This concludes a short series of posts discussing Mark Warner and the transformation of the Virginia Democratic Party, following some requests made after Kaine's victory.
The first part delt with the 2001 Elections.
The second part delt with Mark Warner's term as Governor.
The third part delt with his vision for the National party.
This part will discuss various policy positions, views on Iraq, etc.
I strongly support Mark Warner for president. However, I am attempting to paint a richer picture than simply a stump for my guy in 2008. Rather, I am trying to describe how a party in disarray can turn around to effectively build a new machine over the course of 4-5 years. Regardless of your feelings on Mark Warner, I ask you to consider this as a way to regain competitive status in not just red states, but red regions of blue states and purple states.
Alright, so we're finally reaching the end of this series. It has lasted longer than the throat infection I'm currently sporting. I encourage any newcomers to read over the first parts of the series, as I feel they are what truly paints the picture of what you can expect with a Warner presidency/candidacy. Admittedly, the most often used criticism of Warner, other than DLC lite, which frankly is such an overused term at this point as to be bereft of any valid meaning, is that simply not enough is known about his national views. And yeah, I cannot claim that Warner has Kerry, Feingold, or even Clinton's record (although we can't confuse Hillary with Bill. They apparently disagree on the war). I see this as a strong suite, given that I feel perfectly comfortable with his leadership style and methods of attacking problems. If you can't make the same commitment however, I understand, given that you keep an open mind for when the primaries begin in earnest and heretofore unknowns are allowed to flesh out their vision.
That being said, there are some things you likely will never hear from Gov. Warner. Most importantly, you will never hear how he would've voted on the Iraq War in 2003. Or at least, if I was his press secretary, I would never allow him to be stupid enough to answer that question. He wasn't in the Senate. For him to go back and say how he would've voted sounds like false pandering to the base after the fact if he said he wouldn't have voted for the war, and it sounds like stubborness the other way. That's one thing you're going to have to give up on having an answer to if you're willing to accept a governor. Really, governors or others who don't have an on-record statement have no reason to make one now to pacify an angry base. A hindsight, Monday morning quarterback vote is lousy on a lot of levels. If that is what you need to hear from your candidate, then just admit that you're supporting Feingold and move on.
This doesn't mean you don't have every right to question a candidate thoroughly about Iraq policy. Coherency on Iraq is a litmus test of sorts, unless things somehow get better over the next three years, which theoretically is likely, but given our president's current penchance for stubborness against all reason, is not something I'm holding my breath for. I would even proffer the argument that a new question has come to light with which candidates shall soon have to answer: where they stand on the Murtha plan. Although, this again is another example of the changing nature of the whole debate every two weeks or so, and putting on my press secretary hat, I might give the debate time to really settle into distinct camps before throwing my candidate in the fight.
But, in general, you will not hear retrospectives from governors on where they stand on various issues that have faced the Senate over the past five years. The bankruptcy bill will probably be safely sidestepped. Again, this is part of the dance that you get, in fact that you specifically ask for, by NOT choosing a Senator.
Here is a statement by Governor Warner on Iraq:
LAMB: Where are you on the Iraq war?
WARNER: Where I am on the Iraq war is I think Democrats ought to spend less time re-fighting how we got into the war and more time figuring out where we go from here. I think the president has a responsibility as our commander-in-chief to be more forthcoming about his plan about how we finish.
But I think a couple of things. I think, number one, you know, I don`t believe an arbitrary deadline should be set. I think we, regardless of whether we like how we got there, we need to finish the task.
Two, I think we need to continue to put pressure on the Shias and the Kurds to include the Sunnis so that we don`t have a division in that country.
Three, I think we need to move more of the rebuilding resources into the hands of the Iraqis as opposed to the American contractors there where we`re spending 30 cents on every dollar doing security for the outside contractors. The more we can get Iraqis actually involved in the reconstruction of their country, the more they`re going to have a stake. And remember, this is a country that did function for 40 years.
And four, let me just - and this doesn`t have as much to do with Iraq, but I think it`s a debate that we need in this country. I mean, our American military - and Virginia has got the highest concentration of military of any state in the country, our military is so superior to everyone else in the world that we can take out the command and control functions of the bad guys so quickly, and that`s good news, because it makes these conflicts very short, not just Iraq, Afghanistan, you know, Somalia, Bosnia, all of our recent incursions.
But one of the things that we have to grapple with is how do you reestablish civil authority? And on that piece our record has not been as good. And where is that role of reestablishing civil authority, turning on the water, turning on the power, whose job is that going to be?
The military understandably I think is reluctant to take on that role. But we`ve got to have a discussion about that because what we`re doing right now by not having that fully thought through and having this long deployment I see as commander-of-chief of our National Guard that unfortunately we are in many ways really harming our National Guards and Reserves because not only in terms of lack of equipment and training, but more importantly - or equally important, we`re seeing these members, who are great patriots, serve and proud to serve in Iraq, but they`re not re-upping.
Because if you`re mid career, you know, you can be deployed once, but being deployed two and three times and having that in your future, you just can`t do it. So we are going to have to have, I think, a real, honest debate in this country about the force structure of our military as well as how do we control these incursions after we take out the command and control of the bad guys?
Here are the important points I take out of this statement:
- He believes the pressure needs to be put on the Shias to include the Sunnis rather than on the Sunnis to include themselves.
- He's right about where the rest of the party is in regards to contractors, etc. Expect the Halliburton point to be a unifying point for Democrats as the most egreigous example of government waste and in failing to give the Iraqis a personal stake in reducing the insurgency.
- The talk of a re-structuring of the military is pretty interesting in my viewpoint, as it is not something that gets a lot of airplay but frankly it has been a problem with every major action since Vietnam.
I also found
this quote, which elaborates quite a bit more under more veiled language:
He insisted that Americans have to make themselves safer at home and abroad. "Making our ports, airports, and borders safer is an issue," he said.
He also said that America should be a moral, not military, leader.
Health Care:
It sorta bewilders me that people are worried about Warner's approach to Health care, as it is something he was firmly devoted to prior to becoming Governor (namely developing rural healthcare centers so that people wouldn't have to drive large distances to cities to receive emergency/non-emergency service), and from his public statements has expressed a commitment to ensure every child is insured, which essentially is current Democratic language for "as near as universal coverage as I can pass in Congress." That being said, here is a statement from his PAC on healthcare:
Governor Warner has led an effort to sign up 131,000 new children for health care coverage, now reaching 97% of the estimated eligible population, and being recognized by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured for dramatically turning around one of the lowest performing children's health insurance programs in the nation. Additionally, the state is now offering dental care to more children, and prenatal care for more working mothers.
Governor Warner's "Healthy Virginians" effort emphasizes more exercise, better food choices, and preventive care and the management of chronic diseases among public schoolchildren, state employees, Medicaid recipients, and the public at large.
Under Governor Warner's leadership, Virginia's mental health, mental retardation, and substance abuse services system has transitioned to more community-based services and innovative new program offerings.
The Environment:
Many people worry that because Warner has a background in big business (founded NEXTEL, for those of you who don't yet know), he will be a shill for industry at the expense of either the environment, trade, or most likely, both. Well, I think this sort of misses the point in regard to Warner's whole "centrist without sacrificing a drop of progressive values or liberal blood" thing. In any case, if today's story in the Post did not calm your nerves, or his innovation of the Sportmen for Warner, which is deeply rooted in the environment, here is a quote:
RICHMOND, VA (03/25/05) -- Gov. Mark R. Warner has signed eight bills that significantly strengthen Virginia's ability to protect its environment and to conserve its natural resources. The legislation provides funding for the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, strengthens enforcement of environmental laws, and rewards companies and local governments that have outstanding environmental protection records.
Free Trade:
I feel like I have failed you here, as I have not been really able to come up with any positions more recent than the mid-nineties, when he was running for Senate against John Warner. At the time, he supported NAFTA. However, I would point out that many people supported the Clintonian NAFTA who changed their mind about CAFTA after both seeing the results of NAFTA and the differences in CAFTA's language. Virginia is not a stranger to the results of outsourcing. Our textile mills have suffered immensely, and one of the really great things Warner did was to lay fiber-optic cables under the roads of these communities so that new, high-tech jobs could replace those lost, and simultaneously providing vocational training and developing a Southside University. But, I cannot fully answer this question to my own satisfaction. Take that as you will.
Education:
This has been one of Warner's strongest areas as Governor. His commitment from pre-K to higher education has really been rather fantastic. Since this has been so central, I'm not going to waste everyone's time with a long, drawn-out thing to explain every little thing he's done. Suffice it to say he's made the single largest state investment in K-12 education, and the second largest in University funding. Education was the only program that was not on the chopping block when he was slashing spending at the beginning of his term. Here is a quote, and if you're interested, I encourage you to research further.
Investing in high-quality early childhood education has extraordinary returns, not only for Virginia's children, but also for our workforce and economy. The best investments are made in community-grown programs that truly meet local needs.
GBTL Issues:
I feel it necessary to include this because of the infamous Virginia Gay Marriage Ban that happened on his watch. It was a nasty law. And it was nasty times, particulary because Republicans had a veto proof majority in the legislature (see part II), and when they decide to do something, it is very difficult to stop it. However, Warner did try to water it down with suggestions on keeping private contracts with private insurers who wish to give civil benefits legal. I don't know how many ways I can apologize for Virginia being the South, and if you know me I don't often feel the need to aplogize for the South, quite the reverse, so that's all I'll say about it.
Tax Reform:
I'm not going to go over, yet again, the miraculous saving of Virginia's triple bond rating, etc. etc. that has become the Warner signature. Read any article on Warner, it'll be in there. However, I will point out that while he is lauded again and again for raising taxes in Virginia, a state not known to be tax hike friendly, it often glosses over the WAY he did it, which is why his popularity remains so high. Yes, some taxes went up, but others went down, and the way taxes were raised were in a way that was barely felt by the individual consumer, therefore, while it generated lots of revenue, it was pretty painless to go through. Plus, most importantly, prior to raising taxes he cut wasteful spending across the board, which gave him credibility when he went to the General Assembly and said that it wasn't enough. I think this is key. Don't raise taxes until after you've cut spending, because Congress will eat up every dollar of revenue you give them.
National Security:
You know, I never really know what people are referring to when they say National Security. I think, a lot of the time, this issue gets coopted by Iraq or the War on Terror, or foreign policy in general. How else can I explain that people who favor Richardson claim that because Warner has no "National Security" experience, he is not a viable candidate. Well, excuse me, but as the state that is home to the Pentagon, CIA, and pretty much parts of every government organization you can think of, as well as several major ports for both cargo and the military (Newport News, etc.), I disagree that Virginia is not qualified to sit in on the discussions of National Security. In fact, Virginia probably has more likely targets than any state other than California, New York, and the District. (Sorry Maryland, but we have the bridges and Dulles and National Airport (don't you dare call it Reagan)).
So, clearly this isn't what people are talking about in regards to National Security. They're talking about Foreign Policy. It is true that Governors traditionally lack foreign policy experience as a virtue of the domestic nature of their office. I would also argue that this is less the case today than it was in 2000, due to the War in Iraq and the activation of our National Guard to fight abroad, something which was unheard of not too long ago. But it is something that will likely come up. This has never proved to be problematic to the success of previous governors. I don't especially buy the "In a post Sept-11th environment..." argument, especially since we're talking about 2008, not 2004. If anything, I think Katrina probably marked a return to a more insular, domestic way of thinking in our country. But again, if that's a deal-breaker for you, there is very little that I can ever say that will make it less of a deal-breaker. You have to choose your priorities. Just don't use the word National Security when you mean foreign policy, because as someone whose father was in the Pentagon on the 11th, I am sensitive to its impact on Virginia being overlooked.
I feel like this has covered a range of issues. If I have left something off that is of your particular taste, let me know and I'll either update or deal with it in the comments (most likely the latter). Thanks for reading this series, and I'm sorry there has been a delay getting this last one out. This is my favorite Mark Warner speech, which I recommend you read if you have not yet.