Skip to main content

View Diary: Mark Warner - I will no longer support you (211 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  who said I was going to stay home? (64+ / 0-)

    I will not help Warner in any way

    I will not vote for him

    that does not mean I will not vote -  for my House District, for local races in Arlington where I live

    there are some things that should not be negotiable

    assault weapons killed at Aurora and Newtown

    extended magazines killed more at Aurora and Tucson

    we lose 30,000 Americans every year to gun deaths

    I expect politicians to take moral stands

    if Warner does not see this as a moral issue, I cannot in good conscience support him

    if he did not support because after having voted for the very weak background check he was trying to give himself cover with the gun lobby, then in my opinion he lacks the moral fiber I want to see in a leader

    this is how I choose to operate

    no one says you have to agree with me

    "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

    by teacherken on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 07:55:22 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (7+ / 0-)
      I expect politicians to take moral stands
      Unfortunately the US political system, more than perhaps every other, is based purely on leverage - morality does not really come into it.

      I doubt if there were more than a handful of Senators that considered this issue and this vote on any basis more farsighted than how it was going to impact there own political future.

      •  Which is why we need to start mounting primary (15+ / 0-)

        challenges.  For reasons I set forth downthread, every $ given to a Blue Dog is a waste.  Our resources are pretty limited in the post-Citizens United world, so we need to direct those resources towards people who actually share our core values.

        Since I've voted for Bill Nelson 3X, I probably would force myself to vote for Warner if I lived in VA.  I'm not sure I could force myself to vote for TMac for gov.  Teacherken is more than entitled to vote his own conscience, but that's really not my main concern at this point.

        As a group, either we're going to mobilize behind primary challenges to the likes of Baucus, or we're going to have to concede our own impotence.  Voting in a particular race is an individual decision, but deciding on political triage is a group decision.  I am firmly in favor of focusing on a limted # of races and on challenging an ossified party structure where possible.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 08:40:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It is unfortunate the US political system does not (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichiganGirl, davidincleveland

        operate on morality but that doesn't mean it shouldn't, or that it can't.

        It is my thought that too many years of voter apathy have allowed a lot of what has transpired, there have been few consequences for politicians who do what they damn well please as opposed to what their constituency wants.  I think now is the time there will be consequences but those in the DC bubble don't realize that.

        Being against gun control makes it really, really, hard to believe you are a prolife family values kind of person..

        by fromma on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 08:46:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  There are non-negotiable issues (8+ / 0-)

      with me - gun control is not one of them.

      Violence in America has been dropping for 30 years, and the youth incarceration rate is down nearly 40% in 15 years.

      By any measure the US is a much less violent place than it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

      All of this was done without gun control.

      Make no mistake - I am a former prosecutor - and I would ban handguns if I could.

      But there are far more important causes of crime than guns.

      The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

      by fladem on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 08:53:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The myth of crime is what the politicians (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alumbrados, 3goldens, lostinamerica, zett

        claiming to be "protectors" rely on. The perpetrators of mayhem are their delegates.

        There are three ways to get someone to do one's bidding: persuasion, bribes or threats. Since there is no glory in persuasion, not to mention a lot of work, and bribes (benefits) are anathema to people who want to be served, the only alternative is threats. However, if surrogates deliver those threats and behave as loyal delegates, then the petty potentates are off the hook.

        That the NRA is pulling Congressional strings is a lie.  As is the story that private corporations, whose existence depends on favorable legislation, are the powers behind the throne. Capitol Hill is where the culprits sit, pretending to be a bullwark against the mayhem while secretly urging it on.

        "Oh my, how terrible. Help re-elect me and we'll surely do better next time."
        It's the same gambit with Social Security.
        "If you don't elect Democrats, Republicans will hand the dollars over to their friends."
        Scare tactics.

        Just as rising crime is a myth, so is not enough dollars to pay for what needs to be done. Congress does not need to launder currency through the Federal Reserve in order to pay for what needs to be done.
        But, you see, paying someone just compensation is not consistent with the lust to power. Powerful people get people to lick their boots for nothing.

        We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

        by hannah on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 09:32:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If he's the nominee for Senate (4+ / 0-)

      against Bob McDonnell, it's hard to stick to a promise not to vote for him, and it may be unwise.  I think for politically active folks, "only" voting is quite the dig.

      The other reality is that in a coordinated campaign, down-ballot candidates will basically draft off of Warner's organization.  Even if you leave Warner off of your canvass pitches and go rogue, he'll benefit from whatever data makes it into the VAN, and the stuff that doesn't might not be all that helpful.

      Obviously, the answer is for Northern Virginia to secede and take the inhabited sections of D.C. and parts of Maryland with it, so D.C. can have Senators, and getting GOP support since they'll probably do OK in what'd be left of Virginia and/or Maryland.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 09:08:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Warner vs McDonnell is the defining vote (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cks175

        I hope teacherken revisits this issue if such a match-up were to occur and weighs the pros and cons of not voting for Warner. It could be a teachable moment.

        There was only one joker in L.A. sensitive enough to wear that scent...and I had to find out who he was!

        by virginislandsguy on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:43:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  no its not (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greenbell

        as a matter of practical politics he is far more popular than McDonnell, who actually wants to run for President or VP, but has tried to do a balancing act between the Tea Party crazies who support Ken Cuccinelli and the corporate types in Richmond.  McDonnell and Cooch do NOT get along.

        At this point there is a greater likelihood that two-term Lt. Gov Bill Bolling would run for the Senate, and realistically he would stand little chance against Warner.

        That is part of the point -  Warner is excuse the expression bullet-proof on issues like this if he chose to stand up on them.

        You will soon find that Warner is a problem on a number of other issues, starting with his willingness to cut social benefits as a deficit hawk.  He really does not give a rat's ass about progressives in Virginia.  

        "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

        by teacherken on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:48:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  All well and good, (0+ / 0-)

          unless the premise that the race is close doesn't hold, but even if it does, not voting is still free riding - assuming a candidate preference, Warner v. Bolling, Warner v. McConnell, Warner v. Ollie North . . .

          I am not disputing the argument that Warner sucks, but the lack of a credible democratic challenger, and the fact he's still worlds better than republicans (at least on the fiscal issues if not guns), moots the issue.  Historically, there may have been situations where a Republican was either better than the Democrat or it's a wash, but to the extent control of the chamber is at issue, it would still matter.  (not voting by a hard core democrat is the equivalent of a vote for a republican - intent doesn't beat math.)

          Therefore, I hope Warner runs as far ahead of his challengers as you claim, for all his flaws.  

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:33:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fiscal issues like cutting Social Security? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Victor Ward

            That's where he'd lose my vote.  I just throw up my hands at the gun insanity, but no one who supports cutting Social Security would get a vote from me.  

            Gee, maybe if we can string a few of these non-negotiable moral issues together we might finally have the nerve to face down these plutocrats.  

            Warner is the classic outcome of lesser evildom.  Eventually, the lesser evil gets to your own non-negotiable issue.  

            •  Two things, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              louisprandtl

              1.) I've heard all of this before.  Lots of threats to sit out the midterms and the last general election, followed by repeated denials should anyone have assumed such threats would be acted upon (and, indeed, progressive apathy was not a factor w/r/t voting, though money and time was another matter).

              2.) Lesser of two evils is still preferable.  The question is whether a more progressive version of Warner could win in Virginia.  It's possible, but not by much.  He could have gotten away with the gun vote because it'd have public support including married women who might not otherwise vote D, not that he could win re-election in spite of it.  That's not true of all issues.  So, my criticism of Warner on this isn't that it's expedient but that it isn't.

              Bonus third point: in the context of the overall budget, chained CPI (with carveouts) is defensible, where it would be less so, standing on its own.  Further, it's world better for seniors than raising the retirement age or Paul Ryan's voucher system for medicare, which the stand-in republican would almost certainly support.  

              The very idea of a "non-negotiable issue" reflects failure of imagination.  It can always be worse.

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:12:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  CCPI is non-negotiable with me (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Victor Ward

                "It can always be worse" is a pretty good definition of your declining standard of living under CCPI.  

                Not exactly "It's morning in America".  I don't think I'm the one without the imagination.  I'm imagining a party that might manage to offer something better than forever worse.

                •  There may be (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  louisprandtl

                  some SS cuts that would rise to that level -- if for no other reason than they'd be electoral suicide -- but this is short of that (especially compared with very realistic counterproposals I described), and adequately mitigated for truly the most vulnerable.  While not good in itself, CCPI doesn't alone negate the benefits of the rest of the budget, including benefits to senior citizens from things like full implementation of Obamacare, and the avoidance of sequester cuts, which would help undo the risks to SS of fewer people paying into the trust fund because short-term damage to the economy.

                  And even if you were right about what the party were offering in the latest White House budget -- not voting for the Democratic nominee would still be counterproductive, by your policy preferences.  

                  Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                  by Loge on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:45:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Maybe that sounds good to a beltway staffer (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    zett

                    But unfortunately I do not believe you or the beltway spin anymore.  It's been nothing but lies, deceit, clever tricks.  I figure $650 less in Social Security might pay for a year of basic cable, cell phone, internet, possibly an insurance premium, even gasoline for someone who only fills up a small car about once a month.  3 months of food I've heard.  Maybe that's swell to you and rich folks like Warner who don't budget every dollar but it is a non-negotiable no vote for me.  

                    Counterproductive?  Only if you don't believe in retribution, peaceful of course, at the polls.  I vote the bums who screw me out.  Repeat, until all the bums are out office.

            •  and i suppose (0+ / 0-)

              i'd probably not vote for a candidate if it were clear there was some sort of legal issue that would make it impossible for them to actually be seated (like if John Edwards were the nominee and it were obvious he'd be impeached if he won).  That person would almost surely not be on the ballot by election time.

              Warner, representing Virginia, has a strong interest in doing whatever's possible to avoid the sequester, so that's a factor in favoring any kind of long-term budget, with or without chained-CPI.  Government hiring is huge to the economy of Northern Virginia, like shopping malls and speeding tickets.

              And I'm not entirely against a primary, but the way they work isn't the abstract, "let's have a primary," you need a candidate who could independently articulate a case for victory -- fine to make a protest, but the idea of not voting for someone paradoxically is a belief that voting matters, and if voting matters, they matter because of outcomes.  Maybe Warner should encourage token primary opposition to blow off steam, if it's true he wouldn't be weakened.  Alternatively, my "make a new state" argument is really the way to go.  

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:22:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Care to run a primary campaign against him? (4+ / 0-)

      YOu could always run against him in a primary, I imagine, or work for someone else who does.

      I think the primary is the most effective way to send a message.

      Touch all that arises with a spirit of compassion

      by Mindful Nature on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 09:43:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  'moral issues' 'moral stands' (0+ / 0-)

      I was with you until you used this phrase.  I totally disagree with conflating politics and morality, however defined.  

      Don't we really want our politicians - our representatives in this system -  to work toward improved public health and welfare, as they promised us when taking their oath of office?

      Our political system addresses failure to live up to oaths of office or criminal behavior, rather than 'immorality.'   How do his constituents (or any body politic) define 'moral' in political context?  The term is squishy and can lead to horrendous misuse in political context.  It's certainly not what the founders intended.  

      That said, go get the sob; his positions and actions aren't in the best interests of Virginia's citizens.

      •  sorry, I refuse to exclude morality from politics (0+ / 0-)

        that something may be either legal or effective politics does not not justify hurting people.  

        "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

        by teacherken on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:49:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Disagree Ken... Sen Warner played this one (0+ / 0-)

      perfectly.  Our only chance to get any bill to the House would be one with background checks, but sans the assault weapons ban.

      Senator Warner was pushing the ball forward.   He was not naive enough to think that a "moral" vote for an assault weapons ban would have done anything to actually implement a law that would honor the legacy of the victims of Newtown.

      I understand you're upset the bill didn't clear the Senate, but it was close.  Had the assault weapons ban been included, the bill would not have had a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

      I hope as time passes and your initial anger subsides, you'll see the wisdom of Senator Warner's votes, and continue to offer the same support to that solid Virginia Democrat that you have in the past.

      You've made a presence in Virginia politics, and honestly hope this diary doesn't lead to any bridges you've built over the years get burned.

      Dont Mourn, Organize !#konisurrender

      by cks175 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 06:58:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  sorry, but he played it poorly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        my2petpeeves, greenbell

        just like he will play grand bargain matters poorly

        he had absolutely no jeopardy and could have stood for something other than running for higher office

        "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

        by teacherken on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 07:07:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What he stood for was getting a bill that should (0+ / 0-)

          have cleared the Senate and landed in the GOP Repugs laps over in the House.  This was a missed opportunity to do some real damage in the 2014 elections.

          I can't fault him for that.

          Dont Mourn, Organize !#konisurrender

          by cks175 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 07:40:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sorry, that would only be true (0+ / 0-)

            if the whip count showed

            1) they could pass that Amendment

            2) they could pass bill on final passage with that Amendment included

            they knew going in to the vote that they lacked the votes for the Manchin-Toomey amendment, so your analysis fails

            "We didn't set out to save the world; we set out to wonder how other people are doing and to reflect on how our actions affect other people's hearts." - Pema Chodron

            by teacherken on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 02:35:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (153)
  • Community (68)
  • 2016 (46)
  • Environment (43)
  • Elections (41)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • Culture (38)
  • Republicans (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Education (29)
  • Climate Change (29)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (26)
  • Labor (25)
  • Media (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • GOP (23)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Congress (22)
  • Spam (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site