Mark Warner (D-VA) in 2008?
Greetings, loyal minions. Your Maximum Leader wanted to point out an interesting item off the news wire. According to the Christian Science Monitor, many governors are lining up early for a 2008 run for the Oval Office. The first governor listed is your Maximum Leader's own governor, Mark Warner.
Your Maximum Leader didn't vote for Mr. Warner when he ran. It is one of the few votes he's cast for which his has a little regret. He would gladly vote for Mark Warner should he choose to run against the senior Senator from Virginia, the Honorable John Warner. He would not support Mark Warner in a senate run against George Allen.
Some of you may be asking yourself, "Self, why would my Maximum Leader support Mark Warner against one incumbent Republican Senator, but not another?" Fair question. John Warner is a good man (your Maximum Leader has met him on a few occasions); but ideologically your Maximum Leader and John Warner are not soulmates. John Warner is hawkish (which is good); but squishy on judicial nominations (which is bad). Basically, John Warner is a good ole "Rockefeller Republican." Whereas George Allen is a good conservative. Sure Allen goes a little further than your Maximum Leader would on social issues, but in the main Allen and your Maximum Leader agree on more than we would disagree over.
Now, would your Maximum Leader still vote for Mark Warner over John Warner (whose term isn't up by the way until 2010 - so this discussion is largely hypothetical) if party control of the Senate was in play? No. Probably not, because it would diminish the power of those on whom your Maximum Leader's favour falls more freely.
Many have said that Mark Warner may choose to run for Senate against George Allen in 2006. Your Maximum Leader sees why this might be a good move for Warner. His term as Governor ends (effectively) this year. And he would be better positioned nationally if he was in the Senate.
But running for the Senate is fraught will peril for Mark Warner as well. George Allen is a formidable politican and campaigner. Allen is very popular among Virginians, and popular among Republicans nationally. (Among big-time Republican donors he is very well known from his recent successes as Chairman of the Republican Senatorial Committee.) A show-down with Allen is not a cake-walk for Mark Warner. A victory is not assured. Thus, if he were to win a razor thin majority, he may not be viewed as being strong enough to compete in "red states." Also, if he is viewed as being too ambitious that wouldn't work to his advantage. Plus, once you get into the Senate you have to start voting on things. And once you vote on things, you have a record that is hard to run on. (As your Maximum Leader has said before, Senators have too much baggage incumbent on them to run effective campaigns for President.)
Regardless of how it plays out, Mark Warner has been a good Governor of this great Commonwealth. Keep your eye on him. That young guy is going places.
Carry on.
Your Maximum Leader didn't vote for Mr. Warner when he ran. It is one of the few votes he's cast for which his has a little regret. He would gladly vote for Mark Warner should he choose to run against the senior Senator from Virginia, the Honorable John Warner. He would not support Mark Warner in a senate run against George Allen.
Some of you may be asking yourself, "Self, why would my Maximum Leader support Mark Warner against one incumbent Republican Senator, but not another?" Fair question. John Warner is a good man (your Maximum Leader has met him on a few occasions); but ideologically your Maximum Leader and John Warner are not soulmates. John Warner is hawkish (which is good); but squishy on judicial nominations (which is bad). Basically, John Warner is a good ole "Rockefeller Republican." Whereas George Allen is a good conservative. Sure Allen goes a little further than your Maximum Leader would on social issues, but in the main Allen and your Maximum Leader agree on more than we would disagree over.
Now, would your Maximum Leader still vote for Mark Warner over John Warner (whose term isn't up by the way until 2010 - so this discussion is largely hypothetical) if party control of the Senate was in play? No. Probably not, because it would diminish the power of those on whom your Maximum Leader's favour falls more freely.
Many have said that Mark Warner may choose to run for Senate against George Allen in 2006. Your Maximum Leader sees why this might be a good move for Warner. His term as Governor ends (effectively) this year. And he would be better positioned nationally if he was in the Senate.
But running for the Senate is fraught will peril for Mark Warner as well. George Allen is a formidable politican and campaigner. Allen is very popular among Virginians, and popular among Republicans nationally. (Among big-time Republican donors he is very well known from his recent successes as Chairman of the Republican Senatorial Committee.) A show-down with Allen is not a cake-walk for Mark Warner. A victory is not assured. Thus, if he were to win a razor thin majority, he may not be viewed as being strong enough to compete in "red states." Also, if he is viewed as being too ambitious that wouldn't work to his advantage. Plus, once you get into the Senate you have to start voting on things. And once you vote on things, you have a record that is hard to run on. (As your Maximum Leader has said before, Senators have too much baggage incumbent on them to run effective campaigns for President.)
Regardless of how it plays out, Mark Warner has been a good Governor of this great Commonwealth. Keep your eye on him. That young guy is going places.
Carry on.
posted by The Maximum Leader at 3/02/2005 05:00:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home