NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your thoughts about Virginia Governor Mark Warner? He seems to be a rather moderate Dem. Anyone have a strong opinion about him? Like him? Hate him? Specifics?

Thank you for your time. Links are appreciated.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10401164/site/newsweek/

Isn't he the one that bangs on about god a lot?

Isn't he the one that bangs on about god a lot?

Dunno, do you recall where you saw that?

No strong opinion. I hate all Democrats equally, except those from my state (I loathe them exquisitely).

No strong opinion. I hate all Democrats equally, except those from my state (I loathe them exquisitely).

Even though I am a self-described liberal, I would never even consider making such a blanket statement about Republicans. You are a brainwashed thug, my friend.

Dunno, do you recall where you saw that?

Deep Kimchi said something to the effect that his recent victory in Virginia didn't amount to anything significant because he is really republican lite, especially in cultural politics. He then cited how warner frequently and publically talks about his own faith - catholic I believe - a la GWB.

(Apologies to DK if this is a mischaracterization of your point, I am going from memory, and I wasn't paying all that much attention).

This is why I ask.

Warner does seem like a pretty good candidate, given what I know about him. He might have a good shot at the nomination. And the Democrats have done pretty well in the past nominating moderate Southern governors. (Before any of our right-wing attack dogs object: Yes, Carter and Clinton were both moderates. Compare them to Jerry Brown, Dennis Kucinich, or Ted Kennedy and you'll see what I mean.)

Of course, given that the field has essentially 0 declared candidates so far, we'll have to see how Warner stacks up to the rest of them.

Isn't he the one that bangs on about god a lot?
Could you possibly be thinking of Pat Robinson, who's also from Virginia? (But who is extremely unlikely to be the Democratic nominee for president.)

Could you possibly be thinking of Pat Robinson, who's also from Virginia? (But who is extremely unlikely to be the Democratic nominee for president.)

No.

But I did hear that Warner made his faith a major part of his campaign. See above.

Even though I am a self-described liberal, I would never even consider making such a blanket statement about Republicans. You are a brainwashed thug, my friend.
Chuckles. Why? Because the Democratic party, which I thought would represent me, turns out to be too full of corruption and stupidity? And if you were from New Jersey, you'd hate your elected representatives too. I voted Democratic enough times to earn my bitterness.

I still believe in things like integrity, ethics, caring for your fellow man, cleaning up your messes, and so on. Show me a single fucking party in this country that believes in those things.

If that makes me a brainwashed thug, I'd better run out and get some suitable tattoos.

Chuckles. Why? Because the Democratic party, which I thought would represent me, turns out to be too full of corruption and stupidity? And if you were from New Jersey, you'd hate your elected representatives too. I voted Democratic enough times to earn my bitterness.

I still believe in things like integrity, ethics, caring for your fellow man, cleaning up your messes, and so on. Show me a single fucking party in this country that believes in those things.

If that makes me a brainwashed thug, I'd better run out and get some suitable tattoos.

Okay, since your disdain is equal-opportunity, I have no problem with it. :D

Democrats today are, in general, far too rightist for my liking. I hate these politicians... they're all the same rightist douchebags who claim to be moderate or leftist. At least the Republicans admit they're rightist.

So yeah, Warner's a f***ing retard. Clinton (or "Clit-on" as I call her) is too. I say just vote for the terrorists, because it'll piss just about everyone off equally.

What if you're not a Liberal/leftie/Dem , but still fed up with bush?

No.

But I did hear that Warner made his faith a major part of his campaign. See above.

Being religious and attempting to push your religion on others are very different things. Carter is very religious and talks about his faith frequently. I don't remember him ever attempting to breach the line of seperation of Church and State. Clinton never talked about religion, yet violated the Constitution DOMA, little more than an attack on the 'sin' of homosexuality in sheep's clothing. I think when looking for a good candidate one would do better to focus on their politics rather than their faith.

Okay, since your disdain is equal-opportunity, I have no problem with it. :D
Not quite equal opportunity. The Republican and Libertarian parties have always left me with a low-grade disgust, coming from their morally authoritarian and economically anarchist political views. The Democratic and Socialist parties, on the other hand, I believed in; I feel betrayed.

It's less disdain and more hatred.

What if you're not a Liberal/leftie/Dem , but still fed up with bush?

That's why I made the headline inclusive like that.

Even though I am a self-described liberal, I would never even consider making such a blanket statement about Republicans. You are a brainwashed thug, my friend.

This rant may go on a bit. But stick with it. I make poop jokes at the end. :)

Ironicly, such a statement isn't totally out of place when applied to Republicans. The GOP is a virtual monolith. The example I keep bringing up, because it's such a blatant example of how vile they are, is the bankrupcy bill.

It's debatable how completly harmful, evil, and putrid this bill is. What isn't really debatable is that some allowances ought to at least be permissible, if not actually assured, for people in the worst and most blameless situations. People who go bankrupt because of military service, or catastrophic illness for example.

The Democrats tried to introduce such mitigating clauses to the bill, but the Republicans kept them out.

So it isn't a matter of the Republicans thinking "oh, we need to make people more accountable, it's sad that some people might be put in a tough spot for this, if that's the case, but it's important to promote accountability in finances."

No, they actually opposed the idea of making allowances for the innocent and desperate.

And they did so unanimously. Every single republican, every last one, including their vaunted pillar of not-being-a-worthless-douchebag McCain, voted to make the worst possible vision of bankruptcy reform a reality.

It's also the sort of sickening fact that makes me wonder what sort of vile sack of puss is still willing to vote for these assholes. To call the Republican party corrupt these days is wholly inadequate to describe their state. A piece of fruit that has begun to rot is corrupt. When it has decayed into a pool of sugars, fluids, and animal waste it is no longer corrupt. It is simply dirt. Piles of dirt can, in a sense, become "corrupt" by the roots of plants that are fertilized by their manure.

At first glance, this may appear to be the state of the republican party. Lots of manure all over the place. However they are not nearly so vitalizing. The republicans are completly toxic. If you plant seeds of virtue and honor in them those things will become disolved in a sea of caustic bile and poison so that all you are left with are hollow shells of men like McCain who had honor once, but now hug the hands that beat them.

The Democrats are corrupt, but like the piece of fruit that has just begun to rot it has something salvagable. You can eat around the brown spots of the DLC and toss them on your moral composte heap. Let the grassroots sprout from their rotted manure. Sure, sometimes rootrot sets in, and the honor that seemed sure to sprout just wilts and rots on the vine, but then once in a while you get a visionary who might do something decent for the country. Sure Howard Dean may sound like he's full of shit, but like all healthy fortifying plants he's just surrounded by the shit that has given rise to him. Confuse not the produce with the manure.

That's why I made the headline inclusive like that.

Ouch. I see I'm not wanted here.

*sulks out of thread*

Ouch. I see I'm not wanted here.

*sulks out of thread*

No no, you misunderstand! I mean you are welcome if you fit the headline in any way shape or form. The slashies represent the work "or" not "and".

Ouch. I see I'm not wanted here.

*sulks out of thread*
Yeah, the last group in the list is "people fed up with..." and that's the group I think you fit into, right?

As to Warner, I'll give him a look, and if he's the nominee, will almost assuredly vote for him, because there's not a republican talking about running right now who could get my vote.

Not quite equal opportunity. The Republican and Libertarian parties have always left me with a low-grade disgust, coming from their morally authoritarian and economically anarchist political views. The Democratic and Socialist parties, on the other hand, I believed in; I feel betrayed.

It's less disdain and more hatred.

Hmmm...

You seem like my kind of political buddy, though I do not share your animosity, I certainly feel great disdain towards political parties. I used to be part of the GOP until I realized that there were no more Reaganite/Goldwater conservatives in high places, only neocons like Rove/Dubya/Rummy/Wolfowitz. I've never called myself a democrat, and never will. I'm close to libertarianism in many regards, but I feel that a libertarian would not successfully operate the country. I'm a sort of realist when it comes to politics; I'd love to live under a near-perfect libertarian system, but I realize that only a moderate Dem./Rep. or independent figure could win the votes.

Hmmm...

You seem like my kind of political buddy, though I do not share your animosity, I certainly feel great disdain towards political parties. I used to be part of the GOP until I realized that there were no more Reaganite/Goldwater conservatives in high places, only neocons like Rove/Dubya/Rummy/Wolfowitz. I've never called myself a democrat, and never will. I'm close to libertarianism in many regards, but I feel that a libertarian would not successfully operate the country. I'm a sort of realist when it comes to politics; I'd love to live under a near-perfect libertarian system, but I realize that only a moderate Dem./Rep. or independent figure could win the votes.

I like the idea of libertarianism, up to a point, but I agree that a libertarian could not effectively run the government. It makes no sense to put someone in charge of the government who doesn't believe in the effectiveness of the government. It's kinda like hiring a coach who doesn't believe the team can win (even if the team sucks.)

Chuckles. Why? Because the Democratic party, which I thought would represent me, turns out to be too full of corruption and stupidity? And if you were from New Jersey, you'd hate your elected representatives too. I voted Democratic enough times to earn my bitterness.

I still believe in things like integrity, ethics, caring for your fellow man, cleaning up your messes, and so on. Show me a single fucking party in this country that believes in those things.

If that makes me a brainwashed thug, I'd better run out and get some suitable tattoos.

I agree. There just isn't enough integrity in politics. It's bad when you expect politicians to lie. It's a bad mindset, and reflective of the quality of politictians these days. I don't think there's any party that's not out for themselves in the end.

I'll make my own party, called the Moderate Party. My slogan will be: Why can't we all just get along?

If special interest groups start bitching about how reasonable I am, I'll just go all Andrew Jackson on them. That'll shut 'em up. ;)

Unfortunately, running for president and winning the vote requires an obscene amount of money, so I'd have no chance at all...

Being religious and attempting to push your religion on others are very different things. Carter is very religious and talks about his faith frequently. I don't remember him ever attempting to breach the line of seperation of Church and State. Clinton never talked about religion, yet violated the Constitution DOMA, little more than an attack on the 'sin' of homosexuality in sheep's clothing. I think when looking for a good candidate one would do better to focus on their politics rather than their faith.

The point is, I think, that the impression I was given about this guy is that he is a bit evangelical about religion. Exactly unlike carter or clinton (though clinton's periodic bouts of piety pissed me off no end.)

If we are going to have regime change, I don't want to swap one fundie for another.

I look forward to the day when an atheist can actually run.

The point is, I think, that the impression I was given about this guy is that he is a bit evangelical about religion. Exactly unlike carter or clinton (though clinton's periodic bouts of piety pissed me off no end.)

If we are going to have regime change, I don't want to swap one fundie for another.

I look forward to the day when an atheist can actually run.
I look forward to the day when religion doesn't come up at all in political discussions, when a President can finish a speech without saying "God Bless the United States of America." From what I've seen of Warner, he's more like Clinton/Carter when it comes to religion than Bush--comfortable talking about it, but not evangelical. I could be wrong, of course, but that's what I've heard.

The point is, I think, that the impression I was given about this guy is that he is a bit evangelical about religion. Exactly unlike carter or clinton (though clinton's periodic bouts of piety pissed me off no end.)

If we are going to have regime change, I don't want to swap one fundie for another.

I look forward to the day when an atheist can actually run.

Religious, even deeply religious =/= fundie. Carter is/was deeply religious AND a nuclear phycisist.

What are your thoughts about Virginia Governor Mark Warner? He seems to be a rather moderate Dem. Anyone have a strong opinion about him? Like him? Hate him? Specifics?

Thank you for your time. Links are appreciated.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10401164/site/newsweek/
He's probably far too religious for the mainstream Democratic party (and would never pass muster from MoveOn). He's also very pro-gun - he signed open carry with NO license into law with no objection.

I'm a Republican and I would vote for Mark Warner - to me he's essentially a mainstream Republican (and I'm from Virginia).

What is his stance on trade and government protectionism?

What is his stance on trade and government protectionism?
Warner, when in Virginia, traveled to foreign countries (such as India, to foster reciprocal high tech trade) with the idea of free trade and open markets. He's a free trade kind of guy.

Warner, when in Virginia, traveled to foreign countries (such as India, to foster reciprocal high tech trade) with the idea of free trade and open markets. He's a free trade kind of guy.

Well, that's one major thing in his favor (at least for me). Depending on the other issues, I could see him as a solid candidate or even president.

Well, that's one major thing in his favor (at least for me). Depending on the other issues, I could see him as a solid candidate or even president.

Virginia flourished under him, so I think he's at least an able administrator.

Well, that's one major thing in his favor (at least for me). Depending on the other issues, I could see him as a solid candidate or even president.
He was big on increasing the tech sector in Virginia. And it seems to have paid off.

We also had unique ways of financing highway projects. Get a private corporation to build and run the road - the private corporation has an incentive to build a road quickly that people will like to use - and the private corporation gets to collect some of the tolls from the road. Smaller initial outlay of government funds, and after 10 years, the road is transferred completely to state control.

Warner's replacement is going to be doing the same thing to put in high speed toll commuter lanes in the next few years.

An idea that you usually don't hear from Democrats - highways built largely with corporate direction, for corporate benefit, with absolutely no union labor.

If the state had built the roads, they would have been bound into using union labor.

Religious, even deeply religious =/= fundie. Carter is/was deeply religious AND a nuclear phycisist.

Which is why I said my impression of him was that he was a bit evangelical, not deeply religious.

Look I don't care which flavor of sky pixie people believe in - or how much -, provided they keep their big pie hole shut about it. Does this guy? That's my question.

As to carter, we all know how his presidency turned out. Do you really want to repeat it?

Which is why I said my impression of him was that he was a bit evangelical, not deeply religious.

Look I don't care which flavor of sky pixie people believe in - or how much -, provided they keep their big pie hole shut about it. Does this guy? That's my question.

As to carter, we all know how his presidency turned out. Do you really want to repeat it?

Well...I think Carter was a victim of circumstance as much as his inability to lead a really effective administration. Still, there can be no doubt that he was one of the most honestly moral and caring Presidents we've had in recent times.

A Carter with bigger cojones (actually, I think he's actually a fairly brave person, but he needed to step up more,) would be ideal, in my mind.

Well...I think Carter was a victim of circumstance as much as his inability to lead a really effective administration. Still, there can be no doubt that he was one of the most honestly moral and caring Presidents we've had in recent times.

A Carter with bigger cojones (actually, I think he's actually a fairly brave person, but he needed to step up more,) would be ideal, in my mind.

Oddly, I agree with you. I think the world must be ending *dives under his desk*

Well...I think Carter was a victim of circumstance as much as his inability to lead a really effective administration. Still, there can be no doubt that he was one of the most honestly moral and caring Presidents we've had in recent times.

A Carter with bigger cojones (actually, I think he's actually a fairly brave person, but he needed to step up more,) would be ideal, in my mind.
Carter's biggest problem was that he was a control freak. He just couldn't delegate things effectively; he tried to keep way too much under his personal control, and so wasn't very effective at controlling any of it. The Executive Branch is far too big for any one man to control it effectively.

Add to that the Iranian revolution (over which he had no control) and what that did to oil prices (again, beyond his control), and the hostage crisis (which he didn't handle terribly well, but which he eventually did resolve, just in time for Reagan to take the credit.) He thus wound up looking like he couldn't keep a handle on anything. On the other hand, he did broker the Israel-Egypt peace talks - diplomacy is something that suits him well. He'd have made a great ambassador, and if he wasn't American he'd probably have been UN Secretary-General. (There will never be an American UN Secretary-General. But that's another thread.)

In fact, this whole Jimmy Carter digression should be another thread. But I digress.

:p