Warner isn't the answer. You can't be an effective alternitive to the DLC and Hillary if your DLC yourself. The true alternitive will be someone whose message resonates with the netroots similar to how Dean's 2004 message did. Who that might be and will the party's internal demographics, aided by the more obivous need for real reform and the netroots internet fund raising ability have moved the center of power in the party far enough in the netroots direction to overcome Hillary's immense internal-corporate advantege or not can not likely be known until 2008 itself. Beyond that, evverything else is even more speculative.
Sorry for being clear as mud, but that's my take as of now. : )
Posted by herbal tee at March 11, 2006 11:17 PMWhen I asked him to assess Bush as a president, Warner went out of his way to praise his handling of the terrorist attacks of 2001
Why do so many Democrats feel obligated to do this?
Bush got a PDB that said "bin Laden determined to attack the US" and he did nothing about it. We will never know if he could have prevented 9/11, but we do know that he didn't do anything special after getting that PDB.
Moreover, Bush did nothing praiseworthy in the aftermath of 9/11. On that day, he was a deer in the headlights, then a panicked little boy who let Uncle Dick handle things while he hid himself. Then he did a series of photo-ops and macho speeches.
He and his administration began lying about the events before the day was over. Remember "Air Force One was a target" and similar bullshit? Then he began fighting hard to make sure the country never found out the truth about 9/11 (we still haven't). Then he began using the attack as a political tool for domestic agenda items like tax cuts, energy company subsidies, gutting environmental protections, removing employment protect for a large number of federal employees and other right wing agenda items that had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or national security.
Then he directed his people to take this country into what may be the single most disastrous foreign policy and military adventure in our history.
This was all withing days, weeks and months of 9/11.
So please, tell me, what exactly did Bush ever do to deserve any praise?
Posted by James E. Powell at March 11, 2006 11:30 PMWell James, he rolled up his sleeves (because there was "hard work" ahead), and grabbed a bullhorn with his arm around a firefighter. What courage.
Posted by Judith at March 12, 2006 02:17 AMIf Warner doesn't want to run against Bush, then he's really saying that he'll be a more competent Bush. In many ways Hillary is saying the same thing, unfortunately.
That kind of thinking and action won't get my money or my vote. We have seen the nation's policies and actions seriously curve off to the right in recent years. If the nation believes the pendulum doesn't always swing right, and that is time to head in the other direction, then Warner's not the right choice, and probably Hillary isn't either. Bill Clinton won this DLC game with a natural political aptitude and personality. Hillary and Warner will be operating and different circumstances and without the personal attributes that allowed Bill to win.
But what other choice are we likely to have?
If McCain (or possibly Jeb Bush) is the Repub. candidate, this kind of right centrism doesn't stand a chance against him.
The Dems in DC are playing a dangerous game of me-tooism. This must think it will work. I don't.
Posted by JimPortlandOR at March 12, 2006 02:17 AM"The Dems in DC are playing a dangerous game of me-tooism. This must think it will work. I don't."
Jim, you are so right. People will want a real alternative after eight years of hell. The Democrats must distinquish themselves from the Republicans in a sharply defined, simply and precise message to the American people, if we are to win. People need a reason to vote for a candidate, and "me-tooism" is not reason enough.
Posted by Judith at March 12, 2006 03:20 AM"That kind of thinking and action won't get my money or my vote."
Nor mine.
Posted by Judith at March 12, 2006 03:25 AMBut I have seen Warner fumble when trying to respond to questions that will matter to the base (Iraq)
Yes, Warner came across as a real rookie on foreign affairs, given how long he has been in politics. Once again we seem to be going down the road of looking for Southern good-ol-boy niceness as the major criterion.
Posted by bob h at March 12, 2006 04:36 AMSteve, I normally think of you as pretty smart, but I'd like a better understanding of why you ever found Warner attractive. There's nothing in Bai's article that hasn't been obvious for years. And his current showing just says that he is exactly what we've all despised from the party leadership - refusal to show genuine outrage at the genuine outrages of Bush & the GOP, even stooping to praise the pathetic performance of Bush on 9/11, and support for the corporatism that's sucking our country dry. What's in there that would make people want to come out and vote for him. If the election is about what Warner "is", then we're looking at another round of GOP vs. GOP Lite.
(And, no Judith, he didn't roll up his sleeves and pick up a bullhorn on 9/11; it took him several days to get around to that.)
Posted by Avedon at March 12, 2006 04:57 AMAvedon,
I think Judith was making that very point, using sarcasm.
aimai
Posted by aimai at March 12, 2006 05:13 AMWhy is Warner handling Bush with kid gloves? Even praising him? There's a tremendous amount of anger in the country today and most of it is focused against George Bush and Dick Cheney. This pussy-footing around, fearful of knocking Bush in the mouth and praising his failures is as stupid as Hillary and Kerry being FOR the Iraq war before they were AGAINST it. This sends mixed signals and helps to fuel the perception of Democrats not standing for anything and being defined by GOPers like Karl Rove.
Posted by Christopher at March 12, 2006 05:45 AMUmm, something tells me this guy has been sleeping for the past 5+ years and is very naive....Hasn't he learned anything after watching the these corrupt, unethical, power hungry thugs running this country. Hasn't he witnessed the brutal republicon slime, smear, and faux outrage political tactics of his opponents in action. The republicon party is playing for keeps...they are ruthless campaigners and corrupt governors/dictators...being nice doesn't work...just look what happened in 2000 and 2004. You don't have to stoop to their level, but you certainly can't delude yourself that they are going to play nice just because you will...makes Warner look like a fool.
Posted by emal at March 12, 2006 05:54 AMI think Molly Ivins has the best take on both candidates. (See Common Dreams)Is there someone running on issues I care about? Not those two. I guess I can wait for 2012 till the Dems recognize the grass roots are real. And tell the NY punditocracy that years of telling us who the leading candidates are hasn't convinced me yet.
Posted by Kevin Hayden at March 12, 2006 06:09 AMFeingold all the way. I have decided that Feingold is the only person who is willing to speak the truth.
He was just on This Week and he is introducing legislation to censure the Pres for breaking the law in his warrantless wiretapping.
I watched every speech he gave when he fought to fight the UNPatriot Act.
Feingold tells the truth.
I heard someone say that America would never vote for a Jewish man who has been divorced 2x.
Fuck that bullshit.
What America is ready for is someone who stands for our LAWS and our Constitution.
Feingold does not speak the same old political safe talk.
I am sending him a little money that I do not really have, but he has my vote. I already called his staffer a couple of weeks ago and told her so.
Posted by Anjha at March 12, 2006 06:34 AMDespite having warm feelings for Feingold and his positions, I am not yet ready to throw my support to him. He has to be tested in the primary and in the main event before he's demonstrated that he can stand up to the slime that currently has the power. I don't want to see another John Kerry not fighting back, or an Al Gore accepting the theft of the election. I don't want to see another Mike Dukakis, or a Fritz Mondale.
Unfortunately (as I see it), such a non-Demo Democrat has yet to emerge. Without him/her, the GOP doesn't have much to worry about - no matter how much of their ammunition they waste on Operation Halting Hillary.
Posted by pessimist at March 12, 2006 06:45 AMAnjha, Feingold is the kind of person this party needs desperately as a candidate. If any candidate speaks only the "old political safe talk", we can kiss any victory goodby in 2008 (and 2006 for that matter).
Posted by Judith at March 12, 2006 07:00 AMI am not ready to throw the towell in on Gore either. I also like Edwards.
Gore has been fighting for the environment and is a true environmentalist. He never should have given up in 2000 but I also do not believe that he should have separated himself so much from Clinton while running.
America (other than the ones who already hated him) had forgiven Clinton's indiscretion. Gore did not need to separate so much from him.
I have heard a lot of Clinton's speeches as of late (recent ones) and one thing that he has stated is that they had spent 8 years unfucking the fiscal policies of Reagan and BushI; they were getting ready to really implement good policies, even better than the financial and moral position that America was in...then 2000 was stolen.
They could have done so much if Gore had fought.
Edwards has been fighting poverty for the last several years and he has been working really hard. He truly cares about people. I think Edwards domestic policies would be very good.
Posted by Anjha at March 12, 2006 07:02 AMI like Feingold a lot too, but the anti-First Amendment McCain-Feingold bill gives me pause.
One thing about Russ is, he's among only 22 Senators who had the balls to vote against Bush's Iraq war.
This gives him a certain moral authority.
Posted by Christopher at March 12, 2006 07:07 AMWarner reminds me of Jim Davis who is running for governor in Florida. He uses the same statement: campaigning on what he's "for" and not what he's against. (Wonder which consultant is feeding them that line?) These guys are running the last election and not the next.
Our local Democratic Party had a booth at the State Fair and one thing we heard over and over again (from liberal to conservative Democrats, as well as from Republicans) is that they want to see Dems with backbone and passion. It's okay to say what you are for, but I think voters are angry and want to see politicians express the realization that our country is seriously f*cked up. It's hard to move on to something more positive until you deal with the mess we're in and hold people accountable.
Posted by Susan S at March 12, 2006 07:14 AMIt's hard to move on to something more positive until you deal with the mess we're in and hold people accountable.
Posted by Susan S at March 12, 2006 07:14 AM
Absofuckinglutely!
Yes, Susan, America is hungry for straight shooters. People who are not afraid to speak the truth. People who stop listening to "consultants" and start listening to their conscience.
I don't like Warner. Ya, he bought into cellular technology at the right moment. It was lucky. He was a college partier with no real direction and he had a fluke fall into his lap.
I saw him speak at the Intl Financial Conference (whatever it was called) in [Switzerland]? and I was not impressed. Not impressed at all.
If any candidate "is for" is the investigation, prosecution and imprisonment of the entire administration for the myriad, some yet uncovered, crimes committed while in office then I'll listen. If they're for the return of all the money stolen from the National Treasury, I'll vote for them. If he looks like Edwards, I think he could win.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 12, 2006 07:37 AMIf a candidate talks about getting all the industry hacks out of vital departments like HHS and EPA and FDA, I'm there, dude. If a candidate has a plan to replenish the National Guard, and save our decimated military, I'm all ears. If you have a real plan on how to secure ports, let me know about it. Civil Rights, alternate fuels, economic viability, war...
But really, if you talk about any of these things you will, by necessity, be "bashing" Bush and feeding the base. How can you show you'll be better at something without the comparison? I know it's already cliche, but "there is a better way" should resonate nicely with the way the public now feels about bushco.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 12, 2006 07:53 AMRuss Feingold on This Week is saying that this pResident has to be censured for illegal wiretapping or possible impreachment down the road. "We didn't introduce Marshall Law on September 11, and this pResident needs to be reminded of that." "This pResident must be condemned for this action." That's what we're talking about. Keep it up Russ.
Posted by Judith at March 12, 2006 08:11 AMI'm curious as to what more people think Gore should have done to fight the stolen election of 2000.
He took the case to the Supreme Court twice, and received the most partisan, unjudicious, baseless legal ruling in our history. Was he supposed to ignore it? Have crowds storm....what? The Congress?
I certainly think Gore could have run a much better campaign, but it seems like he did fight Bushco's election theft.
Posted by euzoius at March 12, 2006 08:17 AMWas he supposed to ignore it? Have crowds storm....what? The Congress? Posted by euzoius at March 12, 2006 08:17 AM
I think that it should have went to the Congress. I watched a docu recently on Jefferson. I believe that it was his second election. There was a tie, 2x I think (my memory is really not worth a crap when it comes to facts and figures). The Congress settled it.
I think the Congress should have stepped in with Gore in 2000.
BTW - John Edwards was just on CNN Late Edition and Howard Dean is on next.
Posted by Anjha at March 12, 2006 08:29 AMOne thing that upset me about Bush v. Gore was that we (and Gore) allowed it to be framed as Gore's fight. It was not Gore's fight, it was OURS. We (Gore's voters) were the ones who were being disenfranchised, and it should have been framed that way. When Gore, and especially Lieberman, gave up, they gave up on us. Of course, we should have marched on Washington over the Supreme Court's decision.
(I'm a Florida voter)
Personally, I won't be happy until I see a Repig/Fundie hanging from every light/telephone pole from coast to coast...
Posted by Ken Jackson CPO USN Ret. at March 12, 2006 08:38 AMKen, I hate to say it, but if that were an option, it'd be us hanging. I'm kinda glad to say we haven't gone that far backwards, yet.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 12, 2006 08:49 AM"When I asked him to assess Bush as a president, Warner went out of his way to praise his handling of the terrorist attacks of 2001..".
That's all I need to know about Warner. As with H. Clinton, should he gain the nomination, I take a walk.
Posted by Sonoma at March 12, 2006 09:30 AMHillary-The New Dean?
Posted by Ga6thDem at March 12, 2006 01:30 PMeuzoius:
Gore should have asked for recounts of ALL Counties. That's what he should have done.
Posted by john at March 12, 2006 05:40 PMHere's the problem Warner, and any other ABH chandidate, faces in 2008.
Iraq. It won't be over. Three years ago, I would not have believed it possible. In 2008, we will still be in Iraq, and it will be the big issue in the closet.
Those ABH candidates that, like Hillary, try to pretend that there's no problem with the Iraq War are going to lack any credibility -- just like Hillary.
There has to be somebody else, a Gene McCarthy or McGovern type candidate (hopefully with more stature) to stand up and admit the presence of this ugly tumor. Happy talk just will not cut it anymore. Certainly it won't, by 2008.
So forget Warner. He has dug himself into the same trench as Hillary. Probably getting the same shitty beltway advice.
Posted by Dumbo at March 13, 2006 08:02 AM