Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Warner's Out: Winners and a Loser

The shocking news that former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner will not seek the presidency in 2008 has drastically reshaped the political landscape for the Democratic nomination. (Read Warner's statement.)

Mark Warner
Many Democrats believed Mark Warner was one of the few politicians capable of giving Hillary Rodham Clinton a strong run in the 2008 presidential primaries. Above, Warner, left, lends his support to Florida gubernatorial candidate Jim Davis, center, and lt. governor candidate Daryl Jones at an Oct. 4 press conference in Tallahassee. (AP Photo)

It'll take a few days or weeks to sort out the full impact of Warner's departure from the race but here's our quick read on what it means.

The most obvious winner from the Warner news is Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh. Bayh and Warner shared much of the same ideological territory -- moderate, consensus builders elected in red states. After helping Gov. Tim Kaine (D) win the governorship in 2005, Warner became the "it" boy of national politics -- the candidate seen as most likely to emerge as the alternative to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D).

Warner's ascent came at the expense of Bayh, who found much of the air sucked out of his candidacy.
No longer. Party insiders say that there was a major behind-the-scenes fight for donors and activists between Bayh and Warner.

Not surprisingly, the first statement from a prospective 2008er on Warner's decision came from Bayh, who praised the former governor as "exceptional public servant, a great leader, and an influential voice in the Democratic Party." You can expect Bayh to be on the phone today to some of the money men who had sided with Warner in hopes of locking them up for his own bid.

Bayh still has a number of challenges to overcome if he hopes to ascend to the top tier of the presidential field -- most notably his perceived charisma problem -- but one major hurdle has been removed.

The other obvious winner from Warner's decision not to run is former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. Edwards and Warner were seen as occupying the tier just below that of Clinton -- the two candidates given the best chance of dethroning her for the nomination.

(View the Fix's Insider Interviews with Bayh and Edwards.)

Edwards is now alone in that second tier and -- at the moment -- has had the best 2006 of any of the aspiring candidates. Edwards has relentlessly courted the labor community since leaving office in 2004 and made loud declarations about the problems with the war in Iraq and his belief that withdrawal is the only solution -- moves sure to endear him to liberal voters dissatisfied with Clinton's centrism. He also benefits from the changes in the Democratic nominating calendar. The addition of Nevada with its strong organized labor presence and South Carolina, a primary he won during the 2004 race, helps Edwards more than any other potential candidate.

Clinton, too, gets some residual benefit from Warner's decision simply because a serious contender for the anti-Hillary mantle has been removed. The more it looks as though Clinton is a lock for the nomination, the closer to a look she will actually be. Perception creates reality in politics.

One quick loser in all of this: the state of Virginia. At the start of the year it looked like the Old Dominion might have two viable candidates for president: Warner and Sen. George Allen (R). Warner is now out of the race and Allen's struggles in his reelection race against former Navy Secretary Jim Webb (D) have seriously damaged his own chances of running for national office in 2008.

Make sure to check washingtonpost.com for updates throughout the day on Warner's no-go decision and its fallout.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 12, 2006; 12:42 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Eight Big Issues That Will Decide the Election
Next: The House Line: Incumbents in Trouble

Comments

I know Tom Vilsack, I worked for Tom Vilsack, and Tom Vilsack is no proper alternative to Mark Warner.

Posted by: Iowa | October 17, 2006 12:08 AM | Report abuse

If any of you read this book by John Harris and Mark Halperin, be prepared to get a STRONG DOSE of pro-Hillary stuff.

On page 132, a MAJOR FALSE STATEMENT was printed: "Whether Al Gore lost because Bill Clinton was too visible or not visible enough should not concern 2008 presidential candidates as much as the generic Trade Secrets that Gore disobeyed"...........

These two guys seem to have their heads up into Billy Boy's bottom that they can't see straight. THE BILL CLINTON FACTOR WILL BE MAJOR IN 2008. No matter where he goes, like the Cynthia MacFadden/ABC Nightline "soft on Hillary" piece, Bill Clinton HAD TO DUMP HIS BIG BUTT into the interview and the microphone picked up a statement by a woman asking Bill to get his wife to run for president. HE SAID HE WAS TRYING TO...........he is on record as saying it and tried to weazel out later by whining that he did not.

Ok, Hillary is at 30% in the polls. Big deal, it also means 70% do NOT support HER.
She was even dismissed by Robin Williams on Hardball last night as still having too much of "that other thing." The more Billy Boy keeps popping UP, the more it reminds people, including Democrats that he is HIDING BEHIND HILLARY. If the Democrats can't find a strong UN-HILLARY by January 2008, they will be stuck with her and will lose. Hillary has over 40% disapproval, and that is just the start.

THE FREAK SHOW WILL CLOBBER HILLARY. The Way to Win might be trying to help her, but it a reminder of the failures of Al Gore, and John Kerry.

Mark Haleprin called Hillary a warrior, what a joke. He said it on Cspan at the DC bookstore. Mark better get his blinders off his eyes and look at a strong Democrat somewhere else. It ain't Hillary.

Posted by: The Way to Win | October 15, 2006 1:37 PM | Report abuse

drindl, you seem so desparate to get off the subject of 2008. come on, over 200 comments in here are about the White House race, not your partisan complaining about other stuff.

With that said, I think Sen. Evan Bayh benefits from this Warner bowing out. Bayh is also a 2-term governor, so he as the needed executive experienc which the other Senators lack. Bill Richardson of N Mexico, Vilsack of IOWA and Bayh are the only ones who really can offer solutions for our nation. Hillary has already been at the wheel of the driver's seat, and she failed to help the party. Richardson was UN ambassador too, so he could offer foreign policy experience. But Hillary is too much like my EX-WIFE, too bossy, too uppity, and too OVER BEARING.

Posted by: Sam the Man | October 14, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse

'A Georgia imam pleaded guilty for providing material support to terrorism, agreeing to a maximum of 15 years of in prison for sending small amounts of cash to a foundation associated with Hamas. The WP notes that "the agreement, charges and even the plea hearing were handled in secret."'

Anyone who knows anything about Grover Norquist knows he's done much more to help Islamist charities and businesses--including radical ones-- in this country, than absolutely anyone else. So why isn't he being tried. And a 'foundation 'associated' with Hamas, what does that even mean? And why is everything secret. Welcome to the frigging Gulag.

'The LAT reports that rising health-care costs are leading long-term insurers to renege on promised benefits for the elderly, usually by finding a bureaucratic loophole. "Insurance companies are expecting record profits in 2006," notes the NYT.'

Let's see, insurance companies, renege on benefits, profits rise. Hmm. See a relationship there? Say thank you to republican deregulation, everyone.

Posted by: drindl | October 14, 2006 12:08 PM | Report abuse

The anti-war candidate of 2004 was Howard Dean, supported by the McGovern wing of liberals. That candidate right now is Russ Finegold. The other Democrat to challenge Hillary will be a fiscal conservative/centrist either Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, or John Edwards.

As long as their are 6 or 7 or 8 candidates on the Democrats list, Hillary comes out on top. (Edwards was favored higher than Hillary in September in Iowa)

Joe Biden is going nowhere and should drop out. Same for Christopher Dodd.

The sooner the Democrats reduce to 3 or 4 candidates, the sooner they will have a more realistic view of who the UN-HILLARY WILL BE. Otherwise, it is going to be a long primary. (Hillary is not going to win Iowa or Nevada)

Posted by: UN-Hillary | October 14, 2006 11:31 AM | Report abuse

jdburkitt: I think you are correct about Hillary, and from my prior posts you will find she is my favorite. Getting her to run is the important thing, and it is not that far away for her to make the choice.

Posted by: lylepink | October 13, 2006 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Mikeb: Your 4:05pm post is just about the same thing as I've suggested for a few days now. Lets try and get more folks to actually watch this program [Countdown] air time 8:00pm Eastern. The Cable News Shows have been all over this today, picking up on what Keith has been reporting these last few days. This is just another "Dynamite" story that has a whole bunch of traction. What makes it so good is the books author, a staunch repub, unlike so many that don't care what they do or say as long as they make a buck.

Posted by: lylepink | October 13, 2006 6:44 PM | Report abuse

Breathe deeply, Mr. Fix. No need for the Beltway histrionics here. Mark Warner was never a threat to Billary or anybody else, for that matter. He's still in the same position he was before: a money guy from a red state who might be VP for somebody else (though not Edwards).

Posted by: Steve Fought | October 13, 2006 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Let's be real, folks! Hillary has it sewed up, esp. since moving to center. All the others, so far, are wannabees. Obama is an attractive future candidate for Prez; but it's too early for him. He needs more time in the Senate.

Posted by: jdburkitt | October 13, 2006 4:09 PM | Report abuse

If you guys would take a look at the Sept 23 issue of the Des Moines Register, you will find a KEY FACT in the POLLS which led to Warner bowing out. The poll was done a company in Iowa:
Candidate Mostly Fav/Favorable
John Edwards 22% 32%
Tom Vilsack 19% 43%
John Kerry 16% 31%
Hillary Clinton 15% 28%
*******after Lieberman, Feingold,and Bayh
here are Warner's numbers
Mark Warner 3% 12%

The list of 9 candidates has Mark Warner at the bottom in IOWA, YES, IOWA.
That is why he had to drop out, after events and trips to build support, Warner failed.
After a year of polling, Warner has NEVER been in the top level or even the middle.
It takes 15% or more in Iowa to be seen as viable, to be taken as a serious candidate.
So the weakest candidate has left the stage.

Posted by: Iowa Voter | October 13, 2006 3:26 PM | Report abuse

hmmm, no comment on corzine???

also, mitt romney is a slick individual who has no problems being duplicitious. i saw him speak at a clean energy conference and he was very, very impressive. he was saying all the right things about capping carbon emissions and renewable energy being the future of the US economy. he was talking about how he supported the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) which is an effort by northeast states to create a carbon cap, through market mechanisms. some industries and utlities find this a threat, while others have a conscience and sense of social responsibility.

unfortunately the companies that don't give a crap about the earth or human beings help chose the republican candidate in '08. about a month after that conference, romney pulled a 180 and took massachusets out the RGGI because he claimed it was bad for the economy. essentially it was a cold and calculating message to his corporate bribers...i mean backers, that carbon emissions caps won't happen under his watch. it was very similar to his move on abortion and gay marriage.

this guy is a 2 faced typical republican politician who has sold his soul.

corzine is the right guy for the dems, to be the credible pro economic growth but still liberal and progressive dem. see my previous post.

Posted by: sam | October 13, 2006 3:24 PM | Report abuse

So many of my thoughts are coming true I'm almost afraid to go to my "Crystal Ball". I keep repeating Clinton/Warner in 08 as my favorite ticket and as time goes by I am more and more of the belief that I am pretty well on the mark.

Posted by: lylepink | October 13, 2006 3:14 PM | Report abuse

I disagree; Clinton is the biggest winner here. She has actually been staking out the same territory as Warner, simply because she must run centrist from now until Nov. 2006 if she wants to avoid the unfair and sexist perception that she is a "weak liberal woman." Warner's exit frees her up to run centrist, as I describe further at 18to24bracket.com.

Posted by: Andrew | October 13, 2006 1:49 PM | Report abuse


Warner is pap and I am glad to see him go.

I am not enthralled by HRC, but if you care to see Sen. Clinton at her best, look at the two pieces in the NY Daily News Thursday. She met with the editorial board. They published excerpts from the transcript and a news story. The subject was Iraq.

Posted by: as99 | October 13, 2006 12:59 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't mind seeing Condi run in 2008. Given the dynamics of the country it makes sense that the first elected woman might come from the Republican side, kinda like Maggie Thatcher.

I like that idea.

Posted by: toshiro | October 13, 2006 11:59 AM | Report abuse

RMill: Bill Clinton bombed at the 88 Dem convention. His speech was way too long, and he got his biggest cheer when he said "In closing..."

He got absolutely no momentum for his presidential run from that speech.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 13, 2006 11:57 AM | Report abuse

Well, Warner stepped aside from the 2008 race. Ok, he raised $9 million with his PAC, went to 85 events, including the Las Vegas Blogfest, and failed to gain a strong foothold in the polls.

The New York Times earlier put him on the cover of their Sunday magazine as the UN-Hillary. So the Centrist candidates will divide the centrist base to help some other UN-Hillary candidate come out.

On the Republican side, the latest Marist poll shows Rudy at 23%, Condi at 20%, and McCain down to 15%. Condi is still a contender, and she has the STAR POWER to set aside, do her work as our top diplomat.

If Karl Rove decides SHE is the LEGACY candidate, then it will be easy for her to say, I HAVE LISTENED TO THE OUTCRY OF THE PEOPLE FOR ME TO RUN. That is very logical since over 10 websites/PACS are dedicated to promote Condi for president.

Mark has a wife and young children to consider. So with Condi as a career woman (no husband/no children) she is completely free to focus her energy on the 2008 race whenever she decides.

McCain is a maverick, that is true. But the Republican base wants to support a person who is strongly standing by the side of President Bush. ONLY CONDI IS THE HEIR APPARENT. ONLY CONDI BENEFITS FROM HELPING BUSH HANDLE WORLD ISSUES.

As long as Condi maintains 15% or higher in the national polls, she is seen as a contender. It is early, and she won't be announcing until later in 2007.

The August Straw poll for the Repubicans in Iowa in 2007 will be a MAJOR factor of her to consider running. If she is in the top tier in Iowa, she is more likely to come out and accept the chance to run. Most of the work has already been done by the DRAFT CONDI 2008 groups, they have prepared the groundwork for her. All Karl Rove needs to do is hand over the list of Bush donors to her offical campaign and she will have the millions she will need to compete in the primary states.

Also, in New Hampshire, the voters can write in her name. That is a legal option, and is part of the Eisenhower Plan.

Posted by: Tina | October 13, 2006 11:39 AM | Report abuse

For those registered (free) with the Boston Globe link to Rick Klein's article on Warner's withdrawal mentioned above:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/10/12/warner_bows_out_of_presidential_contest/?p1=MEWell_Pos2

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | October 13, 2006 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Chris, You talk about candidates positioning themselves left, right, center as though the electorate has not learned anything from the past six years. It is long past time that instead of choosing between superficial labels, the focus be on competence, problem solving and the public interest. The person who rises to the top is Wes Clark. If you pay attention to what he is saying, you might agree that he is the type of well-meaning, public spirited, competent problem solver that we so desperately need. We are now coming to the end of our 6th year of corruption scandals, with almost $9 trillion public debt, a self-inflicted crisis in the Middle East, no energy policy, no environmental policy, no labor policy, no corporate accountability, with one scandal after another emerging from a government that has lost its way. Instead of the left/right/center lingo, how about seeking out some plain common sense and attention to how we turn this ship of state away from a reckless, radical course onto a safe, sustainable path?

Posted by: eve | October 13, 2006 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Time for some citations (credit). I've seen the articles with the information which you recently posted, so I know where it's coming from. It's credible.

When it shows up here without any attribution, it has the appearance of you just letting the flying fingers zouk across the keyboard.

Why do I mention this (as other have)? It gives your postings and positions more credibility.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 13, 2006 10:19 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Q's analysis above (Edwards as a major benficiary,etc). I disagree that Bayh benefits all that much from Warner's withdrawal. This analysis from the Boston Globe seems particularly good:

But some Democrats said Warner's decision reflects a cold political calculation as much as it does family ties. With the party's base increasingly favoring a firm anti-war position, nominating a one-term governor with no foreign-policy experience seemed unlikely, said Doug Schoen cq, a pollster whose clients have included former President Bill Clinton.

''His was a candidacy whose time would never come,'' Schoen said. ''He made probably an intelligent and practical judgment, given that the energy in the party was anti-war

Warner's decision, probably marginally helps him in terms of the VP slot, IMO.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | October 13, 2006 9:42 AM | Report abuse

"While I accept JEP's characterization of Vilsack, I just don't think he'd match Richardson on credentials."

No question Richardson has everyone "out-credentialled in this one." I like him more all the time, too, and so does a very diverse cross section of people I know. Richardson seems to be gaining respect, while so many others in the field seem to be waning.

But there's something missing in the WaPo's and the media in general's "Edwards" coverage that I see on the city streets and back country roads.

There's a populist swell for Edwards that has ALREADY created a grassroots base, just itching to get into the process once this 06' election is over and we know better what the lay of the land is.

It won't show until after the New Year, but it will really begin to pick up momentum as winter turns to spring in '07. All the pundits will have to pay closer attrention to "the street" instead of "the beltway."

That is where most of the voters live.

Posted by: JEP | October 13, 2006 9:15 AM | Report abuse

'Five conservative nonprofit organizations, including one run by prominent Republican Grover Norquist, "appear to have perpetrated a fraud" on taxpayers by selling their clout to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Senate investigators said in a report issued yesterday.

The report includes previously unreleased e-mails between the now-disgraced lobbyist and officers of the nonprofit groups, showing that Abramoff funneled money from his clients to the groups. In exchange, the groups, among other things, produced ostensibly independent newspaper op-ed columns or news releases that favored the clients' positions.

Special Report

Abramoff, the once-powerful lobbyist at the center of a wide-ranging public corruption investigation, was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison on March 29, after pleading guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that required him to provide evidence about members of Congress.

Officers of the groups "were generally available to carry out Mr. Abramoff's requests for help with his clients in exchange for cash payments," said the report, issued by the Senate Finance Committee. '

Grover Norquist is one of the most insidiously evil character in DC... as a bonus, he's also a member of the Foley club.

Posted by: drindl | October 13, 2006 8:53 AM | Report abuse

'President Bush finds the world around him increasingly "unacceptable."

In speeches, statements and news conferences this year, the president has repeatedly declared a range of problems "unacceptable," including rising health costs, immigrants who live outside the law, North Korea's claimed nuclear test, genocide in Sudan and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Bush's decision to lay down blunt new markers about the things he deems intolerable comes at an odd time, a phase of his presidency in which all manner of circumstances are not bending to his will: national security setbacks in North Korea and Iraq, a Congress that has shrugged its shoulders at his top domestic initiatives, a favorability rating mired below 40 percent.

But a survey of transcripts from Bush's public remarks over the past seven years shows the president's worsening political predicament has actually stoked, rather than diminished, his desire to proclaim what he cannot abide. Some presidential scholars and psychologists describe the trend as a signpost of Bush's rising frustration with his declining influence.'

Hee's melting... He's such a weakling I bet he totally cracks before the year is up. In fact if the Dems take back the House, he will lose it completely.

Posted by: drndl | October 13, 2006 8:35 AM | Report abuse

I think Richardson would be a good choice if we're concentrating on what the issues are likely to be at that time. Security, immigration, energy, and economy. He has good credentials and brings geographical, moderate, hispanic, and business plusses to the table as well as experience as a legislator and a governor. While I accept JEP's characterization of Vilsack, I just don't think he'd match Richardson on credentials. Richardson DOES lack just a bit in the charisma/presence area but that's what "handlers" are for, right? Mostly, I think the Dem party simply HAS to contest the West given that we are fighting such a battle in the South and seemingly getting nowhere.

Unless Edwards can pull Florida, I don't see how much help he can be in the South. The rest of the South is not really contestable for us except Virginia which I view more as Mid-Atlantic rather than Southern. The Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas. Tell me which of these Edwards carries? At least Richardson has a decent shot at carrying Colorado, Arizona and Nevada as well as New Mexico.

Posted by: DKinUT | October 13, 2006 7:58 AM | Report abuse

I just like to comment that my Father,"the King of Zouk" is a wonderful father who works hard and provides well for my lazy, good for nothing Mom "the Queen of Zouk".

Posted by: sonofzouk | October 13, 2006 6:41 AM | Report abuse

first off, to any and all repubs (bhoomes, koz, etc.) who would refer to a party filled with men such as wes clark, john kerry, murtha, etc. who not only risked their lives for their country but did something far more difficult--they actually killed for their country, what the hell have you ever done that can even compare? these are girlie-men? and if that's not enough proof for you, name the time and place, and when i finish introducing your face to your colon, we'll see who the real girlie man is.

to the important stuff: hillary can't win b/c you can't win when nearly forty percent of the people hate your friggin' guts (admittedly, for no good reason, but they still do). kerry, edwards, and clark can't win because the dems do not renominate past losers. richardson will lose because he is a quenstionable candidate with an easily exploitable background. bayh has the charisma of a stick of wood, and won all those races in indiana with the help of his daddy's name which means jacksquat in the larger world. as for vilsack...c'mon just say it out loud: "president vilsack" --never gonna happen.

so where does this leave us sorry dems? begging on our hands and knees that the repubs come to their senses and nominate something resembling a moderate (just please not another facist) like giuliani, mccain, etc. sorry, folks, but that's how i see it.

btw, if hillary, bayh, edwards, richardson, or vilsack, are nominated (as is certain) to lose in 2008 they should pick clark for their running mate. that'd be the only way for any of those candidates to assure the electorate their administration would have the toughness to lead in these times. anyone else would be an edwards-style add-nothing to the ticket (after all that crap about how putting edwards on the ticket might put north carolina in play, kerry-edwards did one percentage point better there than did gore-lieberman).

Posted by: david | October 13, 2006 12:59 AM | Report abuse

John Edwards is the big winner from Warner dropping out. Bayh's campaign will probably go the way of Lieberman's '04 bid. Kerry's still too beat up from his 2004 loss, Biden isn't taken seriously outside the Beltway (slave state? what are you smoking?), Feingold is too much of a gadfly, and Obama probably won't run this time. Edwards is the only candidate who'll be able to take on Hillary Clinton, unless Al Gore gets into the race.

Posted by: Q | October 13, 2006 12:35 AM | Report abuse

A little late on my comment. I wanted to watch "Countdown" and see if Keith would or could top the piece shown earlier this week that I thought could well have him kicked off the air, glad he is still around, and this one is as good if not better. I don't recall the show being mentioned until this week and now that some of us that has been watching for some time now are finally getting more and more folks to learn just how bad this crouwd in the WH really is. I also would like Chris to have this in one of his articles, the sooner the better.

Posted by: lylepink | October 13, 2006 12:06 AM | Report abuse

I think calling Democrats 'woman-haters' and 'gay-bashers' is the pinnacle of hilarity.

Posted by: roo | October 12, 2006 11:39 PM | Report abuse

Where is Bill Richardson in this analysis? He is definitely running in '08 and has a breadth and depth of experience unmatched, even by HRC, on the national stage. And considering the growth of Hispanic communities, particularly in key states like Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado and Florida, his narrative is compelling. With Nevada now at the front end of the primary calendar, Richardson has a chance to introduce himself to the country and build early momentum.

A staffer for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 7 term Congressman from New Mexico (1982-96), Ambassador to the U.N. (1997), Secretary of Energy (1998), and Governor of New Mexico since 2003, Richardson is a credible voice on three of the most important issues to the American electorate: keeping America safe, energy independence and immigration.

Listen, the guy spent time representing U.S. interests in North Korea and Baghdad; he's dealt with immigration head-on as a border state governor; and he embodies the New America, marked by the fast growing Sun Belt and a country in which Hispanics will soon be nearly 1/5 of the population.

Forget John Edward's "Two Americas." '08 could be about Bill Richardson's "New America."

Posted by: WML | October 12, 2006 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Warner was an attractive candidate. His departure helps the moderates, Red State residents, and "governor" candidates the most.

Bayh and Warner were pretty much carbon copies of each other, although Warner had more charisma. Look for him to absorb a lot of Warner's supporters and staffers. Look for his stock to rise.

Edwards is the only other major candidate who is a Southerner. Warner's departure all but gives the South Carolina primary victory to Edwards.

Richardson can now more easily make his claim of being a successful governor of a red state.

As for Hillary, I am still not convinced she will run. She's thinking about it, but I expect her to decide against it in the end. The nation is REALLY yearning for healing and unity, and I think deep down in her heart of hearts that she knows that. A rightwing polarizing figure like Bush should not be followed by a leftwing polarizing figure like Hillary, even if she's trying to tack to the center.

I strongly believe the Dems would be best off if they nominated a new face (with the exception of Gore because history has validated a lot of the views he expressed in the past). Things are so polarized now that nominating a Hillary or a Kerry or a Jeb Bush would automatically put 30% of the electorate or more in the "firmly against your candidacy" camp. At least a new face would give you the opportunity to tell your story and introduce you to the wider electorate before kneejerk partisans have a chance to do it for you.

Posted by: Zzonkmiles | October 12, 2006 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Murphy: Democratic judicial nominees like Kennedy and O'Connor and Souter?

Posted by: Rick | October 12, 2006 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Baker's Panel Rules Out Iraq Victory

By ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 12, 2006

"A commission formed to assess the Iraq war and recommend a new course has ruled out the prospect of victory for America, according to draft policy options shared with The New York Sun by commission officials."

http://www.nysun.com/article/41371?page_no=1

Ruled out the prospect of victory in Iraq...... If that doesnt say it all I dont know what does.

Posted by: F&B | October 12, 2006 8:33 PM | Report abuse

Ney is to enter a guilty plea Friday to a pair of felonies that could send him to prison for up to 10 years.

Posted by: F&B | October 12, 2006 8:04 PM | Report abuse

dc lin,

You're right, those sexist democrats don't want Hillary anywhere near the oval office. Too empowering, probably.

Here's something to think about...if it weren't for democratic judicial nominees, America would have over 20 million more women alive since 1973.

Posted by: murphy | October 12, 2006 7:57 PM | Report abuse

I suspect the reason Clinton polls higher than the other potential dems is that people have at least heard of her. Most people couldn't tell you what party Bayh or Warner are from. Everyone knows Clinton is a Dem.

I'm just not sure who her base is. With all the bashing she gets from the right, and the unpopularity of her views on the war on the left, I'm not convinced she has a good chance in either the primary or the general election.
Her husband is of course a centrist too, but he had the support of the left most of the time.
By 2008 Iraq it will be hard for anyone to deny there is a civil war in Iraq and I don't know if she can convince the party base to trust her with handling that to their liking without making it too easy for the right to convince the center she is a nut and a flipflopper. Easier for someone who has expressed serious doubts all along to navigate that course.

Also, I think there is still more than enough sexism in this country to keep a woman out of the oval office.

I have nothing against her, and would happily vote for her if she was nominated, but I think her chances are being blown out of proportion.

Two years ahead, when even most political junkies are vauge on the particulars of the candidates, is a bit too early to get meaningful data from polls.

Posted by: Cali49 | October 12, 2006 7:46 PM | Report abuse

I wonder why you all dismiss Hillary and why you have all assumed that she cannot win. No one else in any of these postings has been deemed to be unelectable. I think a lot of the anti-Hillary bias is sexism, and that many in this country do not want a woman president.

I wonder if dems have assumed the rep mantra, Hillary cannot win.

Posted by: dc lin | October 12, 2006 7:42 PM | Report abuse

For those that would like to see Gore run again. I can see him running again only to the detriment of the dems, realizing the bad mistakes he made before, when he threw Bubba down the drain, picking Bubba's worst enemy, as his running mate. The swift-boaters, and this is only a partial list of why I don't think he will run in 08. We all like to guess as to what will be happening in the next month and can make a more informed guess after that. Gore , I think, will be spending more and more time on global warming, which has been at the top of his agenda for a number of years now.

Posted by: lylepink | October 12, 2006 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Gen George Casey, 11th Oct: At least the current level of US troops will remain in Iraq until at least 2010.

Mark Warner, 12th Oct: I won't be running for President in 2008.

Smart guy. Unless someone is prepared to bite the bullet and pull out, the 2008 presidency is already a poisoned chalice.

Posted by: OD | October 12, 2006 6:50 PM | Report abuse

I would guess that Obama will wait until later than 2008 to run for President (probably too early for him). Also, for Obama and Warner, when you calculate the Clinton factor, it is probably a good decision not to run. This could set Mr. Warner up as a VP candidate (as stated in the office). Then he could propel from VP to the Presidency later. Who knows? I tend to vote for candidates from the other party anyway. However, this is interesting.

Posted by: GP | October 12, 2006 6:41 PM | Report abuse

Drindl,

>>> "...republicans have ALL the power. If they wanted to make abortion illegal, they would. They don't."

This is just factually wrong. Have you forgotten about that inconvient SCOTUS ruling?

>>> "Because the majority of people in this country think that private medical decisions should be exactly that --- private."

Actually, polls show that a minority of people (to the tune of 1/3) believe abortion should be generally available. Most believe that restrictions should be stricter, and a plurality believe it should only be legal in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.

Abortion supporters always change the subject. Killing your kid? No no, call it a "private medical decision". Better yet, pretend that inconvenient human being is just an unnecessary organ.

Posted by: murphy | October 12, 2006 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Hey, now, lets just ignore the guy from now on..

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 6:24 PM | Report abuse

One might assume from his casual attitude towards pedophilia that Zouk's a Foley type.

...maybe he's got skeletons in his floorboards, not his closet.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2006 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I thought the definition of a mod repub was one who took off his swastika when he returned home from work.

Posted by: WOW | October 12, 2006 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Yay Spitzer/Obama 2008 :D

I still not understand Hillary. Is anyone really going to vote for her in the primaries? Seriously?

Posted by: roo | October 12, 2006 6:17 PM | Report abuse

JEP,

He may speak better at large gatherings. I have only listened to him at smaller events and the content was more technical in nature (hard to be inspirational in those gatherings). I would add that the couple of interviews I have seen on he looked a little uncomfortable (almost shy).

Posted by: Iowa | October 12, 2006 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Che;

You're a good detective, where would we find more info about the Faith-Based office and who has been involved in it before and since Kuo left?

I think there's a big story in the Scientology influence, in particular, they were peripherally associated with the Florida vote-count issue, and there are other tales of political subterfuge hiding neath those cult covers.

I'll do some googling, but this cult has been in the internet business since its inception, and they have become quite adept at hiding old pernicious influences even from the most sophisticated search engines.

Here's one I already keep for reference, http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2001-08-23/cover.asp
but there are lots more, and it is a real can of worms.

I'll get in tough with my old pal "The Grand Spook of Lower Bohemia", he's the real expert.

And MikeB, I'm with ya bud, been at it all day. Started last night after Olberman's show right here on this blog (a couple threads ago).

You are so right, this is the kind of hypocritical backstabbing that will make the Evangelicals realize they've been taken for a ride by some very evil influences.

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Just scroll past. wouldn't want to trouble you zealots with anything inconvenient---

Like a few facts.

that would totally disturb the drindl/JEP mutual admiration karma. you see we can all get along after all if it weren't for that pesky majority of rational voters out there.

how are you Dems supposed to win an election if the real facts come out. I see your dilemma. scroll down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Sigh.

Nor'Easter: I guess I was looking for historical context. Ya' know, "when the House changed hands in 1968" etc. RMill's right that the D's have been acting like the R's used to do but I'm not sure that makes their leaders unable to change gears and actually govern. This is particularly important since the WH will be even more paralyzed than normal Bush's mental capacity being what it is. Cheney clearly might have another heart attack if he has to deal with a D-controlled Senate.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 12, 2006 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Oh , oh - real news again. More corruption from dirty Harry's land deals. there are more and more emerging. how unfortunate for all those crooked Dems who were hoping for plum committee chairs.

read a Steve Bowers column "The Log In Harry Reid's Eyes" about his pushing through the innocuous-sounding 2002 legislation titled the " Clark County (Nevada) Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act."

Averring that it was bi-partisan bill, Sen. Reid failed to note that it

"promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations and local institutions (who paid) thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his (Reid's) sons and son-in-laws firms, federal lobbyists reports show."

The Bowers column also contains a link to an LA Times article which takes a critical look at Reid's numerous land deals. Specifically, it lists six instances where the senator sponsored legislation regarding federal land swaps, annexations, transfers and easements that benefitted his special interest buddies, his sons and son-in-law. There's a lot more where this came from, including muzzling a Nevada media outlet that dared run commentary critical of Reid in 1998. John B. Dwyer 10 12 06

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 6:03 PM | Report abuse

I bet it's the zouk troll-buzzard. beedie eyes, bald head and rancid stench - yep, that's a zouk troll-buzzard fer sure.

Posted by: my mother is dead | October 12, 2006 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Calm down children. QOZ if you don't like KOZ's posts just scroll down. Look at the name at the bottom of the post before beginning to read at the top of the post. If it's KOZ then just keep going down.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 12, 2006 5:58 PM | Report abuse

How could a fighter like Spitzer be a bad thing?

The only people who are afraid of him probably have something to hide.

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 5:58 PM | Report abuse

The New York Times Co. could be a takeover candidate

the flagship lefty propaganda machine is sinking fast. more evidence of the paltry contribution ot the debate.

Stock market hits record high, deficit lower than 40 year average. cut in half in two years, not 5 as promised.

the real news is soooo bad for you dem...i mean dimwits. every institution you support sinks (see air America vs rush), every one you despise does wonderfully (see American business). Only a short matter of time before your complete irrelevance sets in. this election is going to be more of a surprise to the Libs and their media minions than the fall of the USSR was. screamin' Dean, Dirty Harry and bug-eyed Pelosi are going to be remembered for ruining the party once and for all with their moronic policies that are so anti-american.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 5:57 PM | Report abuse

to the trolls: republicans have ALL the power. If they wanted to make abortion illegal, they would. They don't. Because the majority of people in this country think that private medical decisions should be exactly that --- private. There is nothing more Big Government than giving the gov the power to decide when you can live, how you can live, and when you can die.

Posted by: drndl | October 12, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"He is not a cheerleader/motivator and he can be rather dull at times,"

If you were fortunate enough to see Vilsack's "Nussle Hustle" speech at the Iowa Democratic convention, you might change your assessment.

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse

go home and get a job - troll

at least I have a mother. :) what clutch of boobie eggs were you hatched from?

Posted by: queenofzouk | October 12, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Can't win in the marketplace of ideas so you have to resort to profanity and false identity. sounds like your style. total lack of intelligence and class. your mother must be proud.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-I-am-a-stupid-troll-

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Another foolish attempt to skirt the issues and throw mud. when will the furious book scribblers learn that they are not converting any votes. although an actual policy or idea might work. I keep forgetting, I'm talking about Dummycrats. there are no policies or ideas to be had.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I liked Warner. Would he possibly end up a vp nominee? In any case, I think the Dem nominee will need military or national security credentials to win the nomination.

Posted by: Melanie | October 12, 2006 5:45 PM | Report abuse

What a stupid f**king troll I am.

We suspected as much all along.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 5:44 PM | Report abuse

And they will switch over to Dems because they respect them so much. get a grip on reality.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Judge C. - "Why would Pelosi or Reid be expected to step down?"

They wouldn't necessarily. If history is any lesson, it will be that others step up to challenge them in the caucus.

Shouldn't Steny Hoyer be on that list?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 12, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I suspected as much all along.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 5:38 PM | Report abuse

drindl, JEP, other Democrats - I've been *really* busy writing every media outlet I can think of about the Davis Kuo book and the interview tonight on Countdown. Could you take a few minutes of your time away from this forum and help? I figure if CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, Seattle PI, Seattle Times, and every other newspaper and television and radfio satation in the country get emmails from a bunch of us, this story will play BIG TIME tomorrow and in the coming days. If nothing else, it might give KOZ a stroke! And there isn't a thing he can do about it. Imagine, tomorrow, every Evangelical in the country goes to bed knowing that Bush and Rove have been playing them for fools and calling them nuts. This is the best early CHristmas present I have *ever* received!

Posted by: MikeB | October 12, 2006 5:38 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk says: "you see I am 12..."

and it's readily apparent in its - whatever a kingofzouk is - posts too. Now, get your sorry ass home; the kids and I are still waiting for you to get a job so we don't have to keep running around the house naked and hungry because you're too busy being a troll!

:~)

Posted by: queenofzouk | October 12, 2006 5:35 PM | Report abuse

i'm not sure i buy the family reasoning for warner leaving the race. i dont think he was as amazing as people said or the ideal anti-hillary, but he was a smart and straightforward (for a politician) guy. too bad, as he would have been good for the debate.

this is good for someone who is rarely mentioned as a potential candidate for 08...jon corzine. corzine is the ceo progressive who i believe is going to make a surprise run. he's got the best track record and resume of the whole field and is a liberal who has credibility with republicans.

the two biggest issues in '08 will be PEACE in iraq and an economy that is contracting due to a deflating housing market and an overburdened and debt-ridden consumer. the rich and corporations will be just fine, however most voters will be worse off or at least nervous for the future. corzine is the man on both these issues as he voted against the war as a senator (but has a strong track record on real homeland security i.e. ports and chemical plants) and is excellent on the topic of economic growth.

his first 10 months as governor has been a success and he's managed to change the way things are done in nj. he's had a few blips and the menendez race is a little too close for comfort, but ultimately corzine has done a phenomenal job. recent polls show that new jersyans aren't confident about the direction of the state but think that corzine is doing a good or excellent job (56% approval after implementing a budget that raised some taxes, cut others, and painfully cut spending for a lot of programs).

in the next year his efforts to clean up the bureacracy, rid the state of corruption, restore fiscal order, and create an environment of economic growth will start to bear fruit. my bet is all this will come to a head in fall '07 right when primary season starts really kicking. his national profile will increase and he will be seen as the 'it' boy.

sure, other candidates will have a head start in fundraising and marketing but corzine will be in good position getting into the game at this stage as he will easily be able to raise the funds and is excellent at one on one campaigning. he'll walk into the iowa caucaus as the only candidate who was a marine reservist, point guard and captain of his big ten college basketball team, ceo, and farmer.

iowa voters pick their guy at the last minute, as demonstrated by john edwards last minute efforts in '04. after that i think the new schedule has the next stop in south carolina. lots of african american voters down there, and jc has support from the black community, similar to the support that clinton and carter had (key fact is that a dem can't win president unless he has exceptional support from the african american voting block.) new hampshire voters and power players pick their candidates early but also have proven to be fickle and fairweather fans. if jc can be effective in iowa and south carolina, the momentum will help him greatly in nh. finally, rounding out the first busy week of primaries, is nevada. many hispanic voters in nevada. again, hispanics love corzine.

jc has a good relationship with just about every bigwig in the party, including billary clinton. maybe its wishful thinking, but i'm hoping that all dems unite and rally around a great candidate like the one corzine would be. throw wes clark or warner on the ticket and no republican will come close to beating them.

Posted by: sam | October 12, 2006 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Heard a rumor (not confirmed, but not a trash source either) that Warner has quit to avoid being outed as a homosexual. Don't laugh, it has happened before.

I hope that this is not true, but it would take something that big to make him drop out so suddenly and at such a strange time (i.e. before the midterms).

If this is true, and Hillary orchestrated it, look for the cliche what goes around comes around to resonate, true or not in her case. This could get very ugly.

That said, a guy like Vilsack could be the one -- after all, who had heard of Bill Clinton just before the 1990 midterms? Let's hope history repeats itself.

Hillary's nomination will lead to a disaster for the democrats in '08, setting Spitzer up for '12 -- a disaster for the COUNTRY.

Posted by: Paul Mancine | October 12, 2006 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Okay, here's a strategy for '08 assuming McCain get the nomination. Dems turn him into a tragic figure. He was a maverick in an age of partisanship. However, his ambition to be president consumed him to sell his soul and convictions to the radical right. Thoughts?

Posted by: Zach | October 12, 2006 5:31 PM | Report abuse

you mean Abscam Murtha. I might consider taking a bribe if it is sufficient in size Murtha.
good choice, he will fit right in with dirty Harry Reid, Jefferson, Hastings, Mollohan and the rest of those crooks.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 5:31 PM | Report abuse

RMill: thanks for your thoughtful analysis of potential D Congressional leadership. A couple of stupid questions:
1. Why would Pelosi or Reid be expected to step down? Not saying that such an event wouldn't be a good thing but what normally happens under these circumstances when a branch of Congress changes hands?
2. In the House certainly Murtha is the best known and is widely admired in some circles. What will be required of a D House leader is the ability to herd cats along with the iron-fist-in-a-velvet-glove approach needed to deal with what will be a spoiled, resentful yet bumbling WH. Murtha might be a good choice but is also something of a lightning rod. Of course, in comparison to Tom Delay he seems only mildly polarizing in comparison. Would Murtha be a good choice? As Hastert richly illustrates age is, of course, another factor.

On the Senate side I'd enjoy seeing the WH try not to over-react to the historical precedent of Obama as the D leader. Would Bush would experience his own 'macaca' moment under the appropriate circumstances?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 12, 2006 5:23 PM | Report abuse

This was a good decision, imo, no matter the reason.

Posted by: lylepink | October 12, 2006 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Edwards has a good chance of winning Iowa. He would lose an important opportunity if Harkin enters the race.

I would not be surprised though if his message of economic populism has greater appeal in New Hampshire this time. He has the gift to complain about injustice and appear positive and upbeat at the same time.

In light of continuing health care and higher education inflation, out of control housing prices, and deteriorating wages, people might get it this time, especially in a north eastern state.

Posted by: Yockel | October 12, 2006 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Now emperor JEP is making life and death decisions for the unborn. How perspecacious of him. can you tell me when my time is up please? I am too stupid to decide for myself. you see, I am a Dimocrat. I am unable to make decisions. I can't even pull the correct lever in the voting booth. More of this to come in about 4 weeks time.

PS - I also need to be told how to save for retirement, go to the doctor, eat, drink, smoke, buy a toilet, drive a car, raise my kids, poorly educate them, pay for college....oh what the heck, please make all my decisions for me. except to abort my baby, you see I am 12 and capable of that particular choice all by myself.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 5:11 PM | Report abuse


For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.waynemadsenreport.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
otherside123.blogspot.com

White House aide resigns in influence-peddling scandal
By Patrick Martin
12 October 2006

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The corruption investigation into the activities of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff claimed its first White House figure October 6, when Susan B. Ralston, executive assistant to Karl Rove, Bush's top political operative, resigned her position. A White House spokeswoman said that Ralston "did not want to be a distraction to the White House" in the month before the November elections.

Ralston has long been known to have close ties to Abramoff, since she worked as his chief of staff before moving on to a similar position for Rove. But the pressure on the White House escalated last week after the release of a congressional report documenting hundreds of Abramoff contacts with the White House, many of them involving visits to Ralston, and dozens of gifts from the multi-millionaire lobbyist to his former aide.

Abramoff headed a lobbying empire which raked in tens of millions of dollars in contracts from clients such as Indian tribes seeking federal licenses to operate gambling casinos on tribal land, defense contractors seeking special mention ("earmarking") in congressional appropriations bills, and sweatshop owners in the Northern Marianas Islands, seeking exemption from federal labor laws. He traded on his network of contacts among Republican operatives on Capitol Hill and in the Bush administration, many of them dating back to his years in the College Republicans.

In addition to the thinly disguised bribery that passes for a normal day's work in the Washington lobbying business--millions in campaign contributions in, billions in congressional appropriations out--Abramoff was an enthusiastic

For the rest please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/oct2006/rals-o12.shtml

Posted by: che | October 12, 2006 5:08 PM | Report abuse

JEP,

I do not agree with you on many issues and I think you are extremely partisan; however, I do agree that Tom Vilsack would make a fine president. I would disagree with the charismatic description of him. He is not a cheerleader/motivator and he can be rather dull at times, however, I admire his knowledge of the nuts and bolts concerning issues (ie., knows how to get things done).

Posted by: Iowa | October 12, 2006 5:07 PM | Report abuse

JEP: The point about Harkin was that his cruising to an Iowa caucus win did not get him a drop of momentum or help down the line. Nor would it get Vilsack any momentum unless Hillary or perhaps Edwards were to contest Iowa and lose. The DLC and Dem Gov Assoc may help him outside Iowa (doesn't Bayh have those credentials, too?), but it will not make a caucus win any more of a momentum builder for Vilsack. To some extent, by taking Iowa off the nomination schedule, it helps all of the other candidates (Edwards, Hillary, Clark, Richardson, Bayh). Personally, I would have liked to have seen him as VP in 2004 because it would have helped in a swing state more than Edwards, so I've got nothing against Vilsack. Also, I want a governor, or at least someone who has experience as one in addition to other service. Just don't expect Vilsack to get big mo from a caucus win.

Posted by: jon | October 12, 2006 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Matt, Murphy

McCain is a moderate not because of his stance on Gay marriage. He's a moderate because he goes with what he believes in, rather that what the party line vote is. This is what has kept him from winning the primary election in the past for president -- He couldn't win enough votes from the religious right and other conservatives.

He has criticized the Bush administration in the past and worked with moderates on both sides to reach compromises on various issues, the most recent being a compromise of detainee treatment and torture. Remember the "nuclear option" deal back during the President's judicial appointments was a partisan divide that McCain and other moderates helped work out a solution to.

He has values that make him hold certain positions, but he's willing to compromise on a lot of issues that don't contradict his principles. To me, that makes him pretty moderate. As well as my choice for Pres in 08 in case you couldn't tell :)

Posted by: Paul S | October 12, 2006 4:53 PM | Report abuse

So now adultery is a bad thing. Is that as of this morning or did the Dems decide this some other time. Is lining your pockets OK. can you please ask Reid and Jefferson and Hastings before you answer? Seems like you now equate fiddling with interns the same as consenting adults stepping out on their marriage vows. Can we get a ruling on that? Are Dems for or against adultery? for or against sex with interns? for or against lying about it? I keep getting mixed signals. At least we can agree Dems are for tax increases, for surrender, for big government, for bad education, for exploiting seniors and blacks, for opening the borders, for killing babies. I guess you do have some lasting values after all.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 4:52 PM | Report abuse

RMill: I'd be happy to settle for a congress that can perform the task at hand and get good legislation passed. We'll argue the def of GOOD legislation some other day.

Personally I hope the House and Senate are each dominated by different parties after November.

Posted by: Dan W | October 12, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Had to correct and repost this one for posterity.

"Getting called "nuts" by Rove isn't going to make Christians go "hey, I think I'll vote in favor of infanticide this November"

Talk about nuts!

All right, Dems, lets get out the machetes and head on over to the maternity ward...

If I were a human embryo that was never going to be born, for whatever reason, and I had my druthers, (apparently, according to our troll, as a zygote, I would have "druthers, despite the fact I am not a sentient being for another three months), well I'd "druther" save some ALS or Alzheimer's victim from their pain and suffering, than just get flushed down the drain.

We give medals to dead war heroes for sacrificing their own lives for others, but we can't offer the same tiny bit of meaningful dignity to those one-celled humans?

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"Getting called "nuts" by Rove isn't going to make Christians go "hey, I think I'll vote in favor of infanticide this November"

Talk about nuts!

All right, Dems, lets get out the machetes and head on over to the maternity ward...

If I were a human embryo that was never going to be born, for whatever reason, and I had my druthers, (apparently, according to our troll, as a zygote, I would have "druthers, despite the fact I am not a snetient being for another three months)") well I'd "druther" save some ALS sufferer from their pain and suffering than just get flushed down the drain.

We give medals to heroes for saving lives in battle, we can't offer the same dignity to one-celled humans?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2006 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Red State Dem

I concur wholeheartedly. I think Clark would be very electable. I understand that he has become a much better campaigner over the last year or so. He would have to catch fire in New Hampshire and emerge as the credible anti-Hillary to get the funding it takes to mount a serious campaign.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 12, 2006 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I wonder what the Evangelical David Kuo thought about the Moonies, the Scientologists, and the Hare Krishna's (the religious cult, not the avatar) getting all that "Faith -Based" money.

I wonder, are they mentioned in his book?

Wasn't it Jim Ryun's (KS Congressman and one-mile runner) daughter who took over that office when Kuo left, or was there someone else between their tenures?

Someone correct me here, if I'm wrong.

Ryun's facing a real fight from Nancy Boyda here in Kansas, and as more of Ryun's misdeeds are uncovered (DC insider real-estate deals) that fight gets even harder. Boyda's a scrapper, and her red Congressional district looks like it may be turning blue.

JEP

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Unfit to Lead-
On the verge of retaking Congressional control, Democrats next big challenge is deciding who will lead the new majority.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has done her job well, feeding the Democratic faithful with partisan red meat. Her Senate counterpart, Harry Reid has done much the same. Now, in the final weeks before the mid-term elections, Democrats are poised to retake the US House of Representatives and possibly the US Senate. The question turns to not who can lead the opposition but who can govern most effectively.

Pelosi has been in Congress since 1987, winning a special election upon the death of her predecessor Sala Burton. She served quietly and without great distinction, Pelosi was finally rewarded for her loyal service with her election as Minority Whip in 2001. Upon the retirement of Dick Gephardt in 2004, Pelosi was elevated to Minority Leader.

National Republicans castigate Pelosi every chance they get, warning voters of a "Speaker Pelosi" agenda and labeling her as the San Francisco liberal that she usually is (although she voted for the original Patriot Act).

Reids' Senate tenure has mirrored Pelosi's, serving a bit longer in the US Senate, when he was first elected in 1986 after serving two terms in the House. He was elected Minority Whip in 1999 and became Minority Leader after the defeat of Tom Daschele in 2004.

Reid has distinguished himself moreso than Pelosi and not in a good way. Reports of gifts from various Las Vegas interests (casino's, boxing promoters) have dogged him. Stories are now circulating about an unreported land deal which garnered Reid $1.1 M. Reid asked the Ethics Committee for a ruling if he took proper steps to disclose these activities and denies any wrong doing. Reid has been a target by the GOP and has continued to feed them the ammo.

Reid and Pelosi, having been raised by their Democrat peers to the same positions at the same time, have had developed their political leadership tactics in the same political times. In the minority, excluded from all deliberations of the majority in most cases, the isolated Congressional Democrats embraced the duo's attack first, last and always approach. Now seemingly, they will be rewarded in November with at least a likely majority in the House and a possible Senate overthrow if the political tides of Democrats continue to rise.

The question then becomes, are Reid and Pelosi ready to govern?

It is difficult to gauge in the heat of battle of the mid-terms, but their collective behavior to date does not suggest they are.

The basic political instinct of Democrats will be to continue the march to 2008 and the White House by scuttling every measure backed by Bush and remaining Congressional Republicans. This will be more the case should the Congress be split between Democratic control in the House and Republican control of the Senate.

Nonetheless, there is critical work to be done in the next two years and obstructionist tactics will not be rewarded in 2008 by an already disgruntled electorate. Should these voters choose to vote for change, they will expect to see results, not a Democratic version of Republican domination.


What are the alternatives for Democratic Leadership?

A number of names come to mind, which have a better temperament to lead and govern. On the Senate side, many of them, for good or bad, have announced, or are anticipated to do so, run for President in 2008. It is unlikely that they would take on such a post knowing full well they would instantly become a national target in a difficult legislative environment. It was not by mistake that Bob Dole relinquished his leadership post while running for President in 1996.

They include:
Chris Dodd (CT), Joe Biden (DE), Evan Bayh (IN), Barack Obama (IL), Carl Levin (MI), Byron Dorgan (ND), Pat Leahy (VT), and Jay Rockfeller (WV).

On the House side, several members have the make-up needed to take leadership posts such as
Henry Waxman (CA), John Lewis (GA), Bill Clay (MO), Marcy Kaptur (OH), Ron Kind (OR), John Murtha (PA), James Clyburn (SC), Jim McDermott (WA), David Obey (WI).

Some are at the edges of the current leadership teams such as Kind and Clyburn and some have been elevated by media publicity like Obama and Murtha. They have not, however and for the most part, been vitriolic and are generally respected by their peers on both sides of the aisle for fairness and thoughtfulness.

None of this is to suggest a retreat from pressing issues against those policies of the current runaway administration that has generally enjoyed a rubber stamp seal of approval in Congress for the last six years.

It is more in providing a change in governance in Congress and the delivery of a clear and coherent agenda, free from distractions of rabid partisanship or worse, Democratic scandals to rival those of the current Republican tenure.

This is what I believe the American electorate (or at least a majority of them), will be voting for in less than four weeks. Democrats are bound to deliver results or they will face an equally discontent populace come January 2008.

Posted by: RMill | October 12, 2006 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Forgot to mention Capito R[WV], some of the rumors I have heard, and btw did not report, or mention what they were, are getting some ink now. I'm not much on the rumor thing but when I keep hearing them from very realible folks and see them almost word for word in the Cable-News Networks as well as the Print Media does make me take a second look.

Posted by: lylepink | October 12, 2006 4:12 PM | Report abuse

RMill;

...thanks for that Republican scandal list, it is getting longer every day, huh?

And I think your 08' ticket is a good one, again, it is heartening there are so many great Dem options, unless you are just a partisan troll, you can't deny the list is both long and imminently qualified.

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 4:10 PM | Report abuse

If this isn't covered, I think think Chis and the Post are missing a MUCH bigger story than they realize. I think is going to cause an even bigger explosion than the Foley scandal, the lies about Iraq, or much of anything else. Tonight, on Countdown, David Kuo, formerly second in command a the Whitehouse Office Of Faith Based Initiatives, has written a book where he says that the Bush Whitehouse has been playing Evangelicals for fools. Among the claims are that Bush is no Christian and that he and Rove referred to James Dobson and other Evangelical leaders as "The Nuts". If this story actually gets out there, I would expect it to cause a fire storm in Christian (and, even, conservative Jewish) circles and could do far more harm to Republican election hopes, and even to Bush's ability to simply govern, than the Foley scandal. My memory is just long enough that I recall the Vietnam War protests. It was a ragtag bunch of "hippies" until Billy Graham spoke out against that war. The next week, the streets were filled with tens of thousands of protesters in every city and Nixon completely lost control of events. I expect something similar is going to happen with Bush's handling of Iraq and virtually all of Bush's initiatives. The upshot, I think, could be something is is literally world shattering and this ought to be our topic beginning tomorrow. Tape the interview on Countdown tonight and post notes and quotes of the highlights. What's the old quote? Hell hath no furry like a woman scorned. I expect this will apply to millions of Evangelicals, too. If nothing else, watching Rove spin this and the Whitehouse apologies will be a lot better entertainment than watching Mel Gibson apologizing for his "antiSemetic tirade".

Posted by: MikeB | October 12, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"Unfortunately Tom Vilsack is no Bill Clinton."

In some quarters, that may be considered a good thing.

Actually, Vilsack is a very charismatic speaker. He is really quite reminiscent of Bill Clinton in his piublic speaking mannerisms, which is nothing new or contrived.

He is a real natural communicator like Clinton, and people on the "other side" don't seem to hate him, not nearly as much as they do Bill.

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Or I'll take ----- (Pres)/Warner VP) for 2008.
We'll vet the Presidential choice a little more and still appreciate Hillary as Senate Majority Leader.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2006 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Drindl,

That's some poor dodging, even by your standards. No amount of your finger-pointing or name-calling is going to make the democrats pro-life. Getting called "nuts" by Rove isn't going to make Christians go "hey, I think I'll vote in favor of infanticide this November".

Posted by: murphy | October 12, 2006 4:02 PM | Report abuse

BTW

I posted the list JEP you referred to. It kind of got lost as I put it in late the next day after everyone jumped to other topics.

Richardson is running.

I spoke with him when he was in Cleveland last month and he is on for 2008. I spent an hour or so with some of his DGA and campaign staff. They are obviously focused on re-election right now but it won't be long after that all the machinery will start churning for a national campaign.

And Warner, go figure. A Democrat who truly values family. What a shock eh GOP'ers?

Don't count him out for a VP slot.

Richardson-Bayh on '08.

Posted by: RMill | October 12, 2006 4:02 PM | Report abuse

My dream team is Obama/Warner in 2008 and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as Senate Majoritiy Leader.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2006 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Tom Harkin wasn't the chairman of the DLC.

"I wouldn't call Roberts and Alito nominations that get the religious right played for chumps."

LOL.

Those guys aren't in there for the religious right they are in there for corporate protection, its the diametric opposite of the "Pelican Brief."

Anyone who thinks thes new judges are anything but corporate tools is not btight enough to go back and look at their records.

They have proven they are much more flexible about moral issues than corporate issues, and that is just one more proof that the Religious right got the shaft from Rove.

The Christian right has been played for the fool, getting a "National Day of Prayer" instead of prayer in schools.

These neocons are book-cooking, money-hungry, corporate-power thieves, and they used the Religious Right to help steal the keys to the house that they have been robbing for the past six years.

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Long live Arnold's fight against the girlie-men dominated California legislature.

Murphy, Ahnold's practically become a Dem since his ballot initiatives failed. Has the Terminator gone soft on ya?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2006 3:55 PM | Report abuse

JEP-
Good point

Remember not too long ago, there was a 5-term governor of Arkansas who was chair of the DLC and delivered the keynote at the 1988 Convention. He did alright.

Unfortunately Tom Vilsack is no Bill Clinton.

Posted by: RMill | October 12, 2006 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Sad to hear about Warner, would have loved to have him run for the Senate. But you can't always get what you want.
On the other hand, also in Virginia, Congressman Frank Wolf is running FROM Bush. He no longer fully supports President Bush on the war against terrorism. Or at least that's what his web site shows. He used to have a big bold banner on the site that said "Congressman Frank Wolf fully supports President Bush and the war against terrorism. " If you check the site today, you'll see only "Congressman Wolf fully supports the war against terrorism." and no big, bold banner.

Posted by: NoVA | October 12, 2006 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Yes it is drindl, yes it is... as we have well documented lo the many months...

MikeB: >>>Just a suggestion, Chris, tape he interview, write up the highlights, and let's all review them tomorrow here!

Yeah!!! I Second that Emotion! :)

Not counting on it tho. If he ran that story Cilliza may lose access from his GOP masters.

Posted by: F&B | October 12, 2006 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Murphy: Actually we are quite well aware of the separation of church and state set forth by the Constitution. We just want to make sure our elected officials are aware of it.

Posted by: Dan W | October 12, 2006 3:52 PM | Report abuse

It's definitely too bad Warner didn't run for George Allen's VA Senate seat this year. I think he'd have beaten the macaca out of him.

Posted by: Len | October 12, 2006 3:50 PM | Report abuse

the last post about Vilsack stated, "but (Vilsack)is virtually unknown everywhere else"

This guy's the Governor (two terms) of Iowa, former chairman of the Natl. Dem Gov association, and is currently chairman of the DLC... And that's a short list.

Calling anyone with those credentials a virtual unknown suggests a very limited awareness of how politics is played.

Vilsack may not be a household word in Georgia or California, but every notable state, local, national and international politician involved in "the game" knows EXACTLY who Vilsack is.

There's no precedent for this, either, former Iowa "favorite sons" never had such deep involvement in the national party in so many capacities of leadership.

So don't trivialize such a distinguished and well-respected political figure as an "unknown". He certainly has the respect of our nation's leaders, both Democrat and Republican, and that can quite easily trickle down to the rank and file over the next couple years.

And you think Vilsack's name will be ridiculed?

Good grief, have you forgotten Dick and Bush?

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 3:47 PM | Report abuse

You're right about that, F&B. They talk big about supporting the troops but they turn on them at every opportunity. The hypocrisy is disgusting.

And you, murphy, with the permanently curled lip [I imagine you as looking like cheney]--it's about the hypocrisy. The democrats don't go around preaching to anyone who will listen about how terribly relgious they are. They keep to themsleves. They don't fawn on fundamentalists publicly, then trash them privately.

Why don't you get off your sneering high horse?

Posted by: drindl | October 12, 2006 3:47 PM | Report abuse

For the Vilsack fans who point out the the nomination season starts in Iowa, please remember that that did not do Tom Harkin much good. It will just mean that Iowa will be ignored unless someone comes in and beats him (much like Kerry and Edwards did to neighbor Gephardt). Vilsack also may have a problem if Nussle wins. Kind of the opposite of the Warner boost from Kaine.

Posted by: jon | October 12, 2006 3:45 PM | Report abuse

KOZ, Karl Rove is indeed the boogy man and George W. Bush is Satan himself. What I can't wait for is the Christian Right's reaction to Rove and Bush calling James Dobson "That Nut" behind his back and admitting that Bush is about as much an Evangelical Christian as is Osama Bin Laudin. It's all in a newly released book by David Kuo, the former second in command of Bush's office on faih based initiaives. It appears that, what we have been saying all along, is that Bush and the Republican Party has been playing Christian's for fools. Kuo, still a self described Evangelical conservative, but *very* disappointed in Bush and the Republican leadership, is being interviewed tonight on Countdown. Just a suggestion, Chris, tape he interview, write up the highlights, and let's all review them tomorrow here! This could be fuin! And even more of a deal breaker than the Foley scandle.

Posted by: MikeB | October 12, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse

For the Vilsack fans who point out the the nomination season starts in Iowa, please remember that that did not do Tom Harkin much good. It will just mean that Iowa will be ignored unless someone comes in and beats him (much like Kerry and Edwards did to neighbor Gephardt). Vilsack also may have a problem if Nussle wins, much as Warner got a boost from Kaine.

Posted by: jon | October 12, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Hey, a FDL sighting on the fix! Love yer blog and thanks for the update on yet another day in Foleyworld aka the dwindling days of the Republican Majority.

Also, gotta agree with the vast majority of postings on Bill Richardson. Id vote for him any day. We'll have to see how the primaries go when we get to that point.

OT updates:

Based on 63 polls of 48 districts of 1,000 likely voters each, they will show Democrats currently ahead in the House by 19 seats, 224-205

http://constituentdynamics.com/mw/2006/pdf/racesummary.pdf

Also, this is just despicable........ Jim Talent should apologize for Swiftboating an Iraq War Vet:

"""Josh Lansdale, a young Army EMT and firefighter on disability since returning from Iraq, says he didn't expect to be in the middle of a political firestorm over the ad that features him complaining that it took 6 months for him to see a doctor because of cuts in veterans benefits.

The ad is for state Auditor Claire McCaskill's Democratic bid for the U.S. Senate against Republican incumbent Jim Talent.

According to Lansdale in a telephone interview tonight, he's been flooded with calls from angry Republicans -- including one from U.S. Sen. Kit Bond's office, where an aide asked why Lansdale didn't contact Bond first when he had trouble getting in to see a VA physician.

Lansdale said he did call Bond's office during that wait, but that the senator's staff didn't return his call.

...

Even though the ad has been off the air for at least a week, a group of pro-Talent veterans -- including state Reps. Jack Jackson, R-Wildwood, and Jim Avery, R-Crestwood -- gathered in front of the Soldiers Memorial Tuesday afternoon to blast the ad..."""

http://www.stltoday.com/blogs/news-politicalfix/2006/10/talent-allied-vets-attack-mccaskill-ad-josh-responds/

The Republican Party has NO shame.

Posted by: F&B | October 12, 2006 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I mean 'required viewing'. See it. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll spit your tea.

Posted by: drndl | October 12, 2006 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Drindl,

I'm not really sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that democrats would be less derisive about conservative Christians? Are you suggesting that it even matters?

I wouldn't call Roberts and Alito nominations that get the religious right played for chumps.

Christians certainly don't get everything they want from the GOP, but it's a good deal better than the pro-abortion democrat platform.

Posted by: murphy | October 12, 2006 3:39 PM | Report abuse

http://www.thewarofthewords.net/images/poster.jpg

new mockumentary about armchair generals and chickenhawks... the 101st Fighting Keyboardists.

pretty funny. ought to be requird reading for trolls.

Posted by: drndl | October 12, 2006 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"As a matter of fact I think I saw JEP hanging out with Foley at TGIF."

...the day before he resigned.

Is that who showed him the emails?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2006 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Sad for Warner, but go Edwards! Only someone with clarity on Iraq is going to win this race. Hillary has failed. No doubt she has plans to run for President and that the wrong people are currently in leadership of the democratic party--

But, I have hopes that change will come, perhaps as soon as this November. The mistakes made these past six years are serious-- we've spent our $400 billion on a failed policy in Iraq, spent ourselves into the poorhouse, destroyed our military's reputation and weakened our defense, created the largest debt in history while failing to protect social security at just the moment when we need to protect it (no I dont mean privatize it, I mean, balance the budget and keep social security in an untouchable account). What else, we've alienated ourselves in the world, and as a result are powerless as it becomes a more and more dangerous place (Lebanon, Korea).

Its going to take some major cleaning house to get us out of this.

Posted by: Mel | October 12, 2006 3:32 PM | Report abuse

truthhunter: You are reading my mind about Warner. I have said all along my favorite ticket is Clinton/Warner and this gives me more hope for it. For him to serve two terms as VP to Hillary and then go on to POTUS is making more sense every day.

Posted by: lylepink | October 12, 2006 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Do conservative christians know they're being played for chumps?

'Author David Kuo's conservative Christian credentials are impeccable; his resume sprinkled with names like Bennett and Ashcroft. Now, as the Foley cover-up has many evangelical Christians wondering whether the G.O.P. is really in sync with their values, "Tempting Faith" provides the answer: No way.

Kuo, citing one example after another of a White House that repeatedly uses evangelical Christians for their votes -- while consistently giving them nothing in return;

A White House which routinely speaks of the nation's most famous evangelical leaders behind their backs, with contempt and derision.

Furthermore, Faith-Based Initiatives were not only stiffed on one public promise after another by Mr. Bush -- the office itself was eventually forced to answer a higher calling: Electing Republican politicians.

Kuo's bottom line: the Bush White House is playing millions of American Christians for suckers.

According to Kuo, Karl Rove's office referred to evangelical leaders as 'the nuts.'

Kuo says, 'National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous,' 'out of control,' and just plain 'goofy.' "

Posted by: drindl | October 12, 2006 3:31 PM | Report abuse

"I have always that Richardson one of the best, if not THE best choice for 2004 - and now for 2008. Maybe he doesn't want the job."

I meant to write 'I have always thought and said. . .'

I do hope he runs - I don't know if I could say that he would be a shoe-in to win, but he have a very very good chance. If he had enough money, I think that he would have a good chance against HIllary for the nomination.

Posted by: star11 | October 12, 2006 3:30 PM | Report abuse

from a previous blog subject, I don't remember who posted this, claim it if you're looking in, and thanks for the list.

I think we need to post this as a reminder every time one of our trolls starts pulling stale old scandals out of their...

Well, I'll leave it at that.

"Zouk
You really want to do this?
13. Bob Barr, (R-Ga)
Sponsored the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, saying "The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit." Was married three times and while married to his third and present wife was photographed licking whipped cream off of strippers at his inaugural party.
12. Robert Bauman (R-Md)(1989)
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist, was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
11. Dan Burton (R-Ind)(1998)
Republican Congressman who, while married, fathered a child by another woman.
10. Helen Chenoweth, Congresswoman (R-Id.). In 1998 she called (in a campaign ad) for Bill Clintons resignation saying "I beleive that personal conduct and integrity do matter". Days laters she admitted to a six-year adulterous affair with a married associate.
9. Sue Myrick,(R-NC) (
Congresswoman described herself as a "devout Christian." Committed adultery with a married man.
8. Don Sherwood,(R-Pa) (2005)Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Eventually admitted to an affair with a woman 30 years younger than him, after she accused him of physical abuse and attempting to choke her.
7. Ken Calvert, Congressman (R-Ca), champion of the Christian Coalition and its "family values." In 1993 he was caught by police receiving oral sex from a prostitute and attempted to flee the scene.
6. Ed Schrock, (R-Va)(2004)
Two-term republican congressman, with a 92% approval rating from the Christian Coalition. Cosponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, consistently opposed gay rights. Married, with wife and kids. Withdrew his candidacy for a third term after tapes of him soliciting for gay sex were circulated.
5. Dan Crane,(R-Ill)(1983)
Married, father of six. Received a 100% "Morality Rating" from Christian Voice. Had sex with a minor working as a congressional page.
On July 20,1993, the House voted for censure Crane, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct.
4. Ron Livingston (R-La)(1998)
On the verge of becoming Republican House speaker when his career was upended by marital infidelities.
Livingston released a statement in December 1998 saying, "I have on occasion strayed from my marriage." The disclosure came on the eve of the impeachment debate involving President Clinton's relationship with former intern Monica Lewinsky. Two days after his admission, Livingston said he would not become speaker; he resigned from the House a few months later.
3. Donald Lukens, (R-OH) (2001) Congressman, was found guilty of having sex with a minor - a girl he was accused of sleeping with since 1985 when she was 13.
2. Bob Packwood, Senator (R-Ore.) Resigned in 1995 under a threat of public senate hearings related to 10 female ex-staffers accusing him of sexual harassment.
1. Mark Foley, (R-FL)(2006)
Resigned after trying to solicit sex from male congressional pages via an instant messenger program.
"Maf54 (aka Mark Foley) (7:55:51 PM): cute butt bouncing in the air"

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Wes Clark has spent the last 3 years trying to teach Democrats what "national security" really means.

Many of the new Congressional Dems will have learned that lesson. Sadly, most of the other potential Dem challengers in 08 have not.

2008 will still be a national security election, Clark's still the only one who 1) isn't a Senator and 2) has a snowball's chance of convincing Republicans that Democrats don't automatically come equipped with horns and a tail.

All Rove's minions will have to do to beat Edwards is to quote his "redistribute the wealth" speeches.

Posted by: Red State Dem | October 12, 2006 3:21 PM | Report abuse

prophet or profit,

>>> "...I do not know exactly his position on organized religion and its place in public life..."

"America has a political religion and that people who are elected to office subscribe to this political religion, which is to place the oath of office, an oath to abide by a nation of laws and the Constitution, above all others. And there's no question that as I take the oath of office as governor, and have, that I make that my primary responsibility." -- Mitt Romney

>>> "They own Utah, and run their missionaries like a business - due to its religious nature, one NOT open to federal oversight. What is their agenda?"

The missionary program is run "like a business" in the sense that it's run "very well". But the agenda is plain and simple...proselyting. Would you prefer a missionary program run poorly? As for the "own Utah" comment, would you prefer that religious people or their churches cannot purchase property?

If you can point to any instance of the Mormon church having Mitt's ear or wallet during his tenure as governor, I'd like to see it.

>>> "...everyone is welcome to believe whatever they want, as long as they keep it to themselves and do not pollute the public discussion with superstition and bias."

Wow. Do you properly understand how the Constitution has outlined the interaction between government and religion?

Posted by: murphy | October 12, 2006 3:20 PM | Report abuse

. Dana Bash just reported on CNN that Fordham is testifying right now before the Ethics Committee. And that CNN has confirmed that Fordham set up a face-to-face meeting between Hastert's Chief of Staff Palmer and former Rep. Foley back in 2003 -- and that CNN has confirmed this with two other sources that are not Fordham.
______________________________

Big day of testimony on the Hill today, as the Ethics Committee hears from members of Congress and staffers, including Kirk Fordham, former chief of staff for Tom Reynolds (R-NY), and previously CoS for Mark Foley (fomer R-FL). WV Rep. Shelly Moore Capito also appeared under subpoena today -- she's a member of the page board and says that she was NOT informed of the Foley mess -- which truly makes one wonder how hard Shimkus and others were working to keep this information in as small a circle as possible. Perhaps three of Hastert's top staffers will be able to shed some light on this. Which begs the question -- why would they keep fellow page board members out of the loop entirely? And why wasn't the safety of the pages the very top of the list of concerns for the Republican leadership?

Posted by: firedoglake | October 12, 2006 3:18 PM | Report abuse

As much as I would like to say otherwise, I don't believe that Vilsack has much of a chance (1) he'll have a good start from his home state of Iowa, but is virtually unknown everywhere else and (2) the jokes on what his name rhymes with will not give him the kind of name recognition that he will want to receive.

Posted by: BADMAN | October 12, 2006 3:17 PM | Report abuse

meuphys: I define a moderate repub as a social conserative with a preference for fiscal responsibility.

Basically my definition of moderate repub is fast becoming the definition for liberterian.

Posted by: Dan W | October 12, 2006 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Wonder how McCain will appeal to "The Nuts?"

I don't think the Republican base will embrace him, they all still remember the old McCain, from before his most recent transformation.

If it talks like a moderate, votes like a moderate and acts like a moderate, he must be conservative?

Rove may have fooled them once, but it won't happen again.

"The Nuts" will probably get behind someone like Brownback before its over, and you will see the Republican Party return to the days of Bob Dole and Barry Goldwater; days of future-past.

They sure satisfied their wingnut base, but they never won the big office because, in order to satisfy their base, they had to surrender the majority.

At least Dole and Goldwater didn't call their own base "Nuts".

But I guess Rove figured, you'd have to be nuts to claim be a Christian and vote for Bush the warmongering torturer.

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Star11, you make a fair point. McCain has been aggressively courting the Republican base (i.e., the far right) for the past couple of years. While I suspect he may make a slight swing back toward the center after the 2008 primaries (if he gets the nomination), I would definitely have some reservations about voting for the guy. I just hope we Democrats can nominate someone reasonable so I don't have to make that choice.

Posted by: Steve | October 12, 2006 3:14 PM | Report abuse

nope, no moderate Republicans, at least not many, and there may well be fewer in a few weeks. you see, moderate Republicans get elected - usually - on the basis of their being able to work well with those of the opposing party to put forward a mainstream agenda, although there will certainly be some disagreement between the 2 parties as to what defines "moderate."
however, in the Age of Karl Rove, "results-oriented" is out, except when the results in question come in the form of either contributions or election returns. Nowadays we are no longer able even to agree on what would constitute success, and if we cannot imagine what our goal is to be, how can we ever make any progress on any front other than partisan conflict?

Posted by: meuphys | October 12, 2006 3:12 PM | Report abuse

'Everybody knows Real men are republicans.' LOL

You mean like Mark Foley and most of the rest of the leadership?

Republican men talk big and are possesed of a small stick...

Posted by: dana | October 12, 2006 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Murphy: K. Ill concede. However, I maintain that as a whole he is not the same moderate we elected in 2002.

Posted by: Dan W | October 12, 2006 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"I have always that Richardson one of the best, if not THE best choice for 2004 - and now for 2008. Maybe he doesn't want the job."

I know for a fact that he will make a run.

Posted by: Venicemenace | October 12, 2006 3:10 PM | Report abuse

Star11: I agree with you. Moderate Repubs don't get any mention in the press anymore. Those who were once moderates are running Right as fast as they can.

Give a moderate the nomination and watch him get elected.

Posted by: Dan W | October 12, 2006 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Dan W,

I'll grant you stem cells, as Romney's tied that to the same pro-life rationale that backs up his policy on abortion.

But gay marriage? He was very open during his 2002 campaign about being against gay marriage.

Posted by: murphy | October 12, 2006 3:08 PM | Report abuse

"pundirty money"

oops, I meant "punditry"

A Fruedian slip of the keyboard?

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Steve,

re: post of 2:41 - McCain is NOT a moderate - he was at one point and I once thought the same as you - I would consider voting for him if Hillary was the Dem candidate - any party who thinks she is the best choice is crazy and doesn't deserve my vote - but in the past 18 months to 2 yrs McCain has changed his tune and is as far to the right as Bush is - I know there was an article on him sometime earlier this year or late last year laying out how far he has swung to the right - I cannot even begin to remember where I read it - and it was frightening. Anyone know of this article? It was something significant like the NYT Magazine or New Yorker but I cannot remember.

I am not sure there is a moderate Republican left who could possibly be nominated.

Posted by: star11 | October 12, 2006 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Murphy: Paul S at 12:36.

Stem Cells, Gay marriage, He is now in Lock step with the Religious Right over "traditional" Rep values.

Posted by: Dan W | October 12, 2006 3:00 PM | Report abuse

I think Rob could give "The Fix" a run for its pundirty money, I think he's onto something in his post.

But I also agree that Vilsack can have a great deal of influence on the 08' race, and he, too has proven he can lead under duress.

He steered Iowa's wayward Republican-controlled state houses (which might just change hands next month) through two terms, and managed to stay ahead of the serious critics.

He's a dark-horse, for sure, but he's definitely in the race. And lest we forget, the Iowa caucus is still the virtual headwaters of the presidential election process.

Whether Howard likes it or not, Iowa's still the Presidential starting block.

A populist Governor from Iowa, who is also chairman of the DLC, and former chairman of the Natl Dem Governors Association, has obviously made all the right political connections and should not be counted out.

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 2:58 PM | Report abuse

quick comment on Romney from someone who lives in Massachusetts. He is smart but cold and calculating, and it is almost impossible to see beneath the surface - to "kick the tires," as it were. And while I do not know exactly his position on organized religion and its place in public life, I do know that he has moved steadily Bush-ward since he was elected as a "moderate."
and the Mormon thing - I almost don't want to mention it because i don't want it perceived as religious prejudice, but still. They own Utah, and run their missionaries like a business - due to its religious nature, one NOT open to federal oversight. What is their agenda? and would they have Mitt's ear and wallet as reliably as they have during his tenure as MA governor? please understand that i bear no prejudice against Mormons - i am equally appalled by the political influence and economic muscle wielded by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc.
PLEASE let's try to keep religion and politics separate - everyone is welcome to believe whatever they want, as long as they keep it to themselves and do not pollute the public discussion with superstition and bias.

Posted by: prophet or profit? | October 12, 2006 2:52 PM | Report abuse

If you think Kaine won by a lot, imagine if Warner could have run again for governor. My dad, who has never voted for a Democrat, would vote for him no matter what he would run for. Too bad he didn't give the senate more of a look this time around.

Posted by: xtr657 | October 12, 2006 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Long live Arnold's fight against the girlie-men dominated California legislature.

Posted by: murphy | October 12, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"YOU GO GORE" Got to admit I kinda like that one also. It properly represents the "GIRLIE" party Gore belongs to. Everybody knows Real men are republicans. All you men who vote Democratic ought to be ashamed of yourself for being Girlie men. I bet your girlfiends and wives tell you who to vote for. As a matter of fact I think I saw JEP hanging out with Foley at TGIF.

Posted by: bhoomes | October 12, 2006 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Who saw that coming. Well is seems to me Gov. Vilsack is the only true winner. A democratic Governor in a red state. and have you any of you heard him speak. the challenge for him will be to make it out of the primary. But if Kerry can do it...well Vilsack should be able to. Bayh was also a red state governor but changed some of his positions as of late. Go dems!

Posted by: Hopeful in Maryland | October 12, 2006 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Who saw that coming. Well is seems to me Gov. Vilsack is the only true winner for the dems in 08. A democratic Governor in a red state. and have you any of you heard him speak. the challenge for him will be to get out of the primary. But if Kerry can do...well Vilsack should be able to. Bayh was also a red state governor but changed some of his positions as of late. Go dems!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2006 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I'm honestly surprised Warner backed out. Wow! I really thought he'd be in until the end. Alot can happen between now and then, though. No telling what will transper in Nov. 2006, much less until 2008.

Big winners: Warner's family and Tom Vilsack...anyone really think he's done with Iowa being the first big primary state?

Big losers: State of Va.

Posted by: reason | October 12, 2006 2:42 PM | Report abuse

In response to Mouse's question, I would submit that Bayh has the following advantages over Clinton, Edwards, and Gore, respectively:

1. Bayh is a principled centrist who was elected twice each as governor and senator of a very red state, and has shown the ability to reach out to independent voters as well as moderate Republicans. On the other hand, Hillary has little appeal to most independents and none to moderate Republicans. She would energize the Republican base to vote against her, and would force moderate Democrats (myself included) to consider voting for a reasonable Republican candidate such as McCain, if he is nominated.

2. Bayh has a great deal more substantive depth than Edwards--look at the committees he has served on while in the Senate--and also has the experience of running a state. Edwards is certainly more charismatic, but the substance just isn't there--did you see his debate against Cheney?

3. I don't know anyone who considers Gore a viable candidate in 2008 (and that includes attorneys in my firm who are very plugged into Democratic politics, a number of whom have extensive Hill connections). After the fiasco in 2000, I would be surprised to see Gore run again and even more surprised if he picked up any credible backers.

Posted by: Steve | October 12, 2006 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Gloria R - that would be alcee hastings. Still a crook, still a leading Dem, still going to get a committee. sorry for the mix-up.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 2:41 PM | Report abuse

This narrows the 2008 race down to Clinton and Edwards being in the top tier (with Clinton far ahead in fundrasing and network). Kerry and possibly Feingold in the second tier and Bayh, Biden, Obama, Dodd, Clark, Daschle, Richardson, Vilsack , etc. being in third tier. Many of the second and third tier candidates will take a hard look in the coming weeks and will join Warner on the sidelines. I don't expect the 2008 field to be very large it will likely be Clinton and Edwards as the two viable candidates who have a chance at the nomination along with a few others such as Kerry and Feingold who has a less than zero chance of being nominated. None of the others have any realistic chance of raising the tens of millions it will take to have a chance at winning any primaries and being nominated.

Posted by: Rob | October 12, 2006 2:38 PM | Report abuse

I agree with all the comments about Richardson. He seems genuine, and the man knows foreign policy, which is what the Dems need.

If Democrats are serious about winning and about presenting the American people a foreign policy that is both tough and smart, Richardson's the guy. He has to, at least, be taken seriously when running mate discussion are had.

All the pluses, someone mentioned on here, are exactly that: pluses.

Posted by: Steve | October 12, 2006 2:36 PM | Report abuse

You know, while I am an Edwards supporter for President in 08', I think it is great there are so many candidates for the Dems to look at who can be seriously considered presidential material by reasonably minded people.

Richardson is certainly the most experienced statesman listed so far, his penchant for effective foreign diplomacy has been proven, and there is no question he is a Man of The People in the true populist sense of the word.

The fact that he is of Hispanic heritage could only improve his chances to ride a populist wave.

He's a proven leader, and could handle any job they might want to throw at him, with grace and dignity.

Which is more than one might say about the current administration.

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 2:35 PM | Report abuse

the problems with richardson are: (1) Wen Ho Lee, and (2) Monica. Yes, Wen Ho Lee was probably guilty of nothing but his name. however, the old adage of spending $10K on a media buy and forcing the other guy to spend $1m to knock down the distortion applies here. As for Monica, if I recall correctly, didn't Vernon Jordan or someone call Richardson to place her at the UN?

Posted by: jon | October 12, 2006 2:30 PM | Report abuse

People...People...

This is great news...the less people in the fight the more likely we are to come together with one candidate in the primary who can beat Clinton and win the general election.

Bayh is that Candidate. No one else can say that they won as a democrat five times in a huge Red state, and no else has anywhere near the money that Bayh has. Somewhere around 11 million. If you are anti Clinton, than you should get behind the best chance to beat her and that Bayh.

Posted by: WKYDEM | October 12, 2006 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Dan W,

Who in this thread called Romney a moderate? My fondness for Warner certainly didn't mean to imply that Romney was a moderate.

The only issue he's done a 180 on since 2002 is abortion...he's now 100% pro-life (with respect to policy), a policy change which he's completely open and candid about. Do you see other reversals that I'm unaware of?

Posted by: murphy | October 12, 2006 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I have always that Richardson one of the best, if not THE best choice for 2004 - and now for 2008. Maybe he doesn't want the job. Maybe there are skeletons in his closet - I have heard this more than once but wonder what they might be - at this point, considering what the current pres has in his background, there are some things that I wouldn't really care about - obviously, there are some that DO matter.

Anyway - he is the guy, for all the reasons the 2:19 poster mentioned. No doubt - I live in a state where the primary doesn't matter but maybe I'll try to work for him in one that does.

Does anyone know if there is any word on interest from him?

Posted by: star11 | October 12, 2006 2:24 PM | Report abuse

To King of Zouk: The Cummings on the Ethics Committee is not the Judge Alcee Cummings of Florida to whom you referred - he's a different person altogether. You should check your facts before you post misinformation. As is typical of your postings, if you don't have the facts on your side, just make them up.

Posted by: Gloria R. | October 12, 2006 2:23 PM | Report abuse

I agree with a couple of the above posts, that with Warner out, people who supported him should take a look at Bill Richardson. I was in Virginia when Warner was governor, and was a bg fan. I have since moved to New Mexico, and I am a bigger fan of what Richardson has done as governor out here. He's a centrist Democrat, pro-environment and pro-business, endrosed by NARAL and the NRA, and he is supported by all of these groups because of true beliefs, not political positioning. He has all of Warner's pluses, with the additions of having foreign policy experience and gravitas (he has been unavoidable on North Korea), and a Clintonesque charm and charisma, a natural politician. All that, plus he is Latino to boot. He would be an outstanding Democratic candidate, able to draw from all constituencies. All you Warner folks out there should take a look to New Mexico.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2006 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Jack Carter 2008!!

Posted by: Carter | October 12, 2006 2:16 PM | Report abuse

I think I have a grasp on the profile of the likely supporters of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and, if he runs, Al Gore.
But what does Evan Bayh (or for that matter, John Kerry, Wesley Clark, or Joseph Biden) have to offer that makes him more appealing than Clinton, Edwards and Gore?

Posted by: Mouse | October 12, 2006 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Romney a Moderate? Don't confuse the Romney who was elected Gov of Mass with the Romney who is schmoozing the Repub base. He is two different people. He has done a serious 180 on many of the issues that got him hired into Mass in the first place. He is running full tilt at the Religious Right begging them to accept him.

Posted by: Dan W | October 12, 2006 2:00 PM | Report abuse

There is a 0% chance we're getting the whole story here. Warner was a governor and was campaigning hard--to drop out so suddenly, it must be the case that there was some skeleton in his closet that was going to get exposed. No way he suddenly wanted to put his family first.

If Warner really cared about other democrats and winning in 2006 he would have waited until after the midterms. Selfish decision.

Actually I think this wells the Hillarys, Gores, and Kerrys of the world. People who haven't been "vetted" always have the potential for this kind of flop.

Posted by: Drudge | October 12, 2006 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama.

Is: New face. New ideas, new slant on things.

Is not: A Bush. Reheated Nelson Rockefeller aka Hillary Clinton. Warmed over Barry Goldwater with a touch of Richard Nixon and sprinkling of Saint Ronald Reagan holy water.

Let's talk about something interesting. Anybody out there have an inside on Karl Rove's October Surprise. Its gotta happen next week or the week after so there must be someone with somethig on it out there!

Posted by: poor richard | October 12, 2006 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"I would love to have heard the Republican ads rallying Warner's $1.4 billion tax increase as governor. Good riddance."

The increase worked out with the Republican legislature to fix the mess which Republican National Chairman Jim Gilmore left the Commonwealth in?

[Actually in fairness ,that RNC tag on Gilmore should be amended to show that he was fired from that job.]

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 12, 2006 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone read the article on Hillary in this month's iussue of the Atlantic?

Can you say Slick Hillie?

Posted by: Slick Hillie | October 12, 2006 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Very disappointed about Warner's decision. Count me among the ABHs -- Anyone But Hillary.

Time to go shopping for a new horse.

Posted by: Bummer | October 12, 2006 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Bayh voted for the war. Why pundits and commentators think the Democrats can or will nominate anyone who voted that way baffles me. That includes Hillary.

Posted by: Herbert Kay | October 12, 2006 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Nick E,

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/purple_america_2004b_small.gif

You and the rest of the tin foil hats may want to face the music. Your party platform stinks.

The sooner the dems adjust their platform, the sooner you start winning elections. But feel free to keep pushing the election fraud theories.

Posted by: murphy | October 12, 2006 1:18 PM | Report abuse

It looks like this election is all wrapped up and the electronic voting machines are voting Republican, or in some cases incumbant Democrats like in Maryland. The 2000, 2002, and 2004 national elections were rigged. Behind the scenes right now the political operatives are programming the fix for the 2006 election. After what's happened in the past 3 elections you have to be an uneducated fool or ignorant to believe this country has fair elelctions. The words are 'election fraud'.

Posted by: Nick E | October 12, 2006 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Today I am officially an independent and worse I probably won't vote for any candidate in 2008. I was really into Mark Warner..he was fresh, clean, smart and most importantly a reasonable human being...I can't bring myself to vote for Clinton or McCain or any of the other guys (well except maybe Huckabee)..this is the end of my political activism.

Posted by: nicholas | October 12, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

I am going into politics because I have had enough of my family. the old family excuse. wait until the real reason surfaces. why did he announce this right before a major election? If this weren't a Dem, JEP amd drindl would already have the conspiracy angle working.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 12:58 PM | Report abuse

In 1988, then-U.S. District Judge Hastings was impeached by a Democratic-controlled House (413-3). In 1989, a Democrat-controlled Senate convicted him of accepting a $150,000 bribe and committing numerous acts of perjury. It is impossible to imagine anyone with more questionable credentials to lead the intelligence committee.
another shining star of the Dem house.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 12:50 PM | Report abuse

It's a real shame-- I have nothing but respect for him, and would have liked to see him at the top of the ticket. I was betting on Warner-Richardson or Warner-Bayh, but I guess now I'll have to switch that. I'm thinking Edwards-Richardson or Edwards-Bayh in 2008.

Posted by: JD | October 12, 2006 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Since when is McCain a moderate?

Posted by: Matt | October 12, 2006 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Bayh's sitting pretty...

Other than Edwards...

I still don't think Hillary will run... I think she's smart enough to realize what would happen if she did win the nomination.

I don't think Kerry will either not run or start and bow out early when he realizes that a lot of the people who supported him won't come back under his tent.

Vilsack I think will come to his senses and realize if he can't even get better than 3rd place in his own state he doens't have a chance anywhere else...

That leaves Clark, Richardson, Biden, Gephardt and Bayh (and I'm sure I'm forgetting someone else)... but of those only Bayh has the money to buy the name recognition needed to increase his numbers. And with Warner out, I'm sure the All America PAC staff is burning up the phone lines securing Warner's financial backers to dump more money into his coffers...

Regardless of whether or not you agree with 100% of his views, you HAVE to admit this is a HUGE bonus for Bayh.

Posted by: Rob | October 12, 2006 12:46 PM | Report abuse

It's probably a good choice to leave the race. Warner isn't quick enough to play the game at that level. He is smart enough but being quick and being smart are two different things.

The Democrats need to develop their message. The only two candidates who have contributed anything to message are Gore and Edwards. Global warming is indeed an existential challenge. If Gore can link that theme to a broader conception of human nature and the American dream then more power to him.

Edwards' message is already well developed: a fair shake for everyone who works.

That's why I am supporting Edwards. He can do for Democrats in the twenty first century what Reagan did for Republicans in the eighties, and FDR in the thirties: setting the agenda for decades to come.

Posted by: Yockel | October 12, 2006 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Eyes on Spitzer. If not now, next cycle.

Posted by: KCM | October 12, 2006 12:42 PM | Report abuse

We have not seen the last of Mark Warner -- and that's a good thing!

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 12, 2006 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Perception as reality? If that were true, Howard Dean would have been the nominee in 2004. It's still a long time till the first caucuses and primaries. Much more will happen before we crown Hillary with any mantle of party leadership.

Posted by: Matt | October 12, 2006 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I've got my hopes on Romney, and I'm STILL sad to see Warner go. He was my favorite dem, might very well have won the generals too.

Good for his family though. Atleast his focus is in the right place. I would be very happy to see him running for the top spot in a few years after his girls are grown.

Posted by: murphy | October 12, 2006 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I think that Moderate Republicans eyeing the white house in 08 are also winners, specifically John McCain.

With Warner droping out, it is one less legitimate challenger to Clinton in 08. Moderates such as McCain would surely benefit should Clinton win the nomination, as Ultra-conservatives might otherwise have chosen to stay home from the polls.

This is all assuming, of course, that the republicans nominate a moderate (McCain, Rommney, Gulianni, etc) and not a right winger (Frist, Gingrich ,etc).

Posted by: Paul S | October 12, 2006 12:36 PM | Report abuse

get your facts straight. the reason more republicans haven't 'faced' investigations is that they control the machinery. they simply don't bother to investigate their own crimes.

Posted by: jana | October 12, 2006 12:35 PM | Report abuse

They're really losing it, folks. Now, after years and years of gay bashing and homophobia, R's are calling D's 'gay bashers and homophobes' -- is that a joke, bhoomes? I mean, come on, get real.

And after Abramoff and Enron and Hastert and K Street and Iraq and Halliburton and DeLay, you want to call us 'hypocrits'.

Uhh, I don't think so.

Posted by: drindl | October 12, 2006 12:32 PM | Report abuse

Consider the last 30 years, when the House instituted post-Watergate ethics guidelines. The tally, as of late 2004, over the same period, comes to 70 House members who faced investigations for ethical misconduct: 55 Democrats and 15 Republicans.

those pesky facts again.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 12:32 PM | Report abuse

The "family excuse" is an old one in politics, and it hides the actual, more embarassing reason for abandoning the race. For Warner, this is what happens when you hire an internet consultant who used his website to dupe people into investing in stock on which he artificially pumped up the price.

Posted by: Progressive | October 12, 2006 12:31 PM | Report abuse

'scuse the double post.

Posted by: Vintage Lady | October 12, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Damn. I really thought Warner was the right guy at the right time.

Posted by: Washingtonian | October 12, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

This is a win for Hillary since Warner was right behind her in fundraising. May be he wants to let someone else do the heavy lifting.

By not engaging in debate-bashing tactics with the eventual candidate he can look good in the line for VP.

I don't believe the "family" thing.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com


Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 12, 2006 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Mark Warner, Democrat, successfully managed and compromised with VA Republicans to restore financial stability. Today, Wall Street views VA as the nation's "Best Managed State".

Posted by: 11th Virginia | October 12, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Too narrow a read on this. The real winner is "the rest of the field"

Warner was locking up a lot of Democratic campaign talent and campaign money. He also took up a lot of newsprint and media minutes devoted to the 2008 race that made it that much harder for non favored by the media candidates to get any coverage. The attention span of cable news rarely extends beyond three names.

It does helps Edwards in the clear sense that it knocks out another Southerner, and one who can appeal to moderatres. To a slightly lesser extent it helps Wes Clark in that regard also. But John Edwards and John Kerry were always guarenteed a lot of press coverage if they decide to run in 2008, because of their high profile coming out of 2004.

In my opinion this development is more helpful to the current second and third tier of potential candidates, men like Clark, Biden, Feingold, Bayh and Richardson. With the possible exception of Bayh, these are the candidates who need to recruit staff talent and build their doner bases. And these are the men who were not already guarenteed a fair share of media attention with Clinton, Warner, Kerry, and Edwards all already crowded into the mix.

The sleeper winner I believe is Wes Clark, because like Warner (and Edwards and Bayh) he appeals to many moderates, and like Warner (and Edwards), he also appeals to the netroots and Democratic activists. Clark can benefit most from picking up some of the talent and money that Warner had locked away.

Posted by: Tom Rinaldo | October 12, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

'scuse the double post.

Posted by: Vintage Lady | October 12, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

It seems like Vilsack is another big winner here. He is probably the most electable Governor in the race now. He has a great life story, a great stump speech, and a great record in Iowa. Plus, he comes from a battleground area of the country. For centrists who want a candidate who can win and relate to people, isn't he the next logical choice?

Posted by: Why not Vilsack? | October 12, 2006 12:27 PM | Report abuse

How do you dems sleep at night knowing your such shameless hypocrites. Also let us know when you get tired of gay bashing, you bigots and homophobes.

Dems? Gay bashing? Hypocrits?

LOL LOL LOL

Posted by: drindl | October 12, 2006 12:26 PM | Report abuse

What about Joe Biden? John Edwards is the man too. We need one of these guys to establish themselves as the clear frontrunner. The Democrats need to take back the White House in 2008 but there is no way they can do this with such a polarizing figure like Hillary Clinton. Edwards has charisma, intelligence, and he has actually won a federal election in a red state. Biden is also a take-no-crap, stand up for what you believe in type that the Democratic Party has not put out in quite some time. Also, I don't know who is running these campaigns, but the Republicans were cleaning house because they were firm in what they believed, no matter how wrong they were. Democrats were too soft and tried to appeal to everyone. They need clear vision this time around, and that takes more than just saying you do.

Posted by: EricJ1981 | October 12, 2006 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Mark Warner will be our next governor, if he choses to run. The experience will be helpful to his next presidential run. Or, if John Warner decides to retire, Mark could be our next junior US Senator from the great Commonwealth of Virginia, along with our senior Senator, James Webb.

I don't think he would run against John Warner, again. He lost to Warner as an unknown, years ago.

I remember him saying "I don't want to leave this job" when he had completed his term as governor. I'd like to see him back, working for Virginia, again, after Kaine's term expires.

He's a good man.

Posted by: Vintage Lady | October 12, 2006 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Mark Warner will be our next governor, if he choses to run. The experience will be helpful to his next presidential run. Or, if John Warner decides to retire, Mark could be our next junior US Senator from the great Commonwealth of Virginia, along with our senior Senator, James Webb.

I don't think he would run against John Warner, again. He lost to Warner as an unknown, years ago.

I remember him saying "I don't want to leave this job" when he had completed his term as governor. I'd like to see him back, working for Virginia, again, after Kaine's term expires.

He's a good man.

Posted by: Vintage Lady | October 12, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I kind of like 'You Go, Gore'...

Posted by: drindl | October 12, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Warner's decision is very interesting for another reason: He is the only Democrat mentioned for 2008 who could have made a case for matching Mitt Romney's experience in the private sector and as a successful governor of a state that leans to the other party. And there's a good chance Romney will be the GOP nominee. Bayh is dull as dishwater and has moved left in the Senate in preparation for the Democratic primary. I don't think he'll get anywhere against HRC and Edwards (and maybe Gore, Kerry and Richardson), but if he does I think Romney beats him anyway.

Posted by: Mark | October 12, 2006 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I won't count Warner out yet, even with his own proclamation, he may be the centrist the Dems need to help the ticket in 08' as VP.

He's not out of it, as far as I'm concerned, he's just in the wings again.

Edwards/Warner 08'? Sounds quite popular.

That sort of brings that "second tier" a little closer to Hillary, by putting them both on the same ticket.

And anyone who suggests an Edwards/Warner ticket is anything but centrist is just spinning the truth to fit their own prejudice.

As for our anti-tax trolls, when will you people be willing to pay your share?

You have so much more of the American Dream tucked away than the "common people", you are inherently obligated, to return some of that incredible American abundance back to the public; if not for righteousness' sake, at least to protect yourself from mob chaos.

You rich folks are the ultimate beneficiaries of this great nation's considerable wealth, if you don't step up and spend some of it on your own country, instead of places like Iraq, then you just don't deserve it.

Taxes are a good thing.

They help us civilize our world.

And if you try to tell us the Democrats are "tax and spenders", you are ignoring your own neocon book-cookers and their no-bid war.

Oh, for the good old days of a Clinton economy, when a contractor actually had to compete for federal contracts, even if they were managed by a former VP (or, as today, a sitting one.)

HYPOCRITES!

If you millionaires and billionaires don't start taking responsibility for the general welfare of your fellow Americans, with higher wages, public education and health care, you will create (maybe it has already happened)a shadowy "Robocop" third-world American culture that threatens you more than any foreign terrorist could ever hope.

These neocons have hijacked the American dream, and converted it into millionaires wanting to be billionaires.

Because of your greed and selfishness, you are destroying the very middle class you depend on to fuel your markets in the first place.

Posted by: JEP | October 12, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for reposting your previous post. Please could you post some from last week they are typically so informative.....NOT

Posted by: the editor | October 12, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I kind of like 'You Go, Gore'...

Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

A said: Obama is terrible.

Care to elaborate?

Posted by: THS | October 12, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

one name-not alot of time to write

OBAMA in 2008

Posted by: poor richard | October 12, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

This is easy, the losers are the dems and the american people, now we are stuck with mostly radical lefties running for the dems. Why arn't you dems putting pressure on that crook Harry Reid to resign, could it be you care more about keeping the senate than you do having honest public servants. How do you dems sleep at night knowing your such shameless hypocrites. Also let us know when you get tired of gay bashing, you bigots and homophobes.

Posted by: bhoomes | October 12, 2006 12:18 PM | Report abuse

I kind of like 'You Go, Gore'...

Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2006 12:18 PM | Report abuse

The other winner from the Warner decision is New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson--a centrist "competence candidate" who's pro-gun, has top-notch foreign-policy credentials (which Warner didn't) and has the added bonus of being Hispanic. Until now, Warner had overshadowed Richardson as being the "hot" governor for 2008. With Warner out and Richardson poised to win a landslide re-election in a state that went for Bush in 2006 (in the mountain West, the other region--see Sunday's NYT--seen as a growth area for Dems), there's now an opening.

Posted by: New Mexican | October 12, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Damn nothing.

The underlying story, screaming out loud imho is:

HILLARY PICK ME FOR VP!!!

Good move for Warner. Good move for Dems.

Posted by: F&B | October 12, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Well, there go my summer internship hopes!

Posted by: Jack in New Orleans | October 12, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

one name-not alot of time to write

OBAMA in 2008

Posted by: poor richard | October 12, 2006 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I kind of like 'You Go, Gore'...

Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2006 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Go Edwards!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2006 12:06 PM | Report abuse

no Warner?....GO GORE! Just say no to Hillary...the only Clinton I want in the White House is Bill.

Posted by: tim | October 12, 2006 12:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm disappointed to hear this, but the fact that Warner may be running for governor of my state again softens the blow considerably.

Posted by: TJM | October 12, 2006 12:05 PM | Report abuse

It's sad news... Warner was among the few '08ers who really understands the importance of the Latino community. I don't think Bayh gets it.

Posted by: DC Latina | October 12, 2006 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Karl Rove is the boogeyman. I have seen him feasting on children in the woods behind my house.

Posted by: kingofzouk | October 12, 2006 12:01 PM | Report abuse


'But remaining in Baghdad requires a new sense of reality. "Stay the course" is meaningless when you don't have a course - and the truth is that the administration still doesn't have a strategy, just a jumble of programs, slogans and jittery improvisations.

Our Army and Marine Corps urgently need increases in personnel strength. They've been stripped to the strategic and tactical bone. We need more boots. But not on the ground in Iraq.

Sending more troops wouldn't help and can't be done. It's too late. We've reached the point where Iraqis must fight for their own future. If they won't, nothing we can do will bring success.'

winger ralph peters in the NY post--okay? I'll bet you money, day after the election, we start pulling out. Even bush is starting to talk about 'flexibility' --lol

Posted by: drindl | October 12, 2006 12:00 PM | Report abuse

considering we're less than a month away from the 2006 elections, there sure is a lot of coverage of 2008 here. Is The Fix farsighted?

Posted by: bsimon | October 12, 2006 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I have mixed feelings about warner -- never thought he had much charisma. And it does take that to win, especially if your daddy wasn't president. You must have passion. Why Warner always seemed kind of Kerry-like to me. Democrat Lite. A good man, but he just doesn't believe in himself enough...


'It seems increasingly clear that the GOP congressional leadership, eager for every safe incumbent in the House to run for re-election, looked the other way as evidence accumulated that Mark Foley had a thing for pages. Holding onto his seat became more important than confronting him over his extracurricular activities.

But there's more to the story of why Foley stood for re-election this year. Yesterday, a source close to Foley explained to THE NEW REPUBLIC that in early 2006 the congressman had all but decided to retire from the House and set up shop on K Street. "Mark's a friend of mine," says this source. "He told me, 'I'm thinking about getting out of it and becoming a lobbyist.'"

But when Foley's friend saw the Congressman again this spring, something had changed. To the source's surprise, Foley told him he would indeed be standing for re-election. What happened? Karl Rove intervened.

According to the source, Foley said he was being pressured by "the White House and Rove gang," who insisted that Foley run. If he didn't, Foley was told, it might impact his lobbying career.

"He said, 'The White House made it very clear I have to run,'" explains Foley's friend, adding that Foley told him that the White House promised that if Foley served for two more years it would "enhance his success" as a lobbyist. "I said, 'I thought you wanted out of this?' And he said, 'I do, but they're scared of losing the House and the thought of two years of Congressional hearings, so I have two more years of duty.'"
............

Posted by: drindl | October 12, 2006 11:54 AM | Report abuse

The most obvious winner is the Governor's family.

Posted by: Machiavelli | October 12, 2006 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Obama is terrible.

Posted by: A | October 12, 2006 11:52 AM | Report abuse

I would love to have heard the Republican ads rallying Warner's $1.4 billion tax increase as governor. Good riddance.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2006 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it nice to see a guy actually put his family ahead of politics... this just goes to show all the more why Warner was the dems best hope (aside from the numerous other background/approvals/southern gov reasons. i hope someone somewhere convinces him to reverse his decision but a principled man like he would never let it happen.

Posted by: Wow | October 12, 2006 11:37 AM | Report abuse

This is a real shame. We need more moderate Democrats like Warner in the fray. I don't think Bayh has the charisma necessary to win. The thinning of the field might make other potential candidates, such as Obama, more likely to run.

Posted by: Zathras | October 12, 2006 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Damn.

Damn......

Posted by: Ohio guy | October 12, 2006 11:29 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company