I am back from the luncheon with Patrick Murphy and Governor Warner. It was held at the law offices of Dilworth-Paxon LLP on the 32nd floor of a building on 17th and Market Streets. I had a spectacular view of all of South Philly as I ate my thick slab roast beef sandwich and listened to Mark Warner and Patrick Murphy deliver excellent speeches and take tough questions from high powered attorneys. The blogworld was represented by Atrios, Susie Madrak, Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg, and me. Susie and Duncan actually kind of dressed up. Alex and I crashed their suit party in our typical summer garb, much to the consternation of some of the more staid rainmakers. One of them asked me if I go surfing in a suit and tie. I assured him that I did.
So…a few observations. First of all, high powered attorneys look just like Republicans…white, well-fed, expensive cuff links, big white fuzzy untrimmed eyebrows. But looks can be deceiving. These are the real DLC Democrats. They want free trade and corporate friendly policies. And they don’t want anyone to mess with the bottom line for trial attorneys. They’re allies, but only to a point. Warner knew just what to say to them.
And Warner was very, very impressive. He keeps improving every time I see him, and I would characterize his performance as just shy of Clintonesque. He was inspiring. Here are the points that he really drove home.
1) Deficit spending and energy policy. Borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for gasoline from Iran is not a winning strategy. It not only keeps us from being able to demand that the Chinese let their currency float, it also enriches our enemies. We need to stop borrowing money and we need to get really aggressive about alternative energy. Of course this all ties into all the other big issues of the day, like global warming, and the need for domestic investment in education and infrastructure.
2) Iraq and Iran. Warner’s position has changed since I talked to him in April or May. His new line is: staying in Iraq isn’t making us safer and we need to get out. But getting out without a plan isn’t any better than going in without a plan. When asked what the plan is, he says the plan is to take back Congress. It’s a slippery piece of rhetoric, but very effective. The timeline debate didn’t come up, and I am sure that was intentional. Nevertheless, there is a now a visible gap between Warner and Lieberman’s respective positions.
He is concerned about Iran, and sees Iraq as crippling our ability to deal with them effectively. He is hopeful that we can convince the Chinese and Russians to back up some tough sanctions. I guess we should all be hoping that so we don’t have to see a string of Roman candles go off in Dick Cheney’s head.
3. Education and jobs. Warner was most impressive when he got going on investing in education and making sure America regains the lead on hi-tech. He tied together an impressive amount of proposals to put forth a vision of a reinvigorated America. He talked about bringing hi-tech to rural America, including investments in broadband. He talked about destigmatizing vocational education and really investing in it. He talked about letting both regular high schoolers and vocational students spend a semester of their senior year taking credits towards a college degree. This would save a semester of credit hour costs, incentivize people to stay in school, get people on the road to higher education, and prevent kids from slacking off at the end of the year. He talked about state efforts to extend health care to all kids, and eventually all Americans, and the importance of getting health care right so we can compete in a global market. And he covered a lot of other topics with a display of far ranging and deep knowledge.
Warner is going to be a formidable candidate for the nomination and we could do a lot worse from the centrist wing of the party.
I attended a press conference after the luncheon, where Warner and Murphy took questions. Warner seemed a little tired and a little off delivering the same lines he had laid out moments before. And I realized that he is doing two more of these events today. One for Lois Murphy and one for Joe Sestak. Running for President is a truly grueling exercise. We’re over two years out and Warner is keeping a very full schedule.
Patrick Murphy is not as polished or as confident as Mark Warner, but he continues to get better on the campaign trail. He has a lot of momentum now and just flat-out won a debate with Mike Fitzpatrick. I really like him and his beautiful new wife, Jennifer. They are going to be rock-stars on Capitol Hill.
As for the partners at Dilworth-Paxon, I’d like to thank you for letting my surfer-looking ass into your plush offices. You guys are all right. And you serve a mean roast beef.
…a nominee from the center of the party? Well, I guess you could almost always say that. As you probably know, I’m no particular fan of Warner, although I haven’t, like you and the crew at Yearly Kos, met the guy.
As for you take, I agree that his position on education and investing in jobs is where he shines. A good, solid, FDRish stance. Kudos to him for that.
His view on Iraq and Iran, however, not so great (which is what you’d expect to hear from somebody on the leftmost edge of the party).
First, I hope he didn’t really say Borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for gasoline from Iran is not a winning strategy. Or, if he did, he shouldn’t repeat it. Might sound cool, but the Iranians IMPORT gasoline.
Second, I think the U.S. will NOT convince the Russians and/or the Chinese to enforce anything more than the mildest sanctions. If I’m right, where does Warner think the Dems should go next? You know what I’m driving at: does he back military action at some point?
Third, that Iraq position IS slippery. It’s the same position that lots of Dem activists are taking – including some people I highly respect on most issues, but strongly disagree with on this one. I understand the argument: don’t get bogged down in a discussion about what the Democrats would do until the Democrats are in a position to do something. The trouble is, as I walk precincts in two Congressional Districts (Xavier Becerra’s and David Dreier’s), I’ve enocuntered exactly what I predicted months ago: people are concerned about Iraq, but they want to hear how the Democrats would handle things differently. Telling them (in Dreier’s district particularly) that they should vote Democrats into office and THEN they’ll find out what Democrats will do is a conversation-killer.
Here’s the situation as I see it:
Three years ago in August, Rumsfeld was telling the press not to call the insurgents the “insurgency.” Coalition soldiers dead: 341. (Thousands of Iraqis dead.)
Two years ago in August, Rumsfeld said the U.S. was not an occupying force in Iraq. Coalition soldiers dead: 1104. (Thousands more Iraqis dead, perhaps a hundred thousand.)
Last year in August, Rumsfeld said Iraq is not fated for civil war. Coalition fatalities: 2068. Iraqi fatalities: Thousands more.
This year in August. Hmmmm. Where is Rumsfeld? Coalition fatalities: 2841. Iraqi fatalities: Tens of thousands, at least. Those killed in violence are running at 3000+ per month, and the toll gets worse each month.
The trouble, imo, with everybody who suggests that the U.S. can’t just leave now because things will get worse keeps ignoring the fact that the U.S. has now been fighting/occupying Iraq for 41 months and things keep getting worse. With no end in sight despite turned corners and last throes.
I’m open-minded. If somebody can show me a plan that keeps U.S. troops in Iraq in a way that will make the situation better, I’ll listen. Anyone, Wes Clark, Mark Warner, Joe Lieberman, I don’t care. Show me in what way a continued U.S. troop presence in Iraq will make things better, I’m all ears.
But I haven’t heard it yet.
My middle position? Pull back to Kuwait, Qatar and Iraqi Kurdistan, and make it clear that any overt attempts by the neighbors to move in will be met with the kind of force the U.S. can still muster quite effectively.
beautifully put.
My thoughts nearly exactly.
As for the quote on Iran, I’m not sure if I got that right verbatim. I think so. But his point was that we are doing nothing on energy but filling the coffers of oil-based economies, many of which are hostile to our interests. And that we are borrowing money from the Chinese which makes it impossible to get them to stop screwing us.
My impression of Warner is that he would strive to be a second Clinton. And I think he would have a good chance of pulling it off. So, I am happy to have him in the race and hope he prevails over Hillary, Biden, Bayh, Vilsack, and any other DLC types. I’d like it to be a showdown between Edwards, Feingold, and Warner. With those choices, we will be assured of a good debate and an attractive candidate.
Obviously, Warner would be my third choice there.
No interest in Clark?
none.
God, I don’t want another Clinton.
You can convince voters to buy the Democratic pig in a poke, MB. The key is that the problem is not that the policies Democrats follow may be so different — I have no idea how quickly we’re going to be able to get out of Iraq, given that the people who hate us most have incentive to keep us there so that they can benefit from the anarchy and antipathy we bring. But when Democrats are in control, people will be more willing to deal with us and be reasonable, because they know that (1) we’re not the ones who think we have the right to kill people off for looking at us cross-eyed and (2) we’re not going to be as stuck to a position of unwillingness to move just to prove we weren’t wrong.
Navigating the next few years is going to be difficult. Part of the solution is to get the rest of the world, and the rest of the region, working with us to solve the problems. And frankly the way to do that is that the U.S. has to be publicly taken down several pegs to atone for our “preemptive war” hubris. Now, it doesn’t have to be the country that suffers some humiliation; it can simply be the leadership. People internationally would love to see Bush get a cow pie in the face right now. So easing him and his like out of power, and putting in a new crew — “firing the coach,” as I’ve put it on DKos — is actually a good strategy whether or not it is fair. (In this case, it happens to be more than fair.)
The way to get this argument through to voters simply is that Bush has been throwing his weight around and making the world hate us when we need them to cooperate, and so we need to put adults in charge — people who the rest of the world will talk to and work with. It’s going to be tough to get out of this mess and we can’t yet know how we’re going to do it, but we should at least give the job to people who are paying attention to reality and who car e about wasting young people’s lives. I can see the counterargument that this is more an argument for 2008 than 2006, but I think it will work this year too. We need to signal the world that Bush is no longer King. His losing Congress will be a profound statement.
I feel like you’re not parsing the Booman correctly. When he writes
I hear, “if we have to have a candidate from the centrist wing of the party (and presumably we’ll have at least one), then we could do worse than have it be Mark Warner.” — i.e., it could be Hillary or somebody even less tasty. This is quite a different statement than “boy, I hope that our best candidate is from the centrist wing of the party!” which I’m pretty sure the Booman doesn’t think.
Let’s have some palatable centrists and a couple of genuine liberals that might be able to inspire people, and then see what happens when they debate one another and people get a look. Just don’t throw any Liebermans at us and hope we can keep our lunch down.
acm
…I meant clearly enough because I agree with your parsing. It’s exactly what I thought BooMan meant.
That was filet mignon, Booman – not your run-of-the-mill roast beef sandwich! (With Bernaise sauce.)
I wasn’t as impressed with Warner as I was with the food. (And by the way, they do already have a program where high school seniors work for college credits – AP classes. Why not subsidize the expense so more districts can afford to offer the full AP program?)
He also talked about mandating standardized electronic medical records, when that law was already passed – in 1996, as part of Teddy Kennedy’s HIPAA legislation. Problem is, once the Bushies took over, they simply ignored the compliance deadline.
Take a look here:
http://www.legalarchiver.org/hipaa.htm
He didn’t seem bad – just not all that engaging, certainly not all that progressive. For instance, he said he doesn’t support a single-payer health care plan “because it doesn’t work.” That’s just plain bullshit, but something the insurance, medical and pharmaceutical lobbies do like to hear.
It was nice of him to invite us, and I’m sure he’s a fine governor, but president? I’m not feeling it.
biggest around filet mignon slice I’ve ever seen…
Hey, to a surfer, or any other regular guy, beef is beef.
I have to confess that I didn’t find Warner all that charismatic in Vegas, either.
you were distracted by his t-shirts.
I’m sure that was the problem. 😉
Governor Warner served the world’s best martinis in Vegas, something I never expected of a presidential candidate.
Although I would have to agree that I didn’t find Warner all the charismatic, I also thought the same of Bill Clinton in 1991-92. Warner would make a good prez, but I would rather see Clark or Edwards in the White House. Fiengold has as much chance of being winning the presidency as Howard Dean does.
That’s a key point – what centrist Dems will even touch single payer health care?
“Centrists” still buy into the Reagan Myth that economic value is the ONLY value, thus, it is acceptable to them to use the sick and injured as vehicles for profit. The “Centrists” really don’t believe in the Common Good, unable to grasp the simple concept that the good health and medical care of the people IS profit, profit to the Commmon Good, and more than reason enough to provide healthcare as a public utility.
also in green.
or orange, rather. I knew I’d fuck that up one day.
surely they’re green with envy!
LOL!
I have a friend in the Democratic party in Virginia who for years has fed me all sorts of negative things re Mark Warner. I wish I had saved them, because I’m very distressed, from what I’ve read, that any Democrat would find him appealing, based on his record. He’s not quite a Lieberman, but he’s pretty far to the right of our party, and I know I will not be supporting him. If someone like that ends up being our nominee I’ll take a hard look at his opponent, or vote Green for the first time in my life. It’s very distressing to see these DLC’ers pass themselves off as attractive to any but the really wealthy.
Hey – I don’t want to have to eat my words. If he proves the best of the lot, he’ll get my vote. But I have heard stuff privately I’ve not seen discussed publicly. I’m sure his opponents will have that out in spades. I fear who the Republicans want us to pick knowing whom they have the most dirt on. There was a concerted effort, for example, in 1972 by the CIA and the Republican party to help McGovern get the nomination because they were certain he could not win. I don’t know who the Republicans are putting up – I think the Republicans don’t have anyone. So I think they’re going to be VERY involved in this race from behind the scenes, and I’ll be especially leary of whoever gets the best early press from the mainstream….
Her name is Hillary.
Well, exactly. I’m no fan of Hillary’s, either. In fact, I dread her being our nominee. Not that she isn’t competent, and not that she isn’t better than Bush (I mean, who wouldn’t be?) but I personally am not impressed with her votes so far as a Senator. We’ll see.
thanks for the update, it’s always good to get further evidence of what a crappy candidate he is.
I’m sure that everybody who decides to go along w/ the Dempublican strategy in ’08 will be richly rewarded with crushing disappointment. Good luck with that. Perhaps after they sell you all down the river again maybe it’ll sink in what a pathetic excuse for a party the Donkeyphants are.
I wonder who the Green Party candidate will be that year. I want to make sure I fill in the right line on my optically-scanned ballot. That’ll be the line I’m marking unless a real liberal like Russ is the candidate.
about someone describing an unusual animal who has two heads and is really mean. The listener asks, “But how does he defecate?” Answer: he can’t; that’s why he’s so mean!
Yeah, pretty corny.
it does explain why runny shit always comes out of the Democrats, especially since we all know that they’re the rear end of that beast.
Thanks, BooMan, for the first hand report and the analysis. I was esp taken by the line that we shouldn’t borrow money from the Chinese to pay for Iranian oil.
And BTW, just what did your outfit look like?
OK.
Warner serves a mean meal, and he dishes it out to the blogosphere.
That, I like.
However, the policy lags behind.
He’s not my favorite Democrat. In fact, I prefer Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and, of course, Feingold.
Now if Feingold had Warner’s money….oh, but maybe I’m dreaming.
Very interesting post. Atrios approved. I wonder why!
BUT- Until the folks out there in the sphere address even the thought of “WAR”, all the bull in the world won’t do any of us a bit of good.The only “Good” that I am taking away from the post is the suggestion regarding alternative fuels! The alternative to that thinking is the continued indentured servitude we find ourselves in to the Oil Conglomerates.It is becoming that simple. There is zero chance that a US attack on Iran will succeed. What will result will be an ecological disaster, economic disaster, and complete destruction of the “western” concept of living!
That is where the discussions have to be directed. Stop the bull and get down to the hard work of SURVIVING!
billjpa
That Warner has such a sharp bent towards populism, it’s kind of a refreshing change for a more moderate politician of his like.
We could do a lot worse, most definitely.
Him and John Edwards trade for 3rd place spot for me pretty regularly right now.
-C.
I’m an independent with centrist views, and I supported Edwards for much of the 2004 election season, after deciding that Lieberman had no chance at the nomination.
The problem with Edwards is that he doesn’t have “the package” that gets you votes from the practical folks in the middle who ultimately decide elections. He’s never held an executive position or run a large organization of any kind. Bush got elected, in spite of his lack of leadership skills, because he had “the package” — a few years in a governorship that he could argue was reasonably successful. He could seem qualified without actually having to be qualified.
I supported Edwards in 2004 because there was no better option in the field, and because he’s enormously talented, and because we despirately needed to find someone to defeat Bush. In 2008, however, we have a far more likely winner in Mark Warner (and also an enormously gifted leader).
Well, I’m no centrist and proud of it. 😉 As a liberal, I’m still looking for my horse in 2008. I’m much more worried at this point re 2006.