In the Daily Press, Republican Patrick McSweeney considers Governor Warner’s decision not to run for Senate, writing:
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Warner simply didn’t have the stomach to take on the popular Allen, despite polls showing Warner with 47 percent support versus Allen’s 42 percent support among Virginia voters. A Warner victory in 2006 would have been a national news event and a double hit. It would not only have boosted Warner’s presidential prospects, but effectively eliminated one of the bright lights in the Republican Party.
This, of course, is wrong. Had Mark Warner run for Senate, he would have been dogged by one question: Isn’t this just a stepping stone to an immediate presidential run?
Look at Hillary Clinton. Her time in the senate has been marked by the question of whether or not she might, eventually, run for the presidency and if, consequently, her service in the senate is really just a dog-and-pony show, even a sham. I suspect that Mr. McSweeney may hold just such an opinion of her.
Sen. George Allen is seen as somebody who has done his service in the senate. Nobody will — and nobody should — think less of his time in Washington if he decides to seek the presidency. If Governor Mark Warner ran in 2006 for a six-year office, with much of the electorate understanding that he was actively exploring a presidential bid in 2007, he’d be tainted. He’d be seen as self-serving, as somebody who would use the office as nothing more than a pawn in a larger political chess match. And, frankly, that would be true.
Mark Warner did the right thing in refusing to run for U.S. Senate.
I think you’re right, and I think it was the smart move politically for Warner for other reasons as well. That is, if he really does have presidential ambitions, and we have no reason to believe that he doesn’t.
Warner is riding high right now (perhaps rightfully so), and he would have reason to believe that he could mount a strong effort at Allen’s seat. However, Allen is also popular, so who knows who would win?
If Warner wants to be President in 2008, it makes very little sense to undertake such a risky proposition in 2006. There is no guarantee that Warner would defeat Allen, and a loss in that race would effectively end his presidential hopes.
That matchup would have been a slugfest, though.
Absolutely — it would have been a big gamble for Warner. If Warner is going to face off against Allen, why not do it in ’08, for the brass ring, rather than in ’06? (Of course, the odds are slim that both of these men will receive the nominations of their respective parties.)
I’ll be curious to see what Warner does between now and 2007 to keep his name in the news and public opinion high. It won’t be hard to keep himself known among those of us who follow politics closely. But I’m not sure how he’ll do it among the general public.
Quoting Jaquith:
“I’ll be curious to see what Warner does between now and 2007 to keep his name in the news and public opinion high. It won’t be hard to keep himself known among those of us who follow politics closely. But I’m not sure how he’ll do it”.
Since Governor Warner will lose the bully pulpit and is not likely to have reporters
from across the state assigned to follow his every move, he will need folks like you
and I to help keep him in the news.
There are many ways to do this. Spread his name on blogs, email people you know,
join or start a Warner MeetUp, attend a Warner event. Make news for him!
Join the effort to draft him at http://www.draftmarkwarner.com.
Sign the petition
Become a writer on our blog
Visit our “Get Involved”page
Contact us for more information