Thursday, October 12, 2006
Another one* bites the dust

*and by one, I mean moderate democrat.

I saw Mark Warner speak last year at Wake Forest's graduation. He was okay but nothing exciting--which pretty much sums up my feelings toward him in general. I didn't think he would be the next President and he apparently didn't either....

Former Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) announced this morning that he will not seek the presidency in 2008, saying he wants to spend more time with his family.

But he's raised a whole lotta money so it'd be nice if he would share the wealth....or tell other democrats how to do it.

It would also be great if more of the presidential hopeful bowed out early and gracefully. Especially the moderates...we don't really need fake democrats sucking up the airwaves come 2007.

So, WAY TO GO WARNER. Thanks for thinking of your family--and the party.


10 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

How the hell is Mark Warner a "fake Democrat"? Because of his tax policy? Because he differs on gun control from Nancy Pelosi? I think it's a sign of a healthy party to have competing policy viewpoints to debate. Couldn't a moderate position on an issue be simply a reflection of his views and not a capitulation to the Right?

Blogger kristen said...

Oh yeah...that's what we need. In-party debating. Whatever. Anon: are you a "moderate democrat"?? Are you "socially liberal" but "fiscally conservative" democrat? How convenient. What the democrats need is an extremist. Give the American people a choice in 08. If you want to waffle on gay marriage and a government's role in public schools than don't run.

Ummm...thanks.

And i mean that in the nicest possible way EVAHHH :)

Blogger quakerdave said...

Well said. He's a fraud, like Casey in Pennsylvania and a dozen more (Harold Ford in Tennessee, etc.) No more wimpy DINOS. Be a Democrat (meaning a LIBERAL) or get out of the party.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Be a Democrat (meaning a LIBERAL)"

Is Bill Clinton a fake Democrat? JFK? Truman? Hubert Humphrey? Pat Moynihan? Gary Hart? Warner is a heck of a lot closer ideologically to these guys than Pelosi. And way to pull up the Ford/Casey straw men. They're both running far right of Warner.

Enjoyed reading some of your past archive stuff on politics, but I guess I have a different take on what the Party's ideological heritage is (much closer to Warner than Pelosi).

Derek in DC (Anonymous)

Blogger kristen said...

I am the biggest Clinton lover there is and I think his centrist position was exactly what was needed in 92 BEFORE a woman's right to choose was under assault. Before we were engaged in a needless "war." Before the parties were so ideologically close they were actually the same party. I don't want a 92 Clinton and I think that if Clinton were able to run today he wouldn't be a 92 Clinton and I sure as hell don't want a Truman type who uses military superiority as diplomacy.

So yeah...we disagree on the direction the party should take. I think the bigger question is how dems can come together and merge views to win in 08.

But if you want "moderate" why not vote Republican in 08? The party who is now all about big government and out of control spending.

I guess I just wonder what issues are important to you? The issues that are more important to me are not safe with a moderate in the White House.

Blogger kristen said...

oh...but thanks for posting. seriously. i love these types of debates. i think these discussions need to occur well before 08 so we can get our eggs in a basket...be that a moderate or extremist one.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess I just think it's possible to be both moderate ideologically and still support Roe and realize that the Iraq war was a mistake of unprecedented magnitude in US history. Plus, Roe was under attack before '92 (many thought the Casey decision that came down that year would overturn Roe). Not sure how to respond to the last point. Clinton's "moderate" legacy is his successful shepherding of a tax increase in '93 that led to a balanced budget, unprecented economic growth and a smaller federal govt...hmmm, isn't that EXACTLY what Warner did in VA? And finally, the two parties are ideologically farther apart than at anytime since the 18th century (avg. of congressional votes). So not sure why being a moderate Dem in the Clinton/Warner mold is somehow a GOP in sheep's clothing...enjoy the blog

Derek

Blogger quakerdave said...

Yes, golly forbid we'd embrace values like saving Roe from the fundamentalists, returning to a fair progressive tax system, ending an illegal war, protecting civil liberies, ending the fraud of welfare "reform" (a Clinton production), allowing gay & lesbian Americans to serve in the military, allowing gay & lesbian Americans to get married, getting rid of the avalanche of guns that are slaughtering our children, providing affordable health care for everybody, protecting American jobs, protecting workers' rights to organize and to work in a safe workplace, cleaning up the corrupt cesspool which is our political system. Etc.

All that darn "liberal" stuff.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Alright, I'm done here. You're asserting things I've never stated. Once again, it's possible to be moderate and support Roe, call out Iraq for what it is, etc etc. I am just reacting to your default assumption of making far left, liberal ideology the litmus test for "are they a real Democrat?" Because, as I tried to point out, the dominant tradition of the party is definitely more in the Warner mold than any alternative. Good luck with the blog and hope you support whomever emerges as the Dem in '08. We do NOT need the underlying storyline to be the internal fracture of the Party.

Derek

Blogger kristen said...

I'll agree that Warner did good things in VA...but I don't think that those types of policies translate nationally. But either way, i'm not really an ecomonic voter.

I don't really have much else to contribute since I think we disagree about the "dominant party position" and (if it is the dominant position) if it is good for dems to be moderate.

I guess but only question is--why do you shy away from Liberal? What advantage do we gain from identifying at moderate?

If you come back answer that...b/c i really am curious! That is something I can't figure out...

Post a Comment

<< Home

footer