October 12, 2006
POLITICS: BREAKING: Mark Warner Bows Out
Warner won't run in 2008, after raising a truckload of money. Time will tell whether Hillary did something behind the scenes to make this happen, or whether Warner has something to hide; it's odd, since he worked long and hard to raise his profile, he has tons of money and it's too early to drop out based on polling. The only reasons for a high-profile candidate who was obviously motivated to run to drop out are money, scandals, and health. And Warner has plenty of money.
Also reported here.
UPDATE: I had believed in the past that Hillary had about a 75% chance of taking the Democratic nomination, and that Warner was the most likely anti-Hillary candidate, as a purportedly moderate Southern governor with a short paper trail, no damaging record on national issues, and tons of money. At this point I'd say Hillary's odds may be better than 75%, in fact, but it seems likely that her main challenge will come from the anti-war Left, and to no avail unless it's Al Gore, who has a couple of advantages on her, including his full-throated leftism on foreign affairs and environmental policy, his martyr status from Florida 2000, and perhaps a better connection with African-American voters (something that's not in great evidence on the part of any of the current Democrats).
Wesley Clark won't run - recall that he was largely bankrolled by people tied to the Clintons, and their money will be otherwise committed. But that still leaves two likely candidates, one on each side of the aisle and both with fabulous hair, who have never been re-elected to public office: John Edwards and Mitt Romney. Kos thinks Edwards is the Democratic frontrunner, which I don't see at all (I'd like to see people with Kos' foreign policy views justify this and this), but an Edwards-Romney race would be . . . well, kinda frightening, even though I like Romney as a #2 man.
The only other thing I can think of that might have motivated Warner to get out is if some big fish that he expected to stay out (i.e. Al Gore) is deciding to get in.
I disagree. If you want to be President, your ego has to be as high as the sky. My guess is, like Cuomo, there is something buried that he doesn't want surfaced.
Al Gore is not a big fish in my opinion. He lost the right to be president when he was outsmarted, and out lawyered by Bush and his people. One mark of a good president is to get the right people in and let them do their job. Bush got the right people to win; sadly, it looks more and more that he refuses to admit when he got the wrong person. One reason I think for Reagan's popularity was his ability to look at you and admit he was wrong. The one time he didn't was Iran-Contra, his biggest blemish.
What do you find scariest about an Edwards-Romney race? The reflected TV lights off their hair?
No, the idea that a nation at war could not produce one candidate with substantial experience. Romney has an impressive pre-2002 resume in business and running the Olympics, but that plus four years as Mass Gov is still kinda weak for a presidential candidate. Edwards' is even shallower.
Gore is gonna run; his book deal ("the war against reason") is set up to come out in early summer next year; b/w that and the rising tides of climate change (pun intended) and anti-war sentiment, he can run and he can win. make no mistake, gore 08 is a different man, an elder statesman with gravitas and with a so-sorely needed for the dems, spiritually driven value-speak message. He can give a damn good speech now (read the transcript from MLK's birthday '06 at Constitutional Hall if you don't believe me) and he is both the beltway outsider and the former insider. Nobody, McCain included, as a better resume. He is the only dem in the field that could take down McCain, some Clinton-estic dark horse that has yet to appear notwithstanding. it will be redemption time all over america for those who want a mulligan on the last 8 years, and judging by the numbers then and now, there are quite a few of them/us.
Please enlighten us as W's pre-Presidential credentials.
Six years (rather than four) as governor of one of the largest states in the union (much bigger than Va. or Mass.), a state with a substantial border with a foreign power, and unlike Warner, Romney or Edwards his performance got him re-elected by the people of his state.
Also, Bush had been involved on and off in his father's political career, which included a stint in the White House (for example, I believe George W was instrumental in the firing of his father's Chief of Staff).
Also - like Romney and Warner, albeit with less success - a career in business.
Also - like Romney, at least - a degree from Harvard Business School.
Also, unlike Warner, Romney or Edwards, Bush served in the Air National Guard, learning to fly combat aircraft, flying patrols over the Gulf of Mexico, and ultimately logging more time in the air than was contractually required by the Guard.
Bush is certainly in the bottom quarter or so of presidents in terms of qualifications before election, but his resume was at least more substantial than Warner, Romney or Edwards.
A strong Conservative candidate with a message can beat Gore or Hillary. The problem is that candidate has not emerged yet. As I have stated before Allen most closely fits this description.
Texas's style of government makes for a generally weak Governor so even though the state is big the job is not as big as the geography.
He has a particularly noted career as a multi-failed businessman and his military service is, well, let's say debateable.
Bottom 25%? Bottom 10%, easy.
You're either kidding, bad at math or blinded by BDS. With GWB being the 43rd president, he would have had to have one of the 4 thinnest resumes prior to election. I will acknowledge he had considerably less experience than quite a few presidents. However, there are as least ten of similar or less qualifications.
Abraham Lincoln - Three months in the military, 4 terms in state legislature and one term in congress.
Chester Arthur - In New York militia during Civil War as a Judge Advocate, school teacher, and Collector of the Port of New York, 6 months as VP.
Grover Cleveland - Drafted but paid someone else to take his place in Civil War, 2 years as county sherrif, 1 year as mayor of Buffalo, 2 years as New York governor.
Woodrow Wilson - No military service, President of Princeton, and 2 years as governor of New Jersey
Warren Harding - No military service, Failed insurance salesman, newspaper guy, 2 years as Lieutenant Governor of Ohio, one term as U.S. senator.
Calvin Coolidge - No military service, small town mayor, 3 years as state senator, 3 years as Lieutenant Gov. of Massachusetts, 3 years as Gov.
Herbert Hoover - No military service, got rich on silver mining in Burma, Secretary of Commerce.
Franklin Roosevelt - No military service, Asst. Secretary of the Navy, one term as Gov. of New York.
Jimmy Carter - six years in the Navy one term as Georgia's governor.
Bill Clinton - No military service, no civilian employment, 3 terms as governor of Arkansas.
Funny, I would take the qualifications of many to most of those guys over Bush. Coke head, drunk, complete failure as a businessman, debateable service record, Texas governor. Bottom 10% no problem.
I find it interesting that no one mentioned that poorly qualified haberdasher from Missouri.
I think electing Presidents is like drafting quarterbacks. You never know what you have. Nobody thought that poorly performing (lots of overturned convictions) US Attorney would make a gret mayor of New York either.
How is military service a necessary portion of the resume? Is someone that is employed by the United States military more patriotic than one employed by the private sector??
What I cannot understand is this country's fixation on having a military record in its leaders. I would rather they have a strong record of effective policy-making.
jec - I've never thought military service was a necessary credential, but it's certainly a good one. Just as some experience in the private sector is a good credential to have, but not an essential one.
LargeBill - A few nits. I think Clinton was something like a six-term Gov - Arkansas at least in those days re-elected the governor every two years. He did also spend two years at a firm, but mostly just campaigning to get his job back. Also, Hoover was best known for heading relief efforts that staved off famine in Europe aftre WW1; while he had no record in elective office, nobody doubted at the time that he was a brilliant and accomplished man.
Very late to this discussion, just want to ask Mets 06 to explain how he thinks Gore's Greenism will help? EUites cannot vote. He's still pounding the Kyoto table, and that's a documented failure. It will extremely easy for another Dem to gain steam and steal all the blue collar unions from him. Based on speeches he has given I think he is done running for office. elder statesman with gravitas? Hardly, although it's not beyond reach.