Comments on: I am large. I contain multitudes. http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/ Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:56:51 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Lonnie http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14399 Lonnie Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:25:27 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14399 Truthfully, I can't comprehend why anyone with even a grain of liberal or democratic tendancies would want to see John Warner unopposed. True, he showed some guts to go against his own party on the Iraq troop increase; however, the rest of his record falls pretty much right along conservative republican lines. As an environmentalist, I find his energy policy to be abhorent. He's been a supporter of some rather infamous environmental debacles like trying to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I'd actually been hoping that we'd have seen Mark Warner run for President. I'd love to see someone that could bring some fiscal responsibility and true bipartisanship back to D.C. Unfortunately he's alredy pulled out. One has to wonder what his future plans are now... Truthfully, I can’t comprehend why anyone with even a grain of liberal or democratic tendancies would want to see John Warner unopposed. True, he showed some guts to go against his own party on the Iraq troop increase; however, the rest of his record falls pretty much right along conservative republican lines. As an environmentalist, I find his energy policy to be abhorent. He’s been a supporter of some rather infamous environmental debacles like trying to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I’d actually been hoping that we’d have seen Mark Warner run for President. I’d love to see someone that could bring some fiscal responsibility and true bipartisanship back to D.C. Unfortunately he’s alredy pulled out. One has to wonder what his future plans are now…

]]> By: UVA08 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14324 UVA08 Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:11:37 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14324 Good point. I wasn't thinking about it from that angle. Good point. I wasn’t thinking about it from that angle.

]]> By: Waldo Jaquith http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14322 Waldo Jaquith Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:22:02 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14322 Bill's comment isn't based on the popularity of Republicans, though. Virginia puts governors in office that are of the opposite party of the president. We've done so for many, many years now. Of course, that doesn't mean that victory in Richmond is impossible after what seems like an inevitable 2008 victory, just that it'd be difficult. Bill’s comment isn’t based on the popularity of Republicans, though. Virginia puts governors in office that are of the opposite party of the president. We’ve done so for many, many years now. Of course, that doesn’t mean that victory in Richmond is impossible after what seems like an inevitable 2008 victory, just that it’d be difficult.

]]> By: UVA08 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14321 UVA08 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:03:46 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14321 Bill Kuster... But remember Warner was elected as a Democrat just months after 9/11 when the GOP was riding high. Bill Kuster… But remember Warner was elected as a Democrat just months after 9/11 when the GOP was riding high.

]]> By: Bill Kuster http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14320 Bill Kuster Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:30:30 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14320 From a national perspective, it would be helpful to challege Warner just to have the donations and support John Warner would acrue not go to other Republican candidates. We win when we contest every seat as evidenced in this most recent cycle. On Gilmore, I wonder if a gimic campaign might work running for President, such as eliminating a payroll tax. I would think not...I hope not. We shouldn't be putting too many eggs in the Mark Warner is running in 2009 to save our legislature for redistricting. If there is a President Hillary in 2009, the state might not be as inclined towards Democrats and Mark didn't have many coattails last time... From a national perspective, it would be helpful to challege Warner just to have the donations and support John Warner would acrue not go to other Republican candidates. We win when we contest every seat as evidenced in this most recent cycle.

On Gilmore, I wonder if a gimic campaign might work running for President, such as eliminating a payroll tax. I would think not…I hope not.

We shouldn’t be putting too many eggs in the Mark Warner is running in 2009 to save our legislature for redistricting. If there is a President Hillary in 2009, the state might not be as inclined towards Democrats and Mark didn’t have many coattails last time…

]]> By: UVA08 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14293 UVA08 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:11:17 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14293 Having Mark Warner at the top of the ticket will be essential if we want to get control of the legislature in time for redistricting. I think in the end that's more important than defeating a respectable senator like John Warner. I suspect that should M. Warner run for governor in 2009 the coattails will be quite significant. Having Mark Warner at the top of the ticket will be essential if we want to get control of the legislature in time for redistricting. I think in the end that’s more important than defeating a respectable senator like John Warner. I suspect that should M. Warner run for governor in 2009 the coattails will be quite significant.

]]> By: Lloyd Snook http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14292 Lloyd Snook Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:34:54 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14292 I am glad that Mark won't be challenging John in 2008, for one selfish reason -- it is essential that Mark be the Democratic candidate for governor in 2009. I am glad that Mark won’t be challenging John in 2008, for one selfish reason — it is essential that Mark be the Democratic candidate for governor in 2009.

]]> By: Carrington http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14287 Carrington Fri, 09 Feb 2007 22:57:51 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14287 I will refrain from emailing on your choice in a head to head. That said, I wholeheartedly agree that we are very, very fortunate to have Senator Warner and, absent a run by the former Governor, I will look foward to crossing over a second time to vote for him. I will refrain from emailing on your choice in a head to head. That said, I wholeheartedly agree that we are very, very fortunate to have Senator Warner and, absent a run by the former Governor, I will look foward to crossing over a second time to vote for him.

]]> By: Skyline http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14283 Skyline Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:47:19 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14283 Looking ahead to a possible silver lining in this announcement, I hope this means Mark Warner will seek a second term as Governor, succeeding Kaine. Then Kaine can run for his own second term four years later. As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) the recent two-term legislation excludes the current incumbent and if so this scenario is possible. Looking ahead to a possible silver lining in this announcement, I hope this means Mark Warner will seek a second term as Governor, succeeding Kaine. Then Kaine can run for his own second term four years later.

As I understand it (correct me if I’m wrong) the recent two-term legislation excludes the current incumbent and if so this scenario is possible.

]]> By: MB http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14281 MB Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:20:18 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14281 Well, I understand you to be arguing that, since VA is split generally in half along Dem/GOP lines, then VA should have one Republican and one Democratic Senator. Is that right? Well, I understand you to be arguing that, since VA is split generally in half along Dem/GOP lines, then VA should have one Republican and one Democratic Senator. Is that right?

]]> By: Jack http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14280 Jack Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:18:20 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14280 MB, I must admit that I really don't have the slightest idea of what you're getting at. I could interpret your last comment probably 3 or 4 different ways. Could you please elaborate? MB,

I must admit that I really don’t have the slightest idea of what you’re getting at. I could interpret your last comment probably 3 or 4 different ways. Could you please elaborate?

]]> By: MB http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14272 MB Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:06:45 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14272 Jack - so, no matter how much damage a party is doing, if it can hoodwink enough people into believing that they should support that party, the other part ought not to argue? Jack – so, no matter how much damage a party is doing, if it can hoodwink enough people into believing that they should support that party, the other part ought not to argue?

]]> By: Jack http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14269 Jack Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:42:35 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14269 MB, Because Socialists make up a insignificantly tiny percentage of Americans and most people have never heard of the Natural Law Party. I am a believer in the practice of compromising and sharing power with very large political minorities. Senate rules writ large. A good government should not just be 'majority rule.' It should be a majority that rules while making an effort to make as many of it's people happy as possible. Otherwise democracy is just 2 foxes and a chicken deciding what's for dinner. Not Robert Roberts, Don Beyer is old, old news now. Last time he won an election of any kind was, what, 14 years ago? Most Virginia voters under the age of 30 probably couldn't even tell you who he is. Beyer's whole era of political leadership is in the past now. The Virginia Democratic party has undergone a complete transformation since he last ran for office. I'm not sure how Beyer really fits into this era of guys like Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Jim Webb & Creigh Deeds. MB,

Because Socialists make up a insignificantly tiny percentage of Americans and most people have never heard of the Natural Law Party. I am a believer in the practice of compromising and sharing power with very large political minorities. Senate rules writ large. A good government should not just be ‘majority rule.’ It should be a majority that rules while making an effort to make as many of it’s people happy as possible. Otherwise democracy is just 2 foxes and a chicken deciding what’s for dinner.

Not Robert Roberts,

Don Beyer is old, old news now. Last time he won an election of any kind was, what, 14 years ago? Most Virginia voters under the age of 30 probably couldn’t even tell you who he is. Beyer’s whole era of political leadership is in the past now. The Virginia Democratic party has undergone a complete transformation since he last ran for office. I’m not sure how Beyer really fits into this era of guys like Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Jim Webb & Creigh Deeds.

]]> By: Jack http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14267 Jack Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:24:36 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14267 Nell & Jim, Of course you disagree with him on those things. He's a Republican. That is the nature of opposition - to oppose us. If you didn't have a dozen items like that to reach for then he wouldn't be an opponent. If the rationale is that everybody who disagrees with us should be tossed out of government then we'd be aiming for monopoly power. Which is the surest path to corruption. Don't get me wrong - I'd like to pick up a few more seats in the Senate in '08. And things are looking good for that. Colorado is almost a gimmie with Allard's retirement. Pete Dominici in NM may be retiring and even if he isn't, the growing signs of his senility make NM a solid race. 2008 is 'a target rich environment.' We can afford to let John Warner keep his seat while adding to our majority. Nell & Jim,

Of course you disagree with him on those things. He’s a Republican. That is the nature of opposition – to oppose us. If you didn’t have a dozen items like that to reach for then he wouldn’t be an opponent. If the rationale is that everybody who disagrees with us should be tossed out of government then we’d be aiming for monopoly power. Which is the surest path to corruption.

Don’t get me wrong – I’d like to pick up a few more seats in the Senate in ‘08. And things are looking good for that. Colorado is almost a gimmie with Allard’s retirement. Pete Dominici in NM may be retiring and even if he isn’t, the growing signs of his senility make NM a solid race. 2008 is ‘a target rich environment.’ We can afford to let John Warner keep his seat while adding to our majority.

]]> By: MB http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14266 MB Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:16:05 +0000 http://waldo.jaquith.org/blog/2007/02/john-not-mark/#comment-14266 I suspect a lot of Democrats are doing a lot of projecting onto John Warner. We honestly WANT a fair and principled elected Republican to exist. He might have been, once, but he certainly isn't anymore. I don't know how anyone, with a straight face and having witnessed his substantive performance in the past couple of years, could argue otherwise. I think John Danforth was probably the last decent Republican in the Senate. Or maybe John Chafee. As noted, a vigorous opposition is a good thing - but it has to be based on something beyond What's Good for My Party. There is no "justice" in splitting seats between Democrats and Republicans simply for the sake of split seats. If that's the case, why wouldn't there be "justice" in splitting the Congressional delegation between socialists, Democrats, Republicans, and the Natural Law Party? I suspect a lot of Democrats are doing a lot of projecting onto John Warner. We honestly WANT a fair and principled elected Republican to exist. He might have been, once, but he certainly isn’t anymore. I don’t know how anyone, with a straight face and having witnessed his substantive performance in the past couple of years, could argue otherwise. I think John Danforth was probably the last decent Republican in the Senate. Or maybe John Chafee.

As noted, a vigorous opposition is a good thing – but it has to be based on something beyond What’s Good for My Party. There is no “justice” in splitting seats between Democrats and Republicans simply for the sake of split seats. If that’s the case, why wouldn’t there be “justice” in splitting the Congressional delegation between socialists, Democrats, Republicans, and the Natural Law Party?

]]>