Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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:

      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:

      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:

            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:

                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:

                  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site