Mark Warner - Valentine Surprise
Submitted by ms in la on February 15, 2006 - 4:56am.
It's essential in politics, as it is in life, to stop yourself on occasion, right in the middle of your tracks, and do a thorough spot check...clean out the programs, scan for nasty bugs, delete some preconceptions in the software, and reinstall the firmware. I knew I had to do this before going to the Mark Warner event in Los Angeles tonight.
First, I had my predisposition about a wealthy-corporate-pseudo-centrist-Bilderberger to overcome-- delete, delete, delete. Next, I had my knowledge that every republican I know thinks he's the Dem sweetheart candidate for 2008 ....backspace, delete. Then I had my obvious Wes Clark prejudice to overcome to be able to view another potential 2008 contender with a somewhat open mind. Delete, strikethrough, backspace, reformat. That one took some time....
Driving to the fundraiser, I was still working on point three. In order to clear the Wesophilia from the files, I told myself that Gert had convinced Wes not to run for POTUS, and the field had been narrowed down to a Hillary V. Warner race for Dem headliner. This was not only a useful exercise to clear the brain, but it also cut my appetite significantly so that I didn't eat anything for the rest of the evening.
And so, I arrived at the beautiful Spielberg residence (not Stephen) in the Westwood area with a clear mind. As people were filing in the doors of the gracious 1920's Mediterranean home, I snuck in the back way, through a romantic tiled courtyard into the dining area where I bumped into bloggers hekebolos and Mark Kleiman. I'd guesstimate they had a little under 100 people at the home. We all drifted to the Living room where Governor Warner was about to speak.
I sat up front to study this new curiosity that I no longer had any preconcieved notions about whatsoever...He shook my (one) hand warmly and introduced himself when he walked in. As the room filled, I began to see familiar faces....Russ Warner-- congressional candidate for David hiss boo Dreier's seat, Mary Pallant-- congressional candidate that appeared at the church with Wes in Hollywood, city councilwoman-- Wendy Greuel, seated next to me, and Los Angeles County Supervisor-- Zev Yaroslavsky, Michael Webber and Susan Blanchard-- of Four Star Dems and some others.
Michael Webber has the art of the introduction down to perfection, always evoking hearty laughs from the crowd. This time he told everyone that for a change he is instructing everyone to turn their cell phones ON, because everytime one rings it's money in Mark Warner's pocket (Nextel) and he just loves the sound! People seemed to take it literally as phones went off periodically during the speech.
Up to the microphone he steps-- Navy suit, loose fitting pleated pants, blue shirt, red tie, simple gold wedding band-- a picture of conservatism...but I have no prejudices tonight, so I overlook that fact. I'm also about 20 inches away from him. He is speaking in front of the fireplace, because the same homeowner hosted Wes Clark **** in this living room and Wes spoke beneath the arched doorway at the entrance to the room -- so they needed to retain that spot as pristine! (Ms Spielberg is a Clarkie too)
Now here is where it gets difficult to type.
Surprises can come to you when you vacuum out your brain...
Surprise number one: He's funny. Who knew? I'd seen him on TV a few times and perused his website numerous times, never saw an ounce of humor in the man...but he's actually very funny.
He told us of his early years after Harvard Law School working interning at law firms that would never hire him. Of taking his entire lifes savings -- $5000, and investing it into an energy company that went totally broke and failed... and after more business failures, living out of his car and trying to get a cell phone idea translated into a business, when his friends finally chided him;
"Warner--you're crazy! Get a real job! Nobody's gonna want a car phone..."
He recounted how he ran for Senate against John Warner, " which confused the hell out of everyone with Warner vs Warner"...so, they had devised a bumper sticker that read simply: "Mark-- not John", but because it was in the south, there were people who mistook it as a Biblical reference-
Surprise number two: He has a tendency to be self-deprecating and humble without losing a sense of certainty. Sounds vague, I know. This may have been a political ploy designed to be a refreshing alternative to 5 years of thigh-high hubris that we've all been wading in, or it may have been a genuine personality trait.
With my fresly cleaned mind....I reach no verdict on which.
He confides that lately he is feeling like "the flavor of the month". "I don't have all the answers. I need your ideas." When a teenaged looking boy asked his solutions for the genocide in Sudan, there was a long pause and a deep breath before he reluctantly answered, first saying it was "horrific", then saying we've lost our ability to lead the rest of the world (due to our undermined standing) and finished by "I don't really know what we do right now in Sudan." He told the kid later that he'd like to hear HIS ideas on Sudan! Hmmmm. Humility?
Surpise number three: He held the room rather well for the full hour, and made some excellent points on policy as well as politics. He was smart, engaging and for the most part...informed.
By now you might be wondering just who has logged in under my username and hijacked my keyboard. I know. But it was Valentine's Day and I felt I had to give the man the benefit of the doubt. (Alex would be so proud!) Even a die-hard Clarkie has to be open to the field of possible competitors, and check them out.
Here are some of the key points and comments that I took away from the evening:
"Why am I here? After 2004, I got pissed off and that's why I'm here. I think the Democratic party is brain dead -- we can't just put forward candidates that can only win 16 states and need Ohio or Florida to win. We have to get Republican voters to take a fresh look at voting Democratic....and it's got to be about results."
Wanna hear his Dem platform? "Gotta be about Security. All our securities have receded." On Foreign policy: Need a strong military to protect us. And we should set no arbitrary timelines for getting out of Iraq. No to leaving Iraq now-- it's imperative that the Sunnis be involved in the government as well as other countries in the region...(He is visiting Iraq this summer). Iran is actually the more challenging and dangerous country, and Ahmadinajab--is the biggest threat to the world... No, No, No to taking the nuclear option off the table with Iran, although American leaders should use attack ONLY as a last resort... Hmmm.
"I'm a pro-choice Democrat." "My faith is important to me but I don't have to give Bible references in every speech."
Warner emphatically tells us he wants to "shift the political debate from Left versus Right and Liberal vs Conservative-- to Future Versus Past". That was a tasty little sound bite that seemed to resonate with the room.
We got an earful about his run for Governor and the craft of winning a red state-- by assuring the rural folks they could keep their shotguns, (oh how I wanted to pipe in here with a topical hunting quip, but restrained), by campaigning at Nascar (my clean mind started to fog up at that point), and by sponsoring a Nascar truck (getting foggier....dusty). Rural Virginia communities as well as the local business community put him over the top, he claimed.
After being elected Governor, he proceeded to reform both finance and education dramatically in Virginia, and part of that was accommplished by increasing TAXES-- or as he called it "revenue enhancements", in the middle of the birthplace of the anti-tax movement. An innovative program offered teachers financial incentives-- giving $15,000 Bonuses to teachers who would commit themselves to three years work in a failing school district-- The teachers would receive additional money and additional resources for taking on these three year stints to turn these schools around. (NOTE: this may have been the most people pleasing moment judging by crowd reactions) The results were quite spectacular from test scores (VA= highest increase in Math SAT scores in the country), to accredation of schools ( increased amount from 42% to 90%).
By doing efficiency reviews in the schools, they came up with millions of extra dollars they were able to put directly back into the classroom.
Additionally, Virginia is currently one of the top 3 rated states for homeland preparedness-- bioterror, bird flu, etc.
Warner tells us his best day as Governor was when he brought 300 software design jobs to a little coal mining community in Virginia. We didn't hear exactly how he did that, but it was a feel good story all the same. They now have the second lowest unemployment in the nation, and are declared to be the "best managed state in the country", Warner's philosophy seems to be that being a Dem needs to be about achieving results. To run on results.
RE ENERGY and the Bush admin: "Game over long before 2025..."
RE Swiftboating: "You wanna come at me-- I'm gonna come right back at you!" he growled with just enough conviction- (Cheers from the crowd)
Then it happened, in the middle of my semi-entranced state--- he did it. He did it not once, but twice, breaking the spell.
"Nookular".
He said 'nookular'-- twice. I flashed back to his earlier admission that 30 to 40% of his financial support comes from Republicans and Independents, and that 1/4 of his cabinet was Republican, and I muse that it may be affecting his speech patterns. He is well spoken and well educated. But-- "Nookular"...makes me twitch. My husband and I exchange a knowing glance, and a mutual twitch. A sort of Valentine's moment. Am I nitpicking I wonder?
"I think the Republican Party is about to break apart....it's not your Dad's Republican party anymore."-- is greeted with extended applause.
All in all-- I think it was clear he was running for President without ever pronouncing the "P" word. There was but the thinnest of veils covering a 2008 campaign...He met with Tony Blair and Jack Straw two weeks ago, and I don't think it was follow up on last summers Bilderberger menu... He left office with an 80% approval rating, and he left the Spielberg's home for yet another Los Angeles fundraiser directly afterwards. The man wants to be President.
As for me, I may have done too thorough a mind-sweeping-- I left there thinking.... 'Clark/ Warner'-- hmmmm.....might be just the thing? It was not what I had expected to be thinking on the drive home.
It was a Valentines surprise.
Thanks. There is always the possiblity...if Clark does NOT run -- of some other dark horse appearing mid stream that we're not so familiar with I guess.
After the refuse we've been governed by for so long, it's hard not to look like a pretty face in comparison. I think Pol Pot might seem attractive on the campaign trail after bushco!!
It's always best in these times, where an inordinate amount of focus is placed on what someone SAYS, to look around that to what someone DOES or has DONE. Actions and results. Of course not to ignore the words, but too much emphasis has been placed on these brandings and names by an administration that is nothing but a bag of gas words and calamity of actions.
So he's definitely worth looking into on that basis. He did achieve some significant breakthroughs in one little state anyways (actually it's a Commonwealth, not really a state).
and it comes up on comments in kos as well. He is doing well on the blogosphere but behind Wes. When Wes was stumping for Kaine, he had a lot of contact with Warner as well.
Who knows. For a while back when I thought Clark/Obama, Clark/Feingold (no more) either of those. '
Time will tell. But please, no Hillary in any capacity.
The prestigious American Bar Association, who's board is comprised of outstanding legal authorities from both parties, has now officially come out against the current Bush administration position and actions , and Republican party postion of insisting that the President, as commander-in-chief, has had and does now have Constitutional authority to go around the Federal Intelligence Surviellance Act (FISA) court and carryon secret spying on Americans.
__________________________ Feb. 13, 2006, 8:43PM Lawyers Group Says Bush Exceeds His Powers
By ANNA JOHNSON Associated Press Writer © 2006 The Associated Press CHICAGO —
The American Bar Association denounced President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program Monday, accusing him of exceeding his powers under the Constitution.
The program has prompted a heated debate about presidential powers in the war on terror since it was disclosed in December. The nation's largest organization of lawyers adopted a policy opposing any future government use of electronic surveillance in the United States for foreign intelligence purposes without first obtaining warrants from a special court set up under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The 400,000-member
ABA said that if the president believes the FISA is inadequate to protect Americans, he should to ask Congress to amend the act. Bush and his administration have defended the warrantless eavesdropping, saying it is needed to fill a gap in U.S. security and is allowable under both the president's constitutional powers and the congressional measure authorizing him to go to war in September 2001.
The ABA has urged Congress to affirm that when it authorized Bush to go to war, it did not intend to endorse warrantless spying.
The group also called on Congress to investigate the president's program to determine its legality, the extent of telephone and e-mail spying, and whether information obtained through the program was used in legal proceedings. (snip}
Looks like the legal grounds for, at least, an investigation of the President for possible impeachment, are impeccable.
full article on the ABA website is very interesting:
But we do have to work on that nookular thing. OMG!
There's a not-so-good movie (probably a TV movie) Just Between Friends. In it, Ted Danson is an environmentalist professor (I think), married to Mary Tyler Moore and sleeping with Christine Lahti. In some unbelieveable coincidence MTM and CL become best friends, and at one point MTM invites CL over for dinner which is a very funny scene as TD realizes that his wife's new best friend is his lover.
Why am I telling you this? Well, Ted runs off to DC to petition congress about nukes. He's killed in an accident in his way home. The last footage they have of him, which both CL and MTM are shown watching, is TD being interviewed on TV and mispronouncing nuclear. He catches himself and says, "OMG! Did I just say nookular? OMG. NUCLEAR. NUCLEAR."
...from behind "enemy" lines LOL
It sounds like Warner may have a bit of a Gore problem. Gore was also very funny and engaging in informal settings but he couldn't translate that to the campaign.
You cannot successfully run the world on comic book slogans and third rate biblical homilies.
Right maddy, but you see how Gore has overcome that problem with his more recent speeches. How he's seasoned now. Even witness how Wes is speaking live now compared to two years ago. The smart ones can assimilate what they need to know to improve and leap forward on that. I think if Gore were then the way he is now....he would've won by an even BIGGER margin than he did win by! ;P
Conversely-- I've not seen much change in SOMW and his stump style....or growth.
When I saw "seasoning" on the recent comments list, I thought this was a post from the Whittington shooting blog.
He was peppered, that's right, seasoned to within an inch of his life. -- Jon Stewart
in my Will for making me laugh so much lately.
What a gift!
I have so loved these last shows....peppered! and seasoned! Hahahahhahha!!
... I can't help thinking that if Gore were to run again, he'd revert right back into the dull wonky person he was in 2000. It's got something to do with knowing every word you say will be dissected. Also, giving one or three blockbuster speeches is a lot different from the daily grind of the campaign trail.
I'll take your word on Warner. I know this wasn't easy for you. ;)
You cannot successfully run the world on comic book slogans and third rate biblical homilies.
I didn't live in VA during his run for Governor, however, those who watched him "grow up" in politics and morph into a decent Governor say he's come a loooonnng way. He can be witty and funny in smaller and comfortable settings. I've only heard him speak on the road now in bits and pieces, but the times he was asked foreign policy questions, he really falters and hesitates. He clearly needs to learn a lot (and sounds like he's taking his cues almost word for word from Wes). To me, at least right now, he looks Gubanatorial, but not Presidential. Maybe in time. Glad you got a chance to meet and hear him.
would be proud of you. From what you've written, I suspect he takes the wind out of JE's sails.
Really get a good feel for who Warner is from your recount. Bravo!! We're so blessed to have you in our ranks for many reasons! - your live, in person recounts are priceless!
I wonder if/when the bulk of this country will ever get to a place where they're not choosing elected officials on how they appear/are portrayed by the television camera? Maddy's comparison to how Gore was perceived, case in point. It ridiculous that politicians are now required to be class-A actors, comfortable in front of the camera, but that's definitely a big part of being accepted.
If General & Gert decide not to enter the race in '08, it's good to know there's someone who (so far) sounds like a worthy alternative.
Alexm would be happy to know I'm now another one leaning Clark/Warner!
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
I don't think we will ever be able to escape that key camera friendly ingredient again. It will likely only get more pronounced instead of less.
But it's not really that much different than a first impression of anyone we meet guiding the rest of our perceptions of WHO they are.
C'est la vie!
Yeah, won't alexm flip out! What will we argue about now???
would run as a Democrat, and it's doubtful that the people would ever elect a Democrat that has no military experience.
And no foreign policy experience. to boot. The polls have already shown that those are the biggies for probable Democratic candidates for Pres. 2008.
Warner, doesn't know pea turkey about dealing with terrorists and other such horrid and frightening threats to the people of the United States.
It's not the peace days of Clinton anymore. The threat is real and the voters know it. Even the militant Republicans had to put a General, Colin Powell front and center to win the Presidency.
Clearsky
in South Louisiana
So, this man had you wrapped around his little finger until he mispronounced nuclear. Hmm.....?
I'm all about a Clark/Warner ticket, as I've said before. But it doesn't sound like this sequence of candidate's names is what Mr. Warner is looking to achieve, however. Compared to General Clark though, he's still wet behind the ears. I will be very curious to see how this all plays out.
All-in-all, you've provided a very favorable report. America loves a smooth-talking, good looking, seemingly competent man. John Edwards may have just met his match.
"COUNTRY before Party!" -- Wes Clark
As for trumping John Edwards? well hey r'rsmum, what kind of left-handed compliment is that?
How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and disgrace to a Man of Honor? - Quigley
I'd say more like surprised I wasn't sitting there thinking snarky thoughts and being derisive in my mind!
It was well delivered though. Not the "magic" and magnetism of a Wes event, but not dull in the least. I'm a stickler for Nookular...
I've never seen JE in person, but from the countless appearances on TV I'd place Warner way ahead....
Good looking? Hmmm. Kinda hard to think of him as good looking after General Clark. Wes has my vote.
Dearest, dearest, dearest Bilderburgers-
Thank you for choosing Mark Warner on our behalf, in the absence of actual democracy it is a comfort to know you are looking out for us as always. You really have a thing about tall ungainly brunettes who talk slow, eh?
Just this alone would have cinched it for me, if it were my choice:
"to turn their cell phones ON, because everytime one rings it's money in Mark Warner's pocket (Nextel) and he just loves the sound!"
OMG!!! That's like, so funny. It hurts. THAT MUST GET A HUGE LAUGH, EVERY TIME!
No- I mean- of course- yes- Warner sounds- so compelling, such an amazing personal story- made a killing on cell phones back in the day & slept in his car. My god, that's what myths are made of!!!!
That's serioulsy heroic in my book- forget rappeling down cliffs into burning vehicles or leading NATO airstrikes without Allied casualties or
Mmmmhmmm. He sounds very resourceful. Especially on international relations. Real grasp of the issues there.
Well, I guess after eight years of crooked GOP extremist rule, a relatively competent business manager from Virginia who would be capable of not running, for example, a fast food restaurant into the ground in the first six month would seem heroic in contrast.
I guess that's all we get.
I guess that's all America aspires to be- dreaming of cell phone towers & money in the bank.
What a visionary example to our children.
I am forever grateful.
Your servant, Democracy
------------------
Seriously? Nice post- but my god. Zzzzzzzzzz
"help!" :) heh
still in all, the General warns, "Democrats must not be single-issue voters." So we really don't have to be concerned about total lack of FP/NS creds. (General was talking about midterms however in this case.)
I just can't possibly conceive of a vice-presidential campaign right now and I don't believe that that is the position Warner is actually vying for, do you? ("...they do a disservice." -- Wes Clark) So until we actually have a presidential nominee (and clearly the General has not made his decision, nor will he I believe, until the '06 midterms are achieved), I just don't buy Warner running now, for vice-president...do you?
"...they do a disservice." -- Wes Clark 2-2-06, S.F., CA
How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and disgrace to a Man of Honor? - Quigley
to what he was able to achieve in his state.
He was told by the former Rep. Gov.when he took office that VA had a deficit to the tune of around $700 Million. Turned out it was over $3 Billion (gasp! They lied?) and he had to find a tax program that he could sell to the people with incentives to improve both rural and biz communities alike and turn a massive deficit around. Good skill to have right now...
Check out the education system improvements and health care. They're the kitchen table issues that we foreign policy snobs tend to downplay as irrelevant, but they're also the pocket book items that people are directly affected by and influence an electorate strongly. Nextel aside-- as a Governor he has proven himself to be more than "relatively competent"...and after what we've been living these past five years.... well, you know, Moon!
Even the ability to bring tech jobs to any part of this country in this climate is worthy of some note by itself. The people hurting at home will respond to this. They find it easy to forget we're at war because the so-called news refuses to remind them, lest they bother their pretty minds with the ugliness of it all. They do know they can no longer afford medical care, that their kids can't spell or find a job, that their credit cards are becoming ungainly, and their government has abandoned them totally.
Hey- look. I think he's "GGGGrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeaaaaaat!"
For a pre-9/11 world, along the lines of if we could erase the last six years or so maybe I could imagine it.
I'm just not going to lionize someone for being a competent business manager- that's neither rare or even unusual.
If Tim Kaine's address is an indication of things to come- and the Paul Hacketts are disregarded, etc. then I'll be passionate about who I can be passionate about- and it's not him- and I'll go back to where my heart is, which is being a no-holds-barred critic of the status quo.
I have all those same problems/issues that all everyday normal mortal people have & I'd like to see a world where we can get back to domestic issues & good living, etc. I welcome it. Heartily.
And as soon as a billion of these fires get put out, we can go there.
But my intent was not to LIONIZE or to invoke any lionization in anyone! Only to allow for the element of discovery and some pleasant surprise. It's several notches down the scale from lionization...;) Maybe it's along the lines of kittenization....
I was no fan of Kaine's address but it's all I know from him and was not piqued to look further into him at this point. To be fair, he's Kaine and Warner is Warner, being from Virginia doesn't make them clones. We need to be critics, and we need to be wisely discriminatory-- to discern the wheat from all that chaff....oh so much chaff, eh?
As for the billiion fires-- we need a veritable fireman to run for office.....
but since he was mentioned in the Warner discussion, I will say that I've seen and heard him in all kinds of venues over the past year. The SOTU response he gave on television was NOT what I've come to expect. He can actually be quite energetic and engaging, and is a heck of a good guy. He's different from Warner--who is more "formal" in appearance. The first two years of Warner's administration were quite difficult and nothing much was accomplished. It was his tax program, passed by bringing 17 Republicans to the other side (and they are paying very dearly for it now) and voting with Warner. He really rode a wave the last two years, and that's what got him where he is now.
the wall of amnesia 
love the detached vacuum approach and the mature experienced eye ya have and thanks for the report since I am a virtual grassroots activist I sure do appreciate you and husband taking the first person experience and sharing it ... mucho gracias... Bilderberger.... didn't they host Edwards in 2003 or 2004 he did a presentation in front of them... going by memory so have to fact check me on this.... very astute observations you social scientist you. Well can't sneeze at his achievements for his state and how he works the left by saying the Dem party is brain dead... he is a mover and shaker and a persistant son of a gun... living in a car dreaming of making a cell phone business then doing it .... making a fortune and making his state a social laboratory for progressive politices and then doing well ... only can hope he learned a lesson from the life and times of Bill Clinton and put down roots in his state deep enough so the next GOP governor that happens to them can't ripe out his work and run a bull dozer over everything he did and I would not snicker at his winning formula... you have to tell the GOP base you are not going to take their guns ( it was Gore's gun policy that brought out the GOP hate/fear base big time ) and going to Nascar then sponsoring a car in a big televised race..well he got the importance of 'imprinting on the public brain first impression last a long time... you have to be associated with a sport that everybody loves and be authentic or sincere that at least you are truly courting them ... they will accept real courting... politics is about marrying the candidate... women who want to date/marry you ... men who want to have a beer with you and feel their girl firends are safe around you ....
JE was a Bilderberg attendee right before he was annointed as Kerry's VP.
Clinton attended right before he was nominated as the Pres candidate.
Hillary attended alone several years ago...I think it was the conference that featured the new idea of creating a one party system in America. (We'll just call it a two party system....who would notice?)
I will say that there were many more in the room like myself who came in not that impressed with him and went out on the other side. I talked to the crowd for about a half hour afterwards, including the bloggers.
You are an EXCELLENT writer. You had me smiling throughout your report. Those little things you caught and wrote about made it such an enjoyable read. You've got talent girl!
I stayed amused and focused (unusal combination) while reading your report. I guess Mark Warner is a legit candidate. That's a good thing. Thanks for taking the time to go to the event and to write a humorous, informative report.
Wes would be proud. We sure are. ****
Glad you were able to glean some info from it.
Keeping eyes and ears open for now. And learning.... I'm lucky to be able to attend these events, and that my husband has sound engineering skills!
This was a hard report to blog for me for the obvious reasons. My having a favorable opinion of him after seeing him in person was firstly proving my initial knee jerk opinion of him to be wrong, which is always difficult to do-- to find yourself being narrow minded about a person before you experience them or meet them. Not an attractive thing to find in yourself....
Secondly of course as a Pro Wes Dem it felt uncomfortable and please understand that I was in NO WAY trying to compare him to Wes. It's obvious that Wes's resume, skills, personal magnetism and honor are second to none. I was only attempting to relate that I had to revise my earlier stereotyping of someone after I'd met them and heard them. Not saying I was blown away or that it took one iota away from my support of Wes.... so I hope that's understood.
He has a really good handle on domestic issues like education and health care with innovative workable ideas that I didn't write that much about as it was about 1 AM and I got tired! But there are a slew of these issues that will require some serious reform in the years ahead and I think he has -- at least in Virginia-- achieved notable results.
He's not my style of candidate. But his strength in turning Virginia's horrible deficit around and revamping education from K up through colleges and Medicaid insights have improved a lot of lives in that part of the country....I think it bodes better than a John Edwards resume, but then again-- to be fair -- I never heard JE speak! And I never got JE on any level that his followers did. I never saw the grand orator in him.....ever. I'm sensitive to oratory skills as my ear leads me generally.
So yes Holly, he's weaker on FP and admits it readily up front, but he's really quite strong on domestic issues.....nearly all of them. We need both. And yes Sybil, he's clearly running for President and from what I hear is not the type to rejoice in a second position seat. The VP idea was just my idle conjecture after being more impressed by him than I had anticipated.
One thing I think we need be careful of as Dems.... There is this built in -- no, it's an ingrained factor-- in the GOP...they have an ingrained disdain and contempt for the poor. Finding them undeserving and lazy. We can't be mirroring that sentiment by having our own ingrained contempt and disdain for anyone who's wealthy-- automatically finding them undeserving and selfish.
Living here and life experiences in general have taught me this one over the years. There are so many good hearted solid Dems with big bucks in my state that work hard for philanthropic causes and give generously. It's seductive to stereotype, but it's narrow minded and we all fall into it. I'm not saying Mark Warner is the Philanthrope of the Decade-- I don't know. But I don't think we can judge him evil due to his business acumen or his success. Now his Bilderberg visit--- well, that is another matter! We'll have to keep our eyes open... ;P
I will now stop feeling like I need to apologize for finding another Dem voice out there that has some good things to offer! Not the ideal "candidate", I admit-- but a pleasant surprise.
Thanks for the comments everyone.... This was a hard one...
I wasn't disparaging your FHA - from experience reading you I would hardly do that and always look forward. Glad that you had up-close-and-personal and shared. Seriously. Well seriously to a point. Sense o humor seems fast becoming a scarce commodity it seems. Admittedly mine is becoming strained.
Holly also had a point of view. So did I (have a p.o.v.)...I just can't get past General saying, "...they do a disservice." (to the midterms) I'm probably going to use that quote whenever/wherever the op presents itself.
Hope we're clear?
How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and disgrace to a Man of Honor? - Quigley
No Sybil, I suspect from reading you that humor is as vital a lifesaver to you as it is to me. We both have that one in common... I remember when I 'met' you and we were going on about PNAC becoming PNIC - Project for a New Indian Century! Hahaha!
So yes, we're clear. Like I said, it was not an easy blog to write but I felt I had to for several reasons. I'm totally with Wes on the need to distinguish ourselves as a party from the vituperous narrow Football team mentality side. I am literally trying to PRY open parts of my brain to do so and finding it a useful exercise, painful-- but useful.
No problems.... I like the diverging POV's on this blog. I will miss arguing with Alexm actually....
We all have a hard time thinking about any other candidate. Your honesty is appreciated. I especially like your candor about contempt and disdain for anyone who's wealthy. Living in Santa Fe has also taught me that wealthy people can and do give back and many are some of the most giving people I've run into. Yes, they can afford to be. But thank god they do! My measley dollars sure as heck has less impact. I believe they are also the ones we all want at fundraisers? It's hypocrisy to think they should shut up and only put up. LOL! They are voters and contributors, afterall. Dems seem to use them when its convenient and then discard them when they don't need them. What is that? I call it "reverse prejudice."
Warner... Your report has made me realize I'm not seriously looking at other candidates, but until Wesley Clark says "I will" ... I guess I need to pay attention to those that seem to be possible contenders as well.
No one should question your loyalty to Wesley Clark. ;)
I won't even try to choose a VP for our General should he run. I didn't think you were doing that either.
Thanks ms!
Unitary Executive Theory is NOT a theory anymore!
I appreciate(d) your report ms, hope it did not sound like I didn't- kinda short on time this afternoon. I saw him on C-Span & about had heart failure because of how long it took him to get his head in the game & become present. I don't think he's a bad sort. I could care less if he's wealthy- that will be an asset like it or not. Just difficult to get excited about. I hope to hear more.
Excitement is a rare commodity on the playing field these days... I know.
Thanks for clarifying. He will definitely be around so you will hear more. He seems to be competing with Wes for hopping around doing appearances everywhere.
Didn't see the C Span .
guess he didn't clear his head first...I know I didn't. I have a hard time clearing my head of old memes and new:
"...they're doing a disservice." -- Wes Clark
well whaddya expect? It has been exactly 2 weeks since my first personal encounter with 'General Electric.' I just don't have the discipline required for this mind-cleansing exercise.
...did I mention that I got a hug?
How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and disgrace to a Man of Honor? - Quigley
I have seen Warner in person twice--heard parts of that speech, which he does pretty well (He got several standing O's when he gave a similar, but non-partisan speech, at the local U; people here LOVE the man)--and have some firsthand knowledge of what he has pulled off in VA. I still do and will always want Wes at the top of the ticket, but if Wes does not run, I am would be happy to work for Warner. Warner's plus is that he is truly result-oriented, unlike so many Congressionals. And has managed to get results in progressive actions in a red state. And I was pleasantly surprised to learn that he is a self-made man (I had thought he inherited wealth.) I saw the NH speech on CSPAN, and thought the preliminary video as a bit over the top, but Warner's speech contained some of the same stuff you saw, along wiht some good comments on why he is a Democrat.
I really think that Clark/Warner is the only really possible winning ticket for the Dems--as far as I can see at present.
The General gets it right. Competence--What a concept!
I always like to look first for the reputation closest to home of ANY candidate. I know SOMW failed that simple test by being perceived as a bit of a do-nothing in N. Carolina. And a no-show.
Glad to hear he's loved at home. It separates the talkers from the walkers when they can be respected in their home arena for their deeds. A confirmation...
Thanks for that.
"Commonwealth" of Virigina? How big is it would you say? Bigger than a NATO Command? Or smaller than a bread box?
I'm serioulsy trying to clear my mind here.
How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and disgrace to a Man of Honor? - Quigley
I'm trying to open my mind here, get a perspective on domestic-issue achievements.
....oh, and better take that damn tent pole out of your eye.
How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and disgrace to a Man of Honor? - Quigley
http://www.nato.int/sfor/docu/d981116a.htm
This site seems to indicate a 32,000 force number (from NATO site) but am not at liberty to confirm as I'm rushed now.
No figures yet on Breadboxes....
Again, I hope I'm not being misunderstood as trying to COMPARE Warner to Clark... Didn't mean to-- and if it came off like that, my bad.
Very different creatures and at this point -- neither actually running..... officially, that is.
Now if you persist in mocking me further-- at least have the courtesy to do it behind my back, and not in my face!!! ( you know of course that I am just joking here^ )
Relax m_s, everyone prolly just wonders why mean old syb is picking on m_s
ROFL!
How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and disgrace to a Man of Honor? - Quigley
I couldn't have pulled it off. Valiant you are.
How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and disgrace to a Man of Honor? - Quigley
...long as it didn't remind you of "Seventeen, teen-age queens..."
How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and disgrace to a Man of Honor? - Quigley
The 12th largest state in the country, Virginia has just under 8 million people, but with REALLY HIGH growth rate (some counties increased last year by nearly 50%). Density is at 178 by US Census, compared to 79 average density for the country. 11% of the VA population speaks "other than English" as first language.
I don't know how 8 million compares to a breadbox or to NATO, sorry. Have to run, so I would google "Breadbox" + Population to find out! ;D
Virginia is 12th in population with 7,078,515 residents (concentrated heavily in Northern VA, Hampton Roads and Richmond metro area) and 37th in size with 39,598 sq miles.
Including the Democratic national leaders.
Ted Kennedy, among many others, has a home with huge property there.
(btw, I sure do like
Robert Kennedy, Jr.'s green weekend radio show on "Ring of Fire".)
Clearsky
in South Louisiana
This is just one person's opinion, and let me preface it by saying that I like you very much, ms in la, but I have to say that I am disheartened to read this post on Wes Clark's blog.
I respect your point of view and your right to express your opinion, but I would have expected such a glowing assessment to be on Mark Warner's blog.
I come here to support Wes Clark, period. I also support Dems that he asks me to support.
Mark Warner is seriously running for President, and given all of the positive press he is getting by the MSM, I don't enjoy coming here and reading more of it.
Warner has no foreign policy experience -- none. He may be a nice guy and a good governor, but he would have absolutely no experience or ability to deal with a world in crisis. That is precisely why I didn't support Howard Dean, and why I would have a great deal of trouble supporting Mark Warner.
Right now, I am following Wes's lead to focus on 2006. And I am still the starry-eyed dreamer who hopes that America wakes up and votes for Wes Clark for President. Until that dream is shattered, I am not interested in looking at any other candidates, no matter how funny or down-to-earth they are.
I also think that the nomination of Warner would play right into the hands of the neocons who will still be waving fear and terrorism in the faces of the American public. I don't think we can afford to nominate a governor with no foreign policy credentials.
I know you don't post here too often since the transition so I have to ask, are you aware? m_s is a died in the wool blue-hearted Clark supporter from Los Angeles and a blogger in her own right (who's counting?) She goes on fact-finding missions...I feel certain the General would approve.
All promoted from diaries to the front page by Larry
Saturday of sighs (m_s's FHA - most recent from Wes fundraiser posted 2 8 06)
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/4371
The General Takes the Pulpit
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/432
Blogger Round Table
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/4324
(Sorry m_s, methinks I should not have been giving you the razz on this thread.)
How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and disgrace to a Man of Honor? - Quigley
I'm sorry I didn't respond to Incog but I really didn't know what to say... As usual, you always do. ;)
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
to have given the impression of writing a "glowing assessment" Incog, or to have taken anything whatsoever away from Wes which I think you are intimating here. If you knew me -- you would likely not doubt that my support for Wes Clark is deep, solid and unwavering, but it doesn't prevent me from listening to and reviewing all sorts of other people on the political horizon.... I'm terribly curious and cannot overcome it.
Some people are much more disappointing vis a vis than their electronic image, and I report that-- others are more of a pleasant surprise in person than on the tube, and I report that... We all discuss a number of politicos here both the good bad and the ugly.
Were we to enforce a "loyalty oath" --that we can only speak positive comments about Wes alone, and everyone else must not be spoken of with any respect, or any "glowing"..... how far away are we from the current republican methodology? More importantly-- how far away are we from what Wes Clark would recommend? He's just not a loyalty oath, exclusivity kind of guy... from what I can tell. Doesn't need to be.
This report was only an attempt to say Hey! I was surprised to have found him more favorable in person-- (as I had spent a good deal of time "trashing" him on the blog in the past year). Wes has stressed so emphatically in the past several months how he wants us to elevate the discourse, particularly Dem to Dem, we all try-- and we all fail from time to time.
I have obviously failed here in your view and I am sorry, but with kids getting slaughtered by IEDs as we type back and forth about something so petty as a blog entry about a governor that is modestly favorable, and one bloggers diverging opinions....well, it seems counterproductive and narrow. To me.
I think it's just fine you don't want to even look at other candidates....just fine. It should likewise be just fine that I like to indulge my curiosity to see every candidate or every potential candidate as well. I visit extreme right wing blogs, listen to right wing radio, visit Dems blogs of people I do not support one whit.....I like to see what's in the mind of the adversaries, something Wes taught me also. Even when on the 'same team'. I would probably go see Hillary speak if I had a free ticket too-- even though I would not support her as a Presidential candidate....I'd probably go see her speak and I might even talk about it afterwards.
So if you found here that I somehow suggested that Warner WOULD be someone who would be able to deal "in a crisis"-- I again had no intention to convey that...how would I even know that from a speech?? -- Nor was I indicating I would support him for President or for the nomination. If you were around here more I think you'd realize that! My main thrust was actually much more benign -- I discovered by opening my mind that I didn't hate him and that he had some interesting points and had achieved some good results! I honestly don't see why that should be so offensive. It doesn't hold a candle to Wes's resume or -- anything about Wes. It's separate and different.
Your downrating of the blog is fine too, as most of the people here already had a chance to read and comment, so there is no loss for it to roll over and let new ones in.
But your post has saddened me.
And I was having a relatively good day....But it's OK, because I recover quickly!
Ms in la -- I responded below to everyone's comments, but I made the mistake of going back and rereading your comment here, and I just have to respond. So here goes, but you're not going to like it.
I am hurt that you would call my expression of my opinion narrow and unproductive, and then use kids getting blown up by IED's in the same sentence. It's a cheap shot.
I have been sick with worry lately about Jill Carroll who is close friend of one of my best friends, and much of my thought has been centered on her and Jill. And I've been away from the blog since September because I had been volunteering 30 hours a week with Katrina refugees who had relocated to my country.
Maybe you think I haven't spent my time here productively, but you are way out of line to accuse me of being narrow and unproductive.
Just got home from work to find smoke coming out of my blog!
Some things amaze me....
Maybe Incog you need to go back and read one more time as you missed a few key things...
You say-- "I am hurt that you would call my expression of my opinion narrow and unproductive..."--
OK, Here's what I actually said:
"I have obviously failed here in your view and I am sorry, but with kids getting slaughtered by IEDs as we type back and forth about something so petty as a blog entry about a governor that is modestly favorable, and one bloggers diverging opinions...well, it seems counterproductive and narrow. "
You can see what I am referring to is ^ "as WE type back and forth about something so petty as a blog entry--" <-- as the counter productive activity. WE= You and I. Just as I am now doing-- Yes, this very post I am writing, I find narrow and counterproductive! It was not your opinion and certainly not YOU I was calling narrow, as you stated, but our bantering on about it-- it seems petty to me in light of more grave issues.
I also didn't say you 'ruined my day'. I said I was "saddened" by your post but that it was OK "because I would recover quickly". No ruined days. ( It takes much more to ruin a day.) Hope that clarifies.....there are many more but again-- not the best use of either of our time or energy rations to belabor it.
So many times at Kos and other blogs, and here-- you'll see a provocative or interesting topic posted and the comments will degenerate into some mini battle between bloggers about themselves-- nothing to do with the original topic. Just one blogger duking it out with another, the poor diary topic ends up buried in acrimony between players who were supposedly on the same team fighting the same battle.
That too makes me sad. But does NOT ruin my day! Distinction.
And I think your work for Katrina victims is admirable and offer you major kudos for doing so. I did a blog about Jill Carroll here and I too am extremely worried about her-- so we likely have more in common than differing it might seem. Certainly we both have the utmost respect and admiration for Wes Clark, and do all we can to futher his programs and PAC.
I hope this makes things clearer for you.
Oh, one more thing-- It was not a Valentine TO Mark Warner! Now you're getting me in trouble with my husband. If you look one more time you will note it is " Valentine Surprise". As in it was Valentine's Day and my response "surprised" me.
I'm sorry I misunderstood the Valentine part, and I didn't mean to misquote that.
I also am sorry that this has caused such a brouhaha (althought I do love the word "brouhaha") but I will stand beside my right to my opinion and I will most certainly stand by your right to your opinion and your right to post anything you want to post.
Here's a belated Valentine hug from a fellow Clarkie (((ms in la)))
And I did see your blog about Jill, and I deeply appreciated it. I knew that this community would be standing behind her 100%.
Not to take anything away from the account of the event, and frankly Warner probably wouldn't be a horrible VP candidate, but at NCCM, during the 2006 candidates presentation, I remember hearing that much of what was accomplished in VA was a direct result of Tim Kaine the Lt. Governor, NOT Warner. I don't know VA all that well. Is it possible that it's like TX where the Governor doesn't have all that much power, that it's really the Lt. Governor?
Oh, and that was a deplorable answer to the foreign policy question. Would Wes Clark ever dodge a question like that? No way, no how.
about the Lt Gov vs the Gov responsibilities but I'd bet they vary widely state to state. If so, I'd be pleased to hear that Kaine was the one behind it because there was an awful lot of change for the good in that State (Commonwealth!) lately.
I don't think it's treasonous to recognize other Dems who get stuff done or who accomplish even minor things for the common good. We are all in this mess together and we need all the ancilliary help we can get!
I've ruined your day, ms in la? Just because I expressed an opposing point of view? I have to say that's not playing fair. There was nothing personal -- just my point of view. What would make you take it personally?
And I've left people speechless? Didn't you read my comments? I said that I like ms in la and that I respect her point of view and her right to express it.
But I'm beginning to get the picture that my point of view and my right to express it is not respected here. Oops, I didn't realize things had changed so much.
Yes, Sybil I know that ms in la is a true blue Clarkie. I was in no way questioning her Clark credentials. But I was expressing surprise at a Valentine to Mark Warner in the best of blogs at the WesPAC site. The MSM is painting Warner as the only real competition to Hillary, and I just was surprised that he was getting so much great press here. So I said so. Like you, Sybil, I like to expess my point of view, even when it's not the popular one. It's one of my failings, I guess. But in no way was my intention to slander ms in la. Quite the contrary -- I usually only write honest opposing points of view to those bloggers that I respect and who I feel will respect my point of view in return.
It wasn't personal -- just an opinion. If I'm not welcome to come here and state an opposing point of view to whomever I choose, then I better just keep my mouth shut. At one time this was a place that welcomed friendly banter and respectful back and forth.
But now I've ruined someone's day and hurt people's feelings.
And one more thing -- how would you know how I rated this blog? Do some bloggers have a secret way to check on other's ratings? Is that fair? Is that honest? Is it kosher to then publish what you think other people's ratings are so that everyone can point their fingers and say, "shame on you" for dissenting? Is that voter reform?! ;)
Obviously, things have changed here. I'm sorry to have caused so much trouble. I'm truly sorry for making everyone so upset.
I will now go to the corner, and like Dobby from Harry Potter, I will flog myself senseless with a wet noodle.
An opposing point of view would be that you don't like Mark Warner. See Melange's post for an example of an opposing point of view.
An opposing point of view would NOT say that posts that presenting other Democrats in a positive light are inappropriate for Wes Clark's blog. I think if you check through the Terms of Service, you'll find that there's no prohibition on making positive statements about other Democrats, even if they might some day be running against Wes Clark.
The content of her post said that it was inappropriate to compliment another Democrat on Wes's blog.
Would we have treated ms in la's blog differently if it were from a newcomer? Probably, because it would have a different context, wouldn't it? The context of this post is a super Clarkie saying, "Hey, I was actually pleasantly surprised by Mark Warner."
Clark Warner who's much less of a regular than ms in la and he comes here and posts positive things about Warner and/or his supporters relatively now and then. He's not rated down. He sparks some interesting conversations.
What happened here is that ms in la posted a blog that said something nice about another Democrat and incognito chastised her because she doesn't come here to read nice things about other Democrats.
One can disagree about whether those nice things are true. One can think that ms in la was taken in by charisma. Other people said that on this thread and they weren't jumped on. You disagreed with ms in la's assessment and that's what it's all about.
But frankly, I don't even know if there was any content in incognito's post beyond where she said she only comes here to support Wes Clark. I was thrown into such shock by that statement that I couldn't read any further.
well, two things. There's a double standard for "regulars" and for newbies which is, IMO, wrong. That's no way to build the community! But that's another discussion for another day.
I liked reading what ms_in_la wrote. I respect her right to write it and I respect Incognito's right to express an opinion as well. Everyone criticizing Incognito is doing exactly what they're preaching against!
I don't think we treat newbies differently anymore. I think we probably once did, but we don't anymore.
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding. I my mind, it was pointed out that ms in la was a regular to put this post in its proper context. Yeah, somebody random just comes and starts posting pro-Warner stuff and we'd be like, "What the heck? Why don't you go join a Warner site?" That's different than a long-time Clarkie saying, "Hey, I met this guy and he's OK."
Incognito expressed an opinion that it was inappropriate to post blogs that were positive about other Democrats. We posted opinions that disagreed with that.
It's my opinion that what makes this community great is that we feel free to post a blog like this one. We're often accused of not being open to other Democrats. We're often accused of being Wes Clark groupies. Here we have one of the groupies coming back from meeting another Democrat and saying he's not so bad. It's my opinion that's a good thing. And if someone posts that's not a good thing, then, yeah, I'm going to disagree with that.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I happen to think it's irrelevant to Incognito's criticism that ms_in_la is a regular, hence the double standard which does still exist. Heck, I know it's there because I experience it.
The content of Incognito's post that struck a chord with me was that the MSM is giving Warner enough attention, why do we want to add to it. By telling Incognito that it's not appropriate to say that she doesn't want to read pro-Warner stuff on the Clark blog is no different than Incognito simply saying she doesn't want to read pro-Warner stuff on the Clark blog.
Now, the content of the original post that I thought relevant was the implication that Warner might not be a bad VP candidate. 
Sorry, that was really poorly written and I'm not sure I made my point. It's late. I'm gonna hit the sack.
I was thinking on my drive home.... if someone really doesn't want to read about Warner stuff -- why would they even bother to go to and read a diary entry entitled "Mark Warner"? :D
Kind of funny isn't it? Seriously! Just wondering.
I know in the past there have been plenty of other entries about him and I would always just skip them out of lack of interest and time constriction...
Look, I don't necessarily like Mark Warner and don't really want to read a diary about him. I came to read this one for two reasons 1) you had posted the other day about going and you were soliciting tough foreign policy questions - I wanted to see if you got to press him on the issue and 2) it's like watching Fox News (you, yourself, said above that you listen to right-wing radio) You always want to know what the other team is up to.
Having said that - you can go back and read through my comments - I LIKED what you wrote - it was a good diary. My only initial reaction was the question I posed about the VA governorship, but it was a nice first-hand account of your evening. I appreciate that you went and posted it here.
I didn't get beyond the "I don't want to read this on the Wes Clark blog" comment to get to the rest of her post.
You're right that Incognito is free to say she doesn't want to see pro-Warner stuff here. And I'm free to tell her that's very un-Clarklike. I'm not telling her not to say it. Go ahead and say it. This conversation is deteriorating into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin because now you're telling me I can't tell her that she can't tell ms in la what to say. So, yes, none of us should be telling anyone else what should be posted here and what shouldn't--I guess including not telling someone to not tell someone what should be posted and what shouldn't. I feel like I'm standing between two mirrors!!!
I think the important point here is that I sincerely doubt that Wes Clark would have a problem with someone posting a blog like this here. I think he'd be proud of ms in la's open-mindedness toward another potential candidate. And that's the way I should have responded--I should have said that I was proud and suspected Wes Clark would be proud of her. That would have been much better. But I make mistakes.
As far as the "regular" thing, I think it provides some important context and that's why it was brought up. One always interprets what someone says differently based on what they know about them. If I know ms in la is a super Clarkie, then I read this blog differently than if I've never heard of her. If I don't know her, I'm likely to suspect that she's a Warner plant. If I do know her, then I know that's not true. If I think she's a Warner plant, then I might tell her to go post her Warner propaganda somewhere else. It's not about whether she's a regular here or a newbie. It's the fact that because she's a regular here, I've MET her, I've heard her husband sing a Wes Clark song he wrote, she's called me on the cellphone to report in from a WesPAC fundraiser, and thus I KNOW she's not a Warner plant. And that's what makes it relevent--not whether she's a regular here. It's just that the fact that she's a regular here caused me to get to know that she's not a Warner plant. For example, I have some Clarkie friends who are not regulars here. If one of them posted this blog, I would have treated it exactly the same as if ms in la had.
But, it is important that you THOUGHT that's what was going on. Because that means we're still doing it to some degree. And, you're right that we can't grow the community that way. We have to be diligent on that.
Or a Judge maybe....
SCOTUS?
Thank you for your kind words and your rational explanations. I love that ability to deconstruct an issue like that. And be fair and objective.
Differ as we might, Clarkies are an awesome group! Proud to be amongst you.
I was right. I didn't make my point. Oh well. Let me just say this...please go back and re-read Incognito's original post. It's inappropriate to say it's "unClark-like" - there's nothing wrong with the post. It was the expression of an opinion.
One of the dangerous lines of reasoning that we used to encounter on the old blog was people deciding for the community what Wes Clark would and would not approve of. I think that Wes Clark would approve of anyone's expression of opinion, whether or not he agreed.
I disagreed with her posting that ms in la wasn't free to post whatever the she wanted to on this site. And I'm just as free to say that as she's free to say whatever she wants. Remember, you're the one who's saying I'm the pot calling the kettle black. Well I think you're the pot calling the pot calling the kettle black.
Stop talking about her as if she isn't here fercripessake!
How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and disgrace to a Man of Honor? - Quigley
let's give it a rest shall we?
How great must our failure be until we turn in panic and disgrace to a Man of Honor? - Quigley
and your honesty.
Thanks for the insights. Must admit I'm starting to think Clark/Warner too. (although my heart still says Clark/Obama)
If you and alexm are both giving the same message ... I can't dismiss that kind of judgement.
Like you, I don't want to think about a non-clark option for 2008, but if that turns out to be necessary, I want to think there's some hope for the world because my research keeps leading me to the conclusion (at this stage anyway) that the GOP alternative is going to be George Allen. And the last thing the world needs is another dumb-f**k puppet.
I haven't read anything as positive about Warner as what you've written, but then, I'm not surprised to find the media isn't representing him accurately.