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.
This part will deal with his vision for the National party.
The final 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.
First off, I must apologize, because I really thought this was going to be a three part series and that I would get to all of Warner's policy positions today in conjunction with his vision for the National party. However, there are several unaddressed issues that I feel that I need to include for the sake of thoroughness, and it appeared to me easier to address them prior to policy positions, thus when the debate over policy came, it would be with a full background of the person. In certain ways, this makes this much more difficult to write, but I couldn't fathom making this entry as long as it was getting, as, let's be honest, I'm a pretty wordy person.
All this being said, onward to the nationalizing of Virginia's success....
Why I think Mark Warner will Be Good for the Party....aka Why I think he should Run for President and Not Senate
This is always the question that is raised on any of these threads, isn't it? Why isn't he running for George Allen's Senate seat knowing that he can probably win, if not give him a formidable run for his money and damage Allen's presidential ambitions, and then either go from there and run for president or represent Virginia as her Senator and let someone with more experience take his mantle on the presidential altar. The implication being, of course, that it's his ego that's making him shoot the moon, instead of party loyalty to take back the Senate.
I disagree with this vehemently. In part because I think it represents a view of outside Virginia where federal offices like the Senate and the House are the only ones that really matter. In part because I think that even if he did win he would do damage to the Virginia Democratic Party and to Kaine's term as Governor by having a contentious appointment process so soon after Warner's election. That is the kind of thing that makes parties and politicians unpopular. I know the Old Dominion too well to believe she would forgive Warner for running for Senate only to immediately run for President. She did not forgive Gilmore for becoming the head of the RNC. She still has not fully forgiven Wilder for being too overt about his national ambitions at the end of his term. I know how annoying it can be for Warner to smile and duck questions about whether he's running for president or not (he is), but it's quite mandatory in our Commonwealth. To neglect the state is a cardinal sin, and for Warner to gain a new office as a mere platform for his ambition is a heavy violation.
In part I disagree because I honestly don't think the Senate is the correct place for someone like Warner. I think he might very well be infuriating as a Senator. He's an executive, and if you read everything I've written of his term, and all the things I've left out, he true skill is leadership and innovative ideas, not pontification and nuanced policy. It would hog-tie his ability to change and raise the Democratic Party. And the reason we love him is because of that ability. Public offices are not interchangable. There are different qualifications and competencies for each, something which I feel is sorely overlooked in politics today.
I think Mark Warner should run for President because of the innovative approaches he takes and the way he reaches out to new demographics while throwing his opposition into discord. I believe, with all my heart, that he has found a formula that is not just a winner, but is pretty inspiring. A way to make Democrats a true 50 state party, to remember what we're about. To compete in regions where we haven't been competitive for years without sacrificing what we believe as Democrats. In short, I firmly believe that the sort of revolution that the Virginia Democratic Party has undergone can be reflected on the national stage. The demographics are not that different.
And I believe that, if elected, Mark Warner will not let Democrats, rural voters, or anybody down. We have monumental things to deal with in this country, and I truly believe you need someone who has delt with impossible situations before. And Warner's situation in Virginia was impossible and an incredible success.
Tim Kaine's Election
It would be incomplete of me to not mention the 2005 elections in a series on Mark Warner, as he was the eleph....rather donkey in the room throughout the entire 2005 gubernatorial campaign. I think Tim is great, and I in no means wish to detract from his own merits as a candidate. However, I am also aware that the field plan utilized in Northern Virginia was, to a certain extent, a test plan for a Warner presidential campaign. (Please don't ask for specifics. I don't know. Everything has been said in whispers and I am not in the loop). I think it can be agreed that it was pretty damn successful, and if this diary I wrote doesn't spell it out, then consider that even Democratic internals only had Kaine up by 4%, Byrne down around 1%, and Deeds down by 3-4%. Deeds is currently in a recount. Byrne was about right, and Kaine won by 6%. This, to me, is a clear indicator of a winning field plan.
On the God thing....obviously, Democrats need a better answer to questions regarding faith and religion than squirming uncomfortably. What this does not mean is that you should play up your faith if it is not an important part of your life, or not something that determines your personal morality. What Kaine did was define himself as someone who had principles. Someone who stood for something. Who could answer the question "Why I'm a Democrat" without answering "a woman's right to choose". Because even if that is an ISSUE Democrats believe in, it is a flimsy reason to be a Democrat. A moral yardstick, to use Kaine's words. Warner did the same, he just defined it as what mattered to him, economics and rural values as opposed to religion.
I consider the "Why I'm a Democrat" question to be a litmus test of sorts. If your answer does not inspire me, you're toast in my book. And before you say that's an easy question, try and answer it yourself. It's something you learn when you're a red state Democrat in a minority, to outline your principles and beliefs and be ready with them on the spot, because someone's going to ask you what the hell it is you believe, and the second you stutter they know you're bullshit. Here is Mark Warner's answer.
I am a Democrat because since Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence - and since Jackson spoke for the common man - our party has never been the party of the status quo.
Instead, we have been the ones to see a challenge - and do something about it. Let's be honest - it hasn't always worked perfectly. Sometimes it has gotten us in trouble. Sometimes it has split us apart. But sometimes, those are the wages of progress.
And yet, I am a Democrat because the greatest and most noble political experiments of our time had their birth in our party.
....
I am a Democrat because a generation after a Democratic president started the Peace Corps, you can still find faded photographs of John F. Kennedy on the walls of homes from South Africa to South America.
A National Platform According to Mark Warner
First and foremost, what Warner wants to bring to the table is not so much a refocus on the South. Admittedly, he is the governor of a large, electoral vote rich Southern state whose electoral votes are right to make some drool. But the South is a symbol of a larger problem: rural and small-town voters.
From Gov. Warner:
...Let's be frank. Rural Americans, small-town Americans, think we as Democrats just don't get them, don't relate to them--or even worse, that we look down on them.
Here's what I think is wrong with all this. Number one, it's dumb politics. We can't ignore a group of Americans and then ask them to rally to our side. Even if our policies are a far, far better deal for them, which they are. But if we want to get a fair hearing on the bread-and-butter issues, health, education, the economy, then we've got to start acting like the cultural issues--what some people are calling the "moral values" issues--really count. Not just politically.
As Democrats, we shouldn't fear that--we should welcome it. I'll put our moral values up against the other side's any day. I'll take "we're all in this together" over "you're on your own" any day. I think most Americans would, if we put the choice to them. We're the party that says everyone counts--and over the decades our policies have backed that up. We're the ones who believe we're all part of one community, one America--that every person, from any background, deserves a place at the table.
But here's the catch. We can't apply these principles with respect to race and gender--and then take a pass on region or religion. We've never believed that some people count and some people don't. So we need to stop acting that way. That's not who we are, and we've got to make that clear. When we make that happen, nobody can beat us...
Alright, did you catch what he was saying there? Moral values only equals abortion because we have failed to argue the larger picture. Because we do not argue our principles, we argue our policy. Our principles matter, and our principles are better, and it's time to stop allowing Republicans to be the only people who argue the importance of principle and values. A basic principle of competitive debate is that a dropped point is automatically ceeded to the other side. If I duck the question and don't respond to what you throw out there, I am accepting your statement as valid. When we refuse to talk about religion, we surrender the point to the other side. When we refuse to talk about the rural voters, or refer to them as if they don't matter, we surrender them to the other side.
Warner understands that you can't run a party this way. You can't expect to retain majorities or leadership of anything if you only govern the cities. And it's not about changing your message so much as it is about taking the time to argue it with a degree of legitimacy. In other words, you can't argue it against your will, or looking awkward and flimsy a la John Kerry.
Now I've heard many complaints that Mark Warner is from the DLC school of triangulation. My largest complaint against this is simple. He has made the Democratic Party of Virginia stronger, more aggressive, and more unified as their leader and Governor by leaps and bounds. He has worked his butt off teaching Northern Virginia Democrats, which in Virginia politics represent the far left, how to compete downstate. And his has left the Republican party in ruins. He certainly has pitched the moderate Right and the Far Right against each other. And reaped the rewards. But what the hell is the problem with that? The problem with triangulation is that it breaks your base. He has not done that and has done the reverse but multiplying his base considerably. As such, I think it is out of line to claim that he will do this in national office, especially considering that he refused a leadership position within the DLC, calling them too divisive.
I think this paints the sort of picture of what Mark Warner can bring to the national party. In the next part, I will finally reach policy issues.