Now let's hear from Gary how he doesn't provide a viable alternative and makes the Democratic party seem like a bunch of wussies with no identity (even though Warner doesn't do this).

Oh yeah, I fogot, Fiengold will win.  I mean Dean.  Wait I mean Dukasis, or was it Mondale. Maybe Gore or Kerry.  Any other liberals out there?    

Some of us choose to believe that Democrats, no matter where they are from, who their constituents are, or no matter their religion or background, should all fit into the same narrow political mindset. All this stuff about how people like Warner are really DINO's, Republican-lite or whatever is irritating since they are in fact Democrats, and their policies and ideas are far friendlier to progressives than the current status quo, which is Bush, Rove, Delay and Dobson.

Well, it's bullcrap. Fitting everyone into a small tent is the same mistake that the Republicans are making. By not allowing for ideological differences in their own party, Republicans have ignored the political realities in their home districts by supporting only the far-right idealogues, and could face serious consequences in the next election cycle.

I'll probably get flamed for my posting, and I don't care if I do, because I just don't see the point in spending any time trying to call out our most successful Democrats, for the sole reason that they are not amongst the more progressive Democrats out there. I highly doubt that Mark Warner's article was meant to be a comprehensive, all-encompassing blueprint for a Democratic revolution, but we won't all choose to see it that way. Even if we don't totally agree with the Mark Warners and Joe Bidens of the world, we can do better for our party than this diarist has done here.

They need to focus on these things:

1. Bring the troops home
   
2. Close the border
   
3. Punish outsourcers
   
4. End the "culture wars" and focus on bread and butter issues. No gay marriage, no "intelligent design"; jobs, health care, energy.

I think the next President could be Warner, I think he's got a great strategic mind, messaging skills, likeability, biography (i.e. can pull in business and money) and a good geographic profile.  His achievement in his state is remarkable.  And he'll probably come out ahead of the "feel good" candidate of certain blog obsessives.    

Oh, and before anybody gets any ideas, I'm liberal.  A liberal.  I think Al From and Bruce Reed are causing damage these days.   I put my money where my mouth is....I work for progressive causes.  This is Not about DLC vs. whatever.  

But seriously, your comment, "nothing to really distinguish Democrats from Republicans at the level of core political and social values....Is anybody going to be running as the Anti-Education President?" , while on the surface logical and defensible (contrast is always desireable in political races) makes me think this:  you are assuming that most voters think about politics like you do.  

Most people don't like politics.  They never will. They'll never engage in policy nuances.   Not even most liberals are very into politics -- this would come as a shock to many bloggers, I think.  

So if Candidate Joe Blow gets up there and says something bland like "education is important...." people really might listen.   Because on a basic level it is important.    The wonkosphere won't and will laugh, but many people will listen.  This is all not an arena of truth.  It's a big game.    

to answer your question I do communications work related to foundations pushing for universal health care, preschool, and assorted other things.

But I think we disagree here: I think it's pointless to try to win on truth until your rectitude is unimpeachable.   That is, when  public financing of campaigns happens.  Until that day, it's a game. People will not be de-cynicised.  (And I don't see that day anywhere on the horizon).

And we're back to disagreeing, and back to money, personality, geography, money, wedge or proxy issue positioning, money, height, looks, and money.    

No Democrats are losers (well, Zell Miller is) but infighting will not help with taking back the House and the Senate and in 2008, the presidency.

I agree with mihan except I choose to affiliate with the DLC.  I haven't paid my dues for this year only because I don't have the finances.  I'll be working for whoever our candidate in 2008 is no matter how much I agree or disagree with them.

But please, stop the bashing.  It doesn't help and makes Dems look worse than the GOP.

However, a Presidential race is much different.  You have to be more careful because winning votes from all over the country is a lot different than winning vote all over a county.  You have to be more strategic in your stances and commentary.  I'm one of those people who thinks that being a little bit more on the moderate side tends to help in Presidential elections.  You can appeal to a more diverse group of people, which is a requirement if you want to win.

Mark Warner may not hold all of our views, but he shares the big ones.  He also appeals to a wide group of people, namely middle-class males, a constituency that has been abandoning the party for years.  We do better with that group, we win a presidential election.  

However, having said all of this, I still believe at the end of the day it is all about the candidate and the match up.  And when I say that, it's not about what they stand for, but how they say it.  Do they have a good demeanor, are they stiff, are they too goofy, do they appear too awkward, and (I have to say it) would you like the have a beer with the candidate.  These are the qualities that matter most.  Kerry and Gore did not have these qualities.  Let's hope our candidate in 2008 does because it won't matter what he or she stands for if the electorate cannot relate to the candidate.  

I respectfully disagree with the assessment of Mark Warner's tax reforms as just "retooled Bush lite."  What I believe Warner is referring to is his triumph on getting a tax increase through the VA General Assembly in the first legislative session following his election in 2001.  

Warner inherited a huge budget shortfall from the outgoing Republican governor, Jim Gilmore, in large part due to Gilmore's repeal of the car tax (Gilmore had made repeal of the car tax the centerpiece of his campaign in 1997).  With the state in deep fiscal trouble, Warner called for a tax increase to shore up the state's finances.  Many of the Republicans that controlled both houses of the General Assembly took a no-tax-increase stand, but Warner persuaded a minority of the Republicans to break ranks and support (along with the Democrats in the General Assembly) a tax increase.  The right-wing Republicans turned on the Republicans that supported Warner, and, with the urging of people like Grover Norquist, have been trying to purge those representatives that supported the tax increase.

This political and legislative triumph is a big part of why Warner has been so popular in VA.  When the state was in deep fiscal trouble, he stepped up and led.

Steve  

Im not outright hostile to Warner; I dont know much about him.  And his article seems deliberately designed to be vague about his solutions to anything.

But, I am very suspicious of him.  He gives every appearance of being a Clintonian "Republican lite."  I dont want another "Democrat" who runs and governs on the Republican platforms of the 1960s and 1970s.

The problems that we have to face as a country are serious and mounting due to Bush's incompetence.  It will take increasingly progressive solutions in order to overcome them.  Note that the results most progressive wants are "conservative" in the old fashioned sense: an economy that delivers on its promise to deliver the greatest good for the greatest numbers through economic opportunity that rewards those that work hard; that "conserves" the environment; and that keeps the Government off our backs and out of our bedrooms and doctors' office. Yet, as a whole, we are not going to get there with Republican lite policies of free trade and budget cuts to achieve a balance budget, the Clinton prescription of the 1990s.  We are going to have to have a radical tax reform that puts a much higher tax burden on the wealthy, promulgate and enforce real wage, worker protection and environmental standards in trade agreements, greatly expand the minimum wage, offer tax incentives for businesses to pay workers more, confront powerful lobbies in the health care, insurance and mineral-extraction industries over healthcare and the environment.  A "go along to get along" Democrat like Warner will never have the nerve, or even the inclination, to do this.

Now, many moderates on this site may or may not agree with some of my arguments, but still counter that Warner and his "Republican-litism" is electable and the program that I am advocating would make a Democrat unelectable.  I disagree with that, but recognize that there are arguments on both sides.  

But here is why I am so adamant on not supporting a Republican-lite "DLC" type Democrat in 08 even if he or she gets the nomination.  Suppose a Warner or Clinton gets elected in 08.  Bush will have fucked things up so bad by then, one might. But when they govern in their "non-ideological" "Republican lite" manner, nothing is going to get better.  Wages will still go down, health care costs, gas prices and college tuition will still go up.  As working people's lives get worse, the anger now focused on the Republicans will turn to the Democrats.  Thus, by 2010 and certainly by 2012 you will get a backlash against the Democrats and you will see the Republicans regain power on their "tax cut" message.  The Democrats, having blown their opportunity when they had a chance to govern, will be in the polical wilderness for another decade or so.  Long term, Clintonian, DLC, Republican lite policies, whatever you want to call it, are a killer for the Democratic Party because they simply do not offer solutions to the real problems voters face today.

If there is only one lesson to take from Bush it is that good policy makes good politics and vice versa.  We will never regain our rightful place as the majority party until we are willing to offer straightforward, progressive solutions to todays problems.  

On the other hand, if Warner takes progressive positions on the issue, thus demonstrating he has a real grasp of the problems facing todays voters, Id certainly consider voting for him.  Unfortunately, he give every indication that he has no such intention.

I suggest you look at his accomplishments and record before you label him. He is supported by liberals and moderates at over a 65% clip.

He IS a reform candidate. I suggest you look before you leap next time. I'll post more when I have some time.

We have got to start being more realistic if we are ever going to accomplish anything, other than just beating the other side and ourselves up.

Gov Warner's record in Virginia is impeccable. I suggest any and all check out the facts at www.DraftMarkWarner.com (not affiliated with any candidate or candidate committee) before continuing with the bashing.

This man offers something for everyone, as evidenced by his ability to work with the "repulsican" General Assembly in Richmond as well as not alienating his Democratic supporters. Anyone who is able to pull that off has got to have some skills that most politicians are lacking these days.

As a LIBERAL, I believe that Mark Warner offers solutions to problems, which he proved in Virginia and can offer the same for the issues that confront this country. Especially what will be left of it after "Dubya" gets done.

Again, please research www.DraftMarkWarner.com and then let us hear your comments after doing some reading. Think you will be impressed.

Just our humble 2 cents from West Virginia

Governor Warner's speeches in California and Iowa coupled with the creation of a PAC and other public appearances has created a low-volume buzz over his viability as a presidential candidate. For those of us who hope he runs and wins, this notoriety is welcome so early in the game. But, while Governor Warner has received mostly favorable musings from reporters and pundits (Howard Fineman, Salon, and George F. Will), the blogosphere is, generally, mixed. As I read specific Warner related postings as well as debates among liberal bloggers, I noticed an emerging theme. Some posts lamented that Governor Warner may be too centrist and not "liberal" enough to capture the liberal base or the so-called "democratic wing of the democratic party." Other posts condemned the concept of "centrism" without even knowing the Governor's positions on traditional liberal bread and butter issues. Indeed, just last week an entry in dailykos.com (www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/24/155649/635) determined that Governor Warner may be a "[p]roblem for the left."

Before this "emerging" theme becomes a generally accepted principle, I thought that a brief, and by no means comprehensive, summary of Governor Warner's positions on traditional democratic issues, as articulated in his press releases and news articles, would help debunk the myth that Governor Warner will have a problem on the left. While not every one of his positions coincide with traditional liberal orthodoxy, Governor Warner clearly espouses core liberal principles, such as equality, fairness, equal justice, a woman's right to choose, natural resource conservation, and the creation of a level playing field.

I shouldn't have to remind members of the Democratic Party that we are a big tent party and accept different reasonable views. That inclusiveness is precisely what makes us different than the Republicans. Because Governor Warner may not tow the party line on every issue should not summarily disqualify him from leading our Party. Governor Warner's centrism is based on seeking the right solutions to hard problems and if the right solution does not fit fully and neatly into liberal orthodoxy--well too bad. After all, great Democrats like Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Russell Feingold have parted from their Party's mainstream policies to further what they considered proper solutions to intractable problems.

I am certain that this country needs a leader with solutions not an ideologue only committed to furthering specific ideological goals. If you haven't noticed, that is the type of leadership we have now and it is failing---miserably. And it should also be noted what is happening to the Republican Party as I write this blog. Republican moderates are being squeezed out of their Party because their leadership and political operatives shamelessly and unflinchingly take their marching orders from the extremes of their party and give no quarter to their moderates. Moreover, Republicans that do not completely tow the party line are severely punished. Just read former Senator John Danforth's op-eds or listen to Senators John McCain, George Voinovich, Christopher Shays, and Lincoln Chafee as they try to deal with the Bush Administration. Is that the type of Party we want to be? Do we want to be a Party that ostracizes and alienates Democrats with ideas that may not completely appeal to the "base" of the Party? If not, then the so-called far-left should give Governor Warner a chance to make his case as to why he is the future of the Party.

As promised, below are Governor Warner's positions on traditional liberal issues. Remember these are gathered from his press releases and general news articles. I didn't make them up.

Civil Rights: Governor Warner has given greater support and encouragement to minority owned businesses. Governor Warner has worked to put an end to racial profiling by signing a bill that requires police officers to undergo training and education to eliminate the abhorrent practice. He will also seek to encourage the recruitment and hiring of more minority law enforcement officers. Finally, Governor Warner supports hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation. Governor Warner followed through on his pledge to support minority owned businesses by instituting the SWAM project, which was established to provide enhanced procurement opportunities to small businesses and to businesses owned by women and minorities (SWAM). According to www.blackcommercemall.com, the Commonwealth of Virginia is rated the friendliest state for black-owned businesses in a new annual study of The State of Black Business. And, according to Sharon E. Davis of www.quepasaWashington.com, "with a little over 18 months left in his administration, Warner has appointed nearly twice as many Hispanics to state boards and commissions than the previous two Governors combined. For the first time, the Latino community really does have a 'seat at the table' and a chance to contribute to the direction of Virginia. The efforts made by Governor Warner to include Latinos and other underrepresented ethnic and racial minorities in his government and in the political and policy decision-making will no doubt be one of his legacies when he leaves office in 2006."

Abortion: Mark Warner is pro-choice. Governor Warner supports the Roe v. Wade decision that protects a woman‚'s right to choose. Governor Warner does not support the parental notification law, but has pledged to follow Virginia law. Governor Warner supports a ban on partial-birth abortion with exceptions that protect the life or physical health of the mother. This position is no different that Hillary Clinton‚'s position. Finally, in 2004, Governor Warner signed a veto-proof fetal-homicide bill, after the Virginia General Assembly rejected his amendment to add language affirming a woman‚'s right to choose. After he signed the bill, Governor Warner was quoted by Michael Hardy of the Richmond Times-Dispatch as saying that "[g]iven that clear legislative intent and given my support for legislation that punishes violent acts against women, especially any violent act that results in harm to or death of a pregnant woman or her fetus, I have signed these bills into law.‚" These positions and others are available at www.roanoke.com/roatimes/election2001/gov.html.

Environment: On March 24, 2005, according to Governor Warner's press release "Governor Mark R. Warner signed eight bills that significantly strengthen Virginia‚'s ability to protect its environment and to conserve its natural resources. This 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." You can see this quote and the content of the bills at www.governor.virginia.gov/Press_Policy/Releases/2005/Mar05/0324.htm.

Affirmative Action: In response to the Supreme Court's ruling that the University of Michigan can retain its policy on affirmative action, Governor Warner said "I am heartened by today's rulings. I come from the business world, and I think most business people will tell you that they want to recruit employees who were educated in an environment where they were exposed to diverse people and ideas. The Court was clearly persuaded by the overwhelming number of briefs in support of diversity filed by business, military, and civic leaders." He went on to say that "[a]s I have said many times in the past, I believe race should continue to be considered as one factor among many, and I continue to be opposed to the use of quotas." You can find these quotes at http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Press_Policy/Releases/2003/June03/0623.htm. And because actions speak louder than words, Governor Warner's commitment to equality and fairness can be seen in his successful effort to reinstate Virginia Tech''s affirmative action policy after the Board of Visitors voted to rescind it. To find more on this issue go to http://www.governor.virginia.gov/Press_Policy/Releases/2003/Apr03/0406.htm.

Thank you Ian for this valuable information. As a liberal who is leaning towards a Mark Warner candidacy, I say that these positions are liberal. In seeking the Democratic nomination and as the nominee, Warner must run on this record. In my previous posts, I mentioned some other issues that are REALLY very important that must be addressed by the Democrats. In stating those points, I was not simply speaking ideology. I'm also not saying that you or anybody said that I was. In seeking the nomination, Warner must not run against the "extreme left." The same goes for whomever is the nominee.

Walter

Of course, the goal of Beinart isn't to get Democrats elected but to win a book deal. And the goal of the DLC isn't to elect Democrats but to kowtow to elite opinion. I mean, triangulation is nothing if not an elite strategy--do they really think most everyday, middle of the road voters could even "correctly" identify whether a battery of policy positions are liberal or conservative? So how does it make sense to push strategies simply to say "hey we adopt conservative positions" when all that does is leave actual voters scrathing their heads saying, "yeah, but do they work?"

furniture collections

I agree with you, this isn't the way to do it! Good thing there is better ones than him out there...