The guy is considered a fiscal moderate and is pretty popular in Virginia. Hopefully he has the political charisma.

 

Virginia governor has Democrats buzzing

Warner's job approval rating high despite pushing tax hike

Thursday, January 13, 2005 Posted: 11:00 PM EST (0400 GMT)

 

 

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- Democratic Gov. Mark R. Warner was more than halfway through his single term in office before he even found his footing.

 

Now, all of a sudden, he is being mentioned for the Senate in 2006 and the White House in 2008.

 

The breakthrough came last year, when he prevailed against all odds and pushed a big tax overhaul -- and a big tax increase -- through the Republican-dominated Legislature, and still managed to look like a fiscal moderate. It was the first general tax increase in Virginia since 1986.

 

As Warner enters his final year, his job approval ratings are high, and he is being talked up as the sort of centrist Dixie Democrat who might show his leaderless party how to win again in the South and retake the presidency.

 

His name has come up in nationally syndicated columns, on political talk shows, in Newsweek and on blogs as Democrats grope for a new direction after John Kerry's defeat.

 

Warner waves off such talk -- at least for now -- as a distraction that could hamper his ability to work with the Legislature.

 

"Too many Virginia governors have messed up their last year because they've spent too much time thinking about what they're going to do next," he said in an interview last week.

 

Warner, 50, built a $200 million fortune in the cell phone industry, but had never held elected office before he was sworn in three years ago, and his boardroom skills seemed ill-suited to legislative skirmishing.

 

In 2002 and 2003, a harried and uncertain Warner was pummeled by a hostile House of Delegates, which killed such ideas as mandatory seat belt use and an end to the state's unique prohibition against governors' serving two consecutive terms.

 

The turning point came last year when Warner pushed for changes in the World War I-era tax laws, warning that the code would make budget shortfalls commonplace and spoil Virginia's cherished bond rating, which has never been less than perfect.

 

He proposed increasing the sales tax, raising income taxes on upper-income households and boosting the cigarette tax, which at 2.5 cents per pack was the lowest in the nation. It would have generated about $1 billion.

 

Conservative House GOP leaders, adamantly opposed to any new taxes, reached a bitter impasse with Republican moderates in the Senate who wanted tax increases three times larger than the governor's.

 

Warner strategically teamed up with business leaders and advocates for state teachers, public employees, the elderly and the disabled.

 

After a record 115 days in session -- nearly double the allotted two months -- 17 House Republicans broke with their party's anti-tax orthodoxy and joined with Democrats to pass a $1.4 billion tax increase.

 

"I guess you could say he got his mojo back," said Steve Jarding, a Harvard University politics professor who managed Warner's campaign for governor and remains close to him.

 

Republican Sen. George Allen -- himself a folksy and popular former governor -- is already using the prospect of a re-election challenge from Warner next year to scare up campaign contributions from Republicans.

 

Jarding, however, wants his old boss to aim higher, noting that the White House field is more wide open now than at any time since 1952.

 

Matthew Streb, a political science professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, California, said a centrist Democrat who has succeeded in a Republican Southern state may enjoy an edge over fellow Democratic governors such as Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Tom Vilsack of Iowa.

 

"The Democrats have to find a way to make inroads in the South," Streb said. "One way is to get a Southerner at the head of the ticket. Warner has pushed health care reform, he's pushed education reform, but he also has a record of being moderate fiscally."

 

Republicans and anti-tax groups, however, lay in wait, ready to attack Warner for increasing taxes after pledging as a candidate he would not.

 

"It's an issue of trust," said Christopher J. LaCivita, a GOP consultant and top adviser last year to the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. "He's as big a fake politically as any actor on TV."

 

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, beamed as he pondered a chance to make a campaign issue out of Warner's 2004 tax fight.

 

"He's everything Republicans want in an opponent: a lying tax-increaser," he said. "Yesss! Bring him on."

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/...r.ap/index.html

I was talking to my dad last night that the democrats need a southerner who is a governor to run for the presidency in 2008. Seems like the perfect guy for it.

The last quote is so ironic. Republicans don't like liars, but they voted one back into the White House just a few months ago.

He'd certainitly have a better chance than virtually all Democrats of being able to beat most Republican candidates in 2008. However, I don't see anyone beating Rudy Giuliani if he decided to run.

He'd certainitly have a better chance than virtually all Democrats of being able to beat most Republican candidates in 2008. However, I don't see anyone beating Rudy Giuliani if he decided to run.

655715[/snapback]

I don't see why southerners would vote for Giuliani, who is a lawyer, the former mayor of NY, and has lived in the North most of his life.

I don't see why southerners would vote for Giuliani, who is a lawyer, the former mayor of NY, and has lived in the North most of his life.

655728[/snapback]

He's not a democrat :plain

655738[/snapback]

Youre suggesting southerners are mindless drones who only vote Republican just like in 1992?

 

 

 

Guliani is not foolproof. He wont be able to run on any moral issues because he is a democrat on that stuff.

Moral issues didn't decide the election as much as national security did as Dick Morris has said. Rudy supports strong national security and lower taxes, two issues that unite Republicans.

Yeah Warner would be a good candidate for the Dems. I mentioned his name right after the election as the person who I thought would get the nomination in '08.

Moral issues didn't decide the election as much as national security did as Dick Morris has said. Rudy supports strong national security and lower taxes, two issues that unite Republicans.

655819[/snapback]

 

 

so all the polls lied?

Moral issues didn't decide the election as much as national security did as Dick Morris has said.? Rudy supports strong national security and lower taxes, two issues that unite Republicans.

655819[/snapback]

 

 

so all the polls lied?

655877[/snapback]

You mean the exit polls that showed Kerry a clear winner?

Moral issues didn't decide the election as much as national security did as Dick Morris has said.? Rudy supports strong national security and lower taxes, two issues that unite Republicans.

655819[/snapback]

 

 

so all the polls lied?

655877[/snapback]

You mean the exit polls that showed Kerry a clear winner?

655878[/snapback]

Those are FOX's exit polls.

 

 

 

 

 

And the election was decided on moral issues. Just see how many people turned out just to vote for a Gay Marriage ban in key states like Ohio.

Moral issues didn't decide the election as much as national security did as Dick Morris has said.? Rudy supports strong national security and lower taxes, two issues that unite Republicans.

655819[/snapback]

 

 

so all the polls lied?

655877[/snapback]

You mean the exit polls that showed Kerry a clear winner?

655878[/snapback]

Those are FOX's exit polls.

 

And the election was decided on moral issues. Just see how many people turned out just to vote for a Gay Marriage ban in key states like Ohio.

655912[/snapback]

People didn't turn out in Ohio just to vote for gay marriage, they came out to make sure Dubya got four more years. Voters care more about national security than stopping gays from getting married. When you have "Moral/Values" as an issue, you can't really tell what people think are morals and values.

 

Anyways, it should be clear Rudy has an excellent chance of winning the presidency. The only way I see the Dems being able to counter someone like him is to get a moderate southerner.

Moral issues didn't decide the election as much as national security did as Dick Morris has said.? Rudy supports strong national security and lower taxes, two issues that unite Republicans.

655819[/snapback]

 

 

so all the polls lied?

655877[/snapback]

You mean the exit polls that showed Kerry a clear winner?

655878[/snapback]

Those are FOX's exit polls.

 

And the election was decided on moral issues. Just see how many people turned out just to vote for a Gay Marriage ban in key states like Ohio.

655912[/snapback]

People didn't turn out in Ohio just to vote for gay marriage, they came out to make sure Dubya got four more years. Voters care more about national security than stopping gays from getting married. When you have "Moral/Values" as an issue, you can't really tell what people think are morals and values.

 

Anyways, it should be clear Rudy has an excellent chance of winning the presidency. The only way I see the Dems being able to counter someone like him is to get a moderate southerner.

655950[/snapback]

Rudy isn't winning the presidency. He has very little chance of even winning a vice presidential nomination. That is ludacrisy to think he will be nominated and be able to win the country. Southern republicans don't like him and thats a big group of people who are Dubya's biggest supporters.

Just watch.

 

John Edwards, Russ Feingold, or Evan Bayh will be the nominee in 2008.

 

All of which would truly be great presidents. Namely Edwards. Feingold's a sleeper and he's the man. Just great. Bayh is basically John Edwards if John Edwards was from Indiana. They even look alike.

 

Warner? Pish posh. He wouldn't fly in early primary states like Iowa and Wisconsin.

Moral issues didn't decide the election as much as national security did as Dick Morris has said. Rudy supports strong national security and lower taxes, two issues that unite Republicans.

655819[/snapback]

 

 

so all the polls lied?

655877[/snapback]

You mean the exit polls that showed Kerry a clear winner?

655878[/snapback]

Those are FOX's exit polls.

 

And the election was decided on moral issues. Just see how many people turned out just to vote for a Gay Marriage ban in key states like Ohio.

655912[/snapback]

People didn't turn out in Ohio just to vote for gay marriage, they came out to make sure Dubya got four more years. Voters care more about national security than stopping gays from getting married. When you have "Moral/Values" as an issue, you can't really tell what people think are morals and values.

 

Anyways, it should be clear Rudy has an excellent chance of winning the presidency. The only way I see the Dems being able to counter someone like him is to get a moderate southerner.

655950[/snapback]

 

Imagine Rudy running for President. The Democrats would pull all the skeletons out of Rudy's closet and make Clinton look like a mixture between Santa Claus, the Pope, Jesus, and Sidhartha Buddha.

Governor Warner is NOT popular in Virginia.

 

The Republicans think he's too democratic, the Democrats think he's too Republican.

 

It will never work.

 

I don't like him either.

Warner is a moderate and I like that. But there's something about him I just don't like.

 

He doesn't appeal to me like Edwards, Bayh, or Feingold.

 

And god save us all if Hillary runs, I'd definitely be voting Republican if she ran.

Warner is a moderate and I like that. But there's something about him I just don't like.

 

He doesn't appeal to me like Edwards, Bayh, or Feingold.

 

And god save us all if Hillary runs, I'd definitely be voting Republican if she ran.

656188[/snapback]

 

She'd win if she ran for President unless Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice ran. She's already positioning herself as a candidate strong on national defense (which the good ol' boys in terrorist targets like Montana, Wyoming, and New Mexico will love) and she's signing anything that comes her way which somehow helps the military. Hillary isn't a fool and won't run unless she has a legitimate shot at winning and if she runs, I'd probably vote for her. A Clintonian America is good enough for me.

Warner is a moderate and I like that.? But there's something about him I just don't like.

 

He doesn't appeal to me like Edwards, Bayh, or Feingold.

 

And god save us all if Hillary runs, I'd definitely be voting Republican if she ran.

656188[/snapback]

 

She'd win if she ran for President unless Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice ran. She's already positioning herself as a candidate strong on national defense (which the good ol' boys in terrorist targets like Montana, Wyoming, and New Mexico will love) and she's signing anything that comes her way which somehow helps the military. Hillary isn't a fool and won't run unless she has a legitimate shot at winning and if she runs, I'd probably vote for her. A Clintonian America is good enough for me.

656199[/snapback]

 

Conservatives in Red States aren't dumb. They won't vote for Hillary because she pretends to be strong on national security. And if you say the south (1/3 of the population now) won't vote for Rudy because of his stance on social issues, how are they going to vote for Hillary? If Hillary runs, the GOP can run a major right winger like Rick Santorum and still win.

As much as Hilary used to be (& still is somewhat) a polarizing figure, I admit she's done a very good job as Senator in terms of getting things done & making inroads. I don't think the hate for her is anywhere near what it used to be.

As much as Hilary used to be (& still is somewhat) a polarizing figure, I admit she's done a very good job as Senator in terms of getting things done & making inroads. I don't think the hate for her is anywhere near what it used to be.

656240[/snapback]

 

Heh, tell that to the majority of Republicans that don't keep up with the doings of Congressmen and women.

I'm not saying she'd win a presidential election, by the way....

Hillary would get the vote of 80% of the Women and 20% of the men.

 

That's how I'd put it best. Women love her, but very few men like her.

 

I don't like her at all. I think Bill Clinton is one of the 3 best president's we've ever had. But I don't like Hillary at all. So I must respectfully disagree with you there Fritz.

 

John Edwards 2008!

 

If Hillary got nominated, I pray the Republicans nominate a good solid candidate like Chuck Hagel who I love to death (he's still not as good as Edwards, Feingold or Bayh though)

If it was between John McCain and Hillary Clinton, I would vote for McCain. I'm not a fan of Hilary.

 

However, if a neo-con runs for the presidency, I would much rather vote for the Democratic candidate.

 

It's very very early to start making assumptions about this.

 

I like John Edwards, but having him on the ticket didn't help Kerry in the south at all.

 

I would also agree that Giuliani has too many problems in his life, between Bernie Kerik and his wife trouble to get very far in a presidential campaign.

The reason it didn't "help" Kerry is because they had Edwards campaign in rural America.

 

To small town America. They had Edwards talking values and real issues to real people. He didn't do the big public rallies like Kerry did.

 

The biggest rally Edwards did was an event in LaCrosse, WI the same day Kerry had Springsteen in Madison.

 

Edwards had Jon Bon Jovi with him and they drew 40,000 people at a rally in a city of 50,000.