Senator Mark Warner of Virginia was almost bounced out of Congress, primarily because he and the Democratic Party were criminally overconfident about beating tomato can, Ed Gillespie. It was a humbling experience because Warner was seen as immensely popular in his home state, and just the kind of vice-presidential candidate who could put some Electoral College delegates firmly in the hands of Hillary Clinton, or any other Democratic nominee. Warner’s comeuppance didn’t last too long, however. Despite leaking that he had voted against Harry Reid to remain the leader of the Senate Democrats, he was just awarded a similar kind of leadership position to Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said that Warner will be “taking on the role of policy development advisor at the Democratic Policy and Communications Center.”
Warner’s promotion came little fanfare compared with the Warren announcement, especially given the timing at 5 p.m. on the Friday after Thanksgiving, but it demonstrates the breadth of opinion even within the smaller Senate Democratic caucus next Congress.
The split is particularly apparent on fiscal matters, as could be seen on the campaign trail in Virginia where Warner won an unexpectedly close re-election campaign against former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie. Warner held campaign events touting fiscal responsibility, even telling a room full of Democrats that some of them might be better off voting for Republicans if they would support a debt and deficit deal that includes revenue increases.
Former Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, said in September that his former staffers heard from Warner with some regularity, and that the Virginian was an heir of sorts to his work on debt issues.
Reading crap like this makes drinking liquid Drano seem like an attractive alternative to perusing the political news.
What this party needs is not more debt cowbell.
Warner was one of two DC-area candidates who ran campaigns focused on trying to show that they were reasonable sorts who could reach across the aisle. Both ended up winning, but by pretty narrow margins.
It appears that Warner has taken the wrong lesson from his experience – he doesn’t appear to have realized that there was almost nobody who would be more likely to vote for him based on supposed bipartisanship. The right-leaning voters wouldn’t vote for him if he had a 100% rating from the Tea Party. Meanwhile, voters on the left probably were less likely to support him after hearing how he played nicely with the Republicans, so he probably actually suppressed turnout among the Democratic base. Lucky for him that most people still like him.
Warner has always run this way and with the same tone. Everyone who has ever voted for Mark Warner in any election ever already knows that he cares about “fiscal responsibility” and business growth. There’s no one to disappoint. This is what the “Democratic base” IN VIRGINIA stands for and sounds like — at least the white part of it.
Leaving aside his “business growth” fetish (lots of things such as more cancer produce “business growth”), I can get behind federal “fiscal responsibility” if it shuts down all the un-/counterproductive national “security” state operations. Let’s see how much “business growth” there would be in N. Virginia if we take away their the Nat-Sec feeding trough.
The donkey is dead. At least as a marketing gimmick. And the jackasses who are left are trying to commit political suicide.
All because the elite does not want a functioning critical left wing.
Trouble is that the states are so screwed up that you don’t want any of the Democrats to resign because of who would get appointed as a replacement. Even in New York. And likely even in California.
They’re the best that money can buy, and they have been bought.
What’s he going to come up with? An expanded EITC in exchange for cuts to social security and a reduction in the corporate tax?
Meanwhile, southern democrats are starting to advocate moving to the center left with minimum wage, labor and voter protections:
Southern Democrats Urge A Return To Party Basics
Unapologetic populism, he said, would “explain better that the Democratic Party is for justice and opportunity — with no qualifiers — for everyone.”
They’re getting the message. Warner with his “radical centrism” and Chuck Schumer didn’t.
Is it time for a new Huey Long?
Reading that, I would rather that Warner had lost. If he runs with HRC, I won’t vote for the ticket in fear of him becoming President. Once I regarded him as an up and comer, now I think the rotting carcass of the Democratic Party should fade into history along with the Whigs so that a new Labor or Populist, or Progressive Party can be born.
As disappointed as I was in Warner, no, a thousand times no. Leaving aside that it would have given the Rs another vote for majority leader for six years, Gillespie is a terrible hack, even by Republican standards.
Luckily, I no longer live in Virginia. Unfortunately, I do live in Illinois. I’d prefer Vermont, except for the snow but Illinois seems almost as bad in Winter. Just finished chipping ice off my driveway from two weeks ago. If the whole USA is going crazy, I might as well move to Alabama.
Now, now, those contradictions don’t heighten themselves, you know…
there is no debt problem. And I can’t stand Warner.
Elizabeth Warren needs to run, because I’m tired of this bullshyt from cretins like Warner and Schumer.
10,000% agree!
Bernie Sanders is running. He is the most progressive candidate running. Not as young as I would like, but I will support him.
Absolutely.
I don’t know why you think that Warren running would do anything to change how Warner and Schumer act.
Say it often so everyone gets the message: there is no debt problem, nada, zero, zilch. Our unemployment is such we can spend nearly all we want with no increase in taxes, none, nada, zero, zilch. Anyone who means by fiscal responsibility that they want to either raise/cut taxes or cut spending does not know what he is talking about.
Very slightly OT — For all those who claim there’s no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, Krugman nails it:
“Democrats often cater to the interests of the 1 percent, but Republicans always do.”
http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2025124993_paulkrugmancolumnpollutionpolitics30xml.html
How about a party that never caters to the 1%?
The Tea Party took over the Republican Party by demanding purism and it hasn’t hurt them electorally. It has helped them. They are now a party that stands for something. Something abhorrent, granted. The Democratic Party only stands for the personal finance of it’s elected officials and most voters don’t give a damn about that. Look at the ads this cycle, they all boiled down to “the other side is worse!”. Republicans in Illinois made inroads on a populist platform! Better schools (private), lower taxes (cut welfare), financial reform (cut pensions and benefits). They recycled their core platform in a populist platform. Now we have democrats arguing that business needs cheap imported labor and banks need “flexibility” and old people get too generous pensions and medical care.
It’s Alice in Wonderland and it’s time to find a new Queen.
A party that never caters to the 1% could not work in this country. Or any country, for that matter. But we’re so far in the other direction, I do think the Democratic Party can be pushed a good way back towards the people that need help, i.e. nearly all of us.