honestly say to conservatives across the country "people like you like me more than they like republicans."

I also think the nomination of Kerry means that democrats do think about electability. Either that or democrats like me are more prominent than people think and signify a massive shift to the right by the party. Either explanation bodes well for warner over clinton or whomever lines up against him. As I said, I have no idea how solid warner's conservative credentials are, but I can't imagine that there are democrats more conservative than a virginia governor. I mean, my guess is that we call people like him republicans in my home state.

So is it over? Do we need elections? Can we get bush out of office now if we've all already made up our mind?

Virginia is almost totally controlled by Republicans. Warner is a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I am conservative in most areas and not a Dem but I would vote for Mark Warner. He did an outstanding job with the State economy.

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/index.html

[Posse81]

I think Warner was one of the leading Democratic candidates before last night. Kaine's win really made him stronger. Of all the names mentioned, I like him the best so far.

[Johnny Punani2]

Virginia: Best managed State in the Nation

http://results.gpponline.org/StateOverview.aspx?id=138

There is little that Virginia does not do well in government management. That’s been true for a while. But it keeps looking for improvements, and very often finds them. Outsiders might wonder how the only state that bars its governor from seeking reelection could provide its administrations with sufficient clout to make difficult decisions. But it consistently does. Virginia has an ethos of good management that has genuinely been institutionalized. Even if a governor betrays that culture—as did Jim Gilmore when he opened a $1 billion budget shortfall in the late 1990s with a cut in car taxes that was politically popular but fiscally unsound—the state seems able to find its way back to the path of good managerial sense.

Possibly Virginia’s most notable way to make sure it’s not dependent on the whims of any four-year chief is what it calls the Council on Virginia’s Future. This planning effort—manned by both legislative, executive branch and privatesector leaders—creates powerful longterm goals for the state, coupled with specific indicators to make sure those goals are being met—or that managers are held accountable if they’re not. Couple that with excellent use of performance management by state agencies and by Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission—a national leader in performance auditing—and you have a formula for potent planning and accountability.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that individual governors don’t make their mark. Incumbent governor Mark Warner, who followed Gilmore, got off to a running start by instituting performance contracts for top officials throughout state government. These “executive agreements” provide a clear and measurable way to communicate priorities to the 10 cabinet secretaries and roughly 100 agency heads. Warner personally evaluates each agreement along with a coordinating scorecard for each agency, holding every major instrument of government that reports to him accountable for meeting specific goals and objectives.

Virginia has implemented one of the strongest workforce planning efforts in the country and is a leader in solid succession planning, as evidenced by an innovative Learning Management System that identifies the knowledge that will need to be transferred as leaders retire. “Looking at an executive leadership turnover rate of 100 percent and agency leadership turnover at 76 percent every four years forces you to have succession planning,” says Sara Wilson, the state’s director of Human Resource Management.

After years of making informal long-term revenue and expenditure projections, Virginia’s General Assembly mandated this practice on a formal basis in 2002. Now the state produces detailed six-year projections on top of excellent work by both the House and Senate money committees to help the legislature make informed decisions. This effort, along with the powerful persuasion of the national credit rating agencies, played no small part in the hard-won, sweeping tax reform passed in the summer of 2004. Raising taxes by a sufficient amount to stabilize the state’s fiscal condition wasn’t a choice the legislature made easily, or even—for many members—willingly. It required rancorous special sessions that lasted long beyond the General Assembly’s normal adjournment time. But in the end, it was done. Other states in similar fiscal condition shirked their responsibilities.

Historically, one of Virginia’s few management trouble spots has been its Department of Transportation. But there’s been positive change there as well. Four years ago, the department was completing fewer than 20 percent of its projects on time. By fiscal year 2005, it was on track to finish two-thirds of them on time and nearly 90 percent within budget.

One significant transportation issue waits in the wings. A stagnant flow of revenues from the state’s gas tax has substantially decreased the Transportation Department’s ability to fund desperately needed new projects. With the legislature unlikely to change gas-tax rates, there may be moves to force localities to cover more of the bill. Virginia localities are not relishing this prospect.

[Destino]

and he's proven that he can work with a republican controlled congress.

[Johnny Punani2]

http://www.draftmarkwarner.com/

[bearrock]

At a time of partisan bickering and irresponsible spending, Mark Warner could bring much need centrist views and fiscal responsiblity back to Washington. I don't think every American's number concern is nor should it be social issues and the Supreme Court. If Democrats wants to win the White House again in 2008, they should definately go with Mark Warner. I don't think there's any doubt that he'll carry Virginia.

[visionary]

I probably wouldn't vote for him, like I might for Bayh or another similar Democrat, but he sure beats the heck out of the idea of Kerry or Gore as president or Hillary or Biden.

[wskin44]

Warner has experience cleaning up the mess left by a fiscally irresponsible Republican, so he is perfect for the 2008 election.

[Cskin]

Hey.... I'm conservative... almost Libertarian.... and I'd vote for Mark Warner. He's an issue guy... a solution finder.... and doesn't always follow lock step with the Democratic talking points. Moreso, he's never had a true affiliation with the liberal left.... which is the issue that most hurts the Dems come election time.

You could have Kerry, Hellcat, and Warner seeking the nomination in 08.

One has lived his life with the sole purpose of becoming President, at the expense of his fellow soliders who he threw under the bus during the Vietnam war. You've got one who's dreamed of being the first female president.... to the extent that she's now trying on the moderate/conservative/war hawk sheep's clothing in order to try to fool the masses..... only to become the bleeding heart/blame America/Hate the military liberal she's always been.

Ahhhh... and a guy who has simply run a state the best way he could.... and stands on principle and issues and does not take his gameplan from the Democratic Leadership Minions.

[just skins baby]

I probably wouldn't vote for him, like I might for Bayh or another similar Democrat, but he sure beats the heck out of the idea of Kerry or Gore as president or Hillary or Biden.

I'm hoping 2008 doesn't include a Bush or a Clinton anywhere near a voting machine.

[mjah]

I also think the nomination of Kerry means that democrats do think about electability.

"More electable than Dean" != "Actually electable"

The guy lost to Bush. Bush!

But more to the point, you could do much, much worse than Warner.

[AJ_Skins]

If he runs the way he did in Virginia, I would be extremely surprised to see him win the Democratic nomination. If he totally changes his approach to win over the left, he will make himself unelectable as a national candidate.

His only notable act as governor was to break his campaign pledge not to raise taxes, and he did so by lying blatantly (and provably) to the public about the state's budget. Fortunately for him, nobody was paying enough attention to notice, and since the state's economy has been humming along for quite a while, his approval numbers stayed high.

What kept him out of trouble was a complete and total abandonment of liberal positions on social issues. Death penalty, abortion, 2nd amendment, you name it, he didn't go near the left with a ten foot pole. I don't see how he can win the Democratic nomination with that approach. Joe Lieberman got laughed out of the contest last time, and when Warner spoke at the DNC, his plea to the party faithful to respect the values of the American people was met with chilly silence. I don't see it, unless the left totally turns tail and runs for the sake of winning.

One other downside is that the guy has about as much charisma as a potted plant. Sorry to throw cold water on people, but that's the situation on him. If he runs with the same approach and somehow wins the Democratic nomination, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. I just don't see the national Democratic Party letting that happen. I think he either turns way left or he loses.

[DjTj]

We're still 3 years away, so it's hard to say. Warner hasn't been forced to take much of a stance on Iraq, abortion, stem cells, gay marriage, free trade, health care, or any of the tough national issues. I think it will matter a lot how well he is able to talk about those things. A Presidential run is a lot longer and more complex than a gubernatorial run in Virginia.

Warner is also not the only Democratic governor of a red state with Presidential ambitions. To the south, Mike Easley just won a second term by double digits in North Carolina in 2004. To the southwest, Phil Bredesen will be up for reelection in 2006. Janet Napolitano of Arizona will be up for reelection in 2006. Tom Vilsack will be up for a third term in Iowa in 2006. visionary mentioned Evan Bayh, who served two terms as governor of Indiana and won reelection to the Senate in 2004.

My personal impression of Warner is that he needs a little more polishing. I don't find him to be a very inspiring speaker; he just often comes across as lacking passion, which I think will hurt him in the primaries. He definitely seems to take governing seriously and comes across as extremely competent, but I'm never really fired up when I listen to Warner. Partly it's because he isn't usually proposing anything revolutionary - he is trying to get his business done, and the is willing to compromise. Luckily, he does have the next 2 years to raise money and develop a platform. He certainly has to be seen as a contender.

If he ran, I would seriously consider supporting him in the primaries. I also like Bayh, and I am keeping an eye on Edwards. I pray for no Hillary or Kerry ... or Gore ...

[SkinsHokieFan]

If he runs the way he did in Virginia, I would be extremely surprised to see him win the Democratic nomination. If he totally changes his approach to win over the left, he will make himself unelectable as a national candidate.

His only notable act as governor was to break his campaign pledge not to raise taxes, and he did so by lying blatantly (and provably) to the public about the state's budget. Fortunately for him, nobody was paying enough attention to notice, and since the state's economy has been humming along for quite a while, his approval numbers stayed high.

What kept him out of trouble was a complete and total abandonment of liberal positions on social issues. Death penalty, abortion, 2nd amendment, you name it, he didn't go near the left with a ten foot pole. I don't see how he can win the Democratic nomination with that approach. Joe Lieberman got laughed out of the contest last time, and when Warner spoke at the DNC, his plea to the party faithful to respect the values of the American people was met with chilly silence. I don't see it, unless the left totally turns tail and runs for the sake of winning.

One other downside is that the guy has about as much charisma as a potted plant. Sorry to throw cold water on people, but that's the situation on him. If he runs with the same approach and somehow wins the Democratic nomination, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. I just don't see the national Democratic Party letting that happen. I think he either turns way left or he loses.

Totally agree with you

Unless he turns out to be a peace nik and says "Out of Iraq the day of Innaguration" I don't think he has a chance in the dems primary

Very good manager of VA and he ran the state well, even after a huge defeat in 2002 of the tax initiative

I simply don't think he has a chance in hell to win the primaries, primarily because he totatlly dodged the social issues that admit or not, Dems do care about

[DjTj]

Totally agree with you

Unless he turns out to be a peace nik and says "Out of Iraq the day of Innaguration" I don't think he has a chance in the dems primary

Very good manager of VA and he ran the state well, even after a huge defeat in 2002 of the tax initiative

I simply don't think he has a chance in hell to win the primaries, primarily because he totatlly dodged the social issues that admit or not, Dems do care about

But you notice that Howard Dean did not, in fact, win the Democratic primaries in 2004. Kerry won, and he was the favorite going into the end of 2003 ... It makes me put a little more faith into this early speculation. Kerry and Edwards had raised more traditional money before the primaries than anyone, and they had spent a lot more time seeking the endorsements of various elected officials. They were the two big names in late 2003, befor Dean burst onto the scene. Even though Dean had overwhelming left-wing support and a huge amount of internet donations, he never got the support of the establishment Democrats, and judging by the way 2004 played out, that seems to be the more important thing.

The social issues like abortion and gay marriage don't really come up in Democratic primaries, because the candidates don't typically disagree on them. Remember, Dean and Kerry and Edwards all had some flavor of "Marriage should be between a man and a woman, but I support civil unions" rhetoric. Nobody in the Democratic primaries except for Kucinich was in favor of gay marriage. Even on abortion, Kerry pulled a very Tim Kaine-like "What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn't share that article of faith. I believe that choice is a woman's choice. It's between a woman, God and her doctor."

In 2004, the Democrats didn't choose the most far-left candidate; they chose the candidate that they thought had the best chance of winning (even though they might have been wrong about that). The longer the Democrats are kept out of the White House, the more they will be desperate to win. I don't think Warner will lose in the 2008 primaries because he isn't liberal enough on social issues. He will lose because, as AJ said, he lacks charisma ... but he has 2 years to work on that and to raise money. We could see a new and improved Warner in 2008.

[chomerics]

Hey.... I'm conservative... almost Libertarian.... and I'd vote for Mark Warner. He's an issue guy... a solution finder.... and doesn't always follow lock step with the Democratic talking points. Moreso, he's never had a true affiliation with the liberal left.... which is the issue that most hurts the Dems come election time.

You could have Kerry, Hellcat, and Warner seeking the nomination in 08.

One has lived his life with the sole purpose of becoming President, at the expense of his fellow soliders who he threw under the bus during the Vietnam war. You've got one who's dreamed of being the first female president.... to the extent that she's now trying on the moderate/conservative/war hawk sheep's clothing in order to try to fool the masses..... only to become the bleeding heart/blame America/Hate the military liberal she's always been.

Ahhhh... and a guy who has simply run a state the best way he could.... and stands on principle and issues and does not take his gameplan from the Democratic Leadership Minions.

Foor some reason, I think this post will be brought up again in the future

[88Comrade2000]

They dems are going to give it to Hillary!

[visionary]

One thing that is kind of sad, in a theoretic kind of a way at least, is that they don't allow two term governorships in Virginia (I know this is coming from a Marylander...lol)

I think a second term might have shown more of Warner and what he is truely capable of or not, since the second term is usually much harder than the first in a lot of cases.

[Destino]

His only notable act as governor was to break his campaign pledge not to raise taxes, and he did so by lying blatantly (and provably) to the public about the state's budget. Fortunately for him, nobody was paying enough attention to notice, and since the state's economy has been humming along for quite a while, his approval numbers stayed high.

You left out his surviving the spending nightmare that Gilmore left for him. The bitter GOP after irresponsibly trimming the car tax decided to INCREASE spending just as Gilmore was leaving office. Leaving Mark Warner with the unpopular task of spending cuts. I guess that's how Virginia republicans deal with defeat.

He survived this little land mine and managed to save the state. Warner started in the role of unpopular thanks to the GOP. He had no problem doing what is right and RESPONSIBLE over what is politically popular. It paid off in the end didn't it?

[bearrock]

His only notable act as governor was to break his campaign pledge not to raise taxes, and he did so by lying blatantly (and provably) to the public about the state's budget. Fortunately for him, nobody was paying enough attention to notice, and since the state's economy has been humming along for quite a while, his approval numbers stayed high.

I would much rather have an executive who would be willing to break his campaign promise to do the right thing like Mark Warner than someone who basically bankrupts a state in order to keep his campaign promise like Jim Gilmore. I had a lot of respect for Elder Bush because of his willingness to do what was right for the country knowing how his tax raise was going to play out during the election.

As for the economy, I find it amusing how many people claim that democratic executives like Bill Clinton and Mark Warner "enjoyed" good economy rather than recognizing that those executives had something to do with creating that good economy. Warner had the right idea from the get go, in order to create a thriving economy, gov't has to be actively involved and work with businesses to create jobs (none of this ownership society stuff).

The main thing I like about Warner is his fiscal responsibility. President Bush may have done a lot of things in DC, but he has been competely irresponsible when comes to fiscal matters. Whoever becomes the next president, he or she is going to have one big financial mess on their hands.

[jbooma]

I don't live in virginia or even near virginia. I don't even really know who this warner guy is. But if you read between the lines, I think the press seems to think that Kaine's win means that warner is not only going to win the democratic primary but also the real thing.

I can see why they would think this. Warner is a governor of a state that never goes republican. Given that Kaine's election seemed to be a referendum on warner, warner can probably count on winning virginia. He clearly has crossover appeal and can honestly say to conservatives across the country "people like you like me more than they like republicans."

I also think the nomination of Kerry means that democrats do think about electability. Either that or democrats like me are more prominent than people think and signify a massive shift to the right by the party. Either explanation bodes well for warner over clinton or whomever lines up against him. As I said, I have no idea how solid warner's conservative credentials are, but I can't imagine that there are democrats more conservative than a virginia governor. I mean, my guess is that we call people like him republicans in my home state.

So is it over? Do we need elections? Can we get bush out of office now if we've all already made up our mind?

Warner is a democratic republican, i would vote for him. He did a great thing in VA in getting us out of our mess.

He is the perfect candidate for the democratic party, he is from the south, has money, knows how to fix budgets and do drastic things that might piss of some, but would work in the long term. He can talk to either side and his image is clean.

This is the canidate the Dems are looking for. VA would vote for him as president, heck if we could elect him again we would but you can't run twice here in VA :doh:

[jbooma]

If he runs the way he did in Virginia, I would be extremely surprised to see him win the Democratic nomination. If he totally changes his approach to win over the left, he will make himself unelectable as a national candidate.

His only notable act as governor was to break his campaign pledge not to raise taxes, and he did so by lying blatantly (and provably) to the public about the state's budget. Fortunately for him, nobody was paying enough attention to notice, and since the state's economy has been humming along for quite a while, his approval numbers stayed high.

AJ he had to raise the taxes. The financial mess he walked in because of Gilmore almost bankrupted the state, now we are financially one of the strongest states. He took some hard stands on certain issues that we needed.

He saved this state if you want to wake up and realize the truth. Everyone was paying attention by the way, maybe you weren't.

[Chopper Dave]

I like this guy, he's electable. He needs to work on his personality if it's as flat as everyone says it is, but if he does, he could be a contender. From what I hear, I wish he was more socially liberal, but it beats another Bush(-esque) in the White House.