Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Warner Bows Out
U.S. News & World Report ^ | 10-12-06 | Michael Barone

Posted on 10/12/2006 2:28:50 PM PDT by Renfield

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last
To: newfreep
I'm your Captain / Closer to Home.
21 posted on 10/12/2006 3:01:08 PM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
I'm not worried about any of them,they're not going to Win in 'O8.
22 posted on 10/12/2006 3:11:33 PM PDT by cmsgop ( President Mahmud Ahmadinejad Must Purify Himself in The Waters of Lake Minnetonka)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rjp2005
Good Point,My Guess it will be Clark even though Bill.R is way more likable. Clark is the Clinton Bitch.
23 posted on 10/12/2006 3:13:13 PM PDT by cmsgop ( President Mahmud Ahmadinejad Must Purify Himself in The Waters of Lake Minnetonka)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
Poverty comes not from any structural failure of society but from dysfunctional behaviors. Edwards's poverty shtick is a crock.

Ouch!!! That is good...

24 posted on 10/12/2006 3:17:08 PM PDT by trashcanbred (Anti-social and anti-socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

Making way for the Hildabeast.........


25 posted on 10/12/2006 3:53:58 PM PDT by traditional1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

there oes the Dem's srongest candidate. Unfortunaely, there goes John Warners Senate seat (probably).


26 posted on 10/12/2006 3:54:08 PM PDT by bilhosty (to hell with ABCNNBCBS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
Mark Warner Bows Out

All I can say is... THANK GOD!!!! 'nuf said.

27 posted on 10/12/2006 4:18:19 PM PDT by guestfox01 ("The only two things you can truly depend upon are gravity and greed." - Jack Palance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cmsgop

It's very odd. Just last week he was consulting with people I know about what his stance should be on various issues. He was acting for all the world as if he were getting ready to run.


28 posted on 10/12/2006 4:29:17 PM PDT by Fairview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
"This means Al Gore vs. Hillary Clinton."

You're not far off base.

Recall the 2000 primary races. Al Gore had the nomination wrapped up just with pre- convention super delegates. He had no competition. The dems were in a position to miss out on all that primary campaign air time.

Republicans would have had a monopoly on political news stories until the dem convention

Dem answer: beg Bill Bradley to oppose Gore. He stayed in the primaries just so dems could be in the news.

yitbos

29 posted on 10/12/2006 4:30:15 PM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds. " - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

I can understand the logic behind Mark Warner's decision. He would have had to spend the next two years and a large part of his fortune in an intense struggle for the nomination, with the odds still heavily favoring Hillary. By dropping out now, he leaves himself with many political options, including the good possibility that he could be tapped for the Democratic VP spot.

I could easily see Hillary picking Warner as her running mate. Her big task after the primaries will be trying to position herself as a moderate Democrat who can win moderates and independents in the general election. Warner would help immensely in that regard.

I'd much rather have had Warner as the Democratic Presidential nominee than any of the other serious contenders (Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and Gore). But we should also pay attention to Obama: His cooperation with Tom Coburn on earmarks and spending transparency issues has burnished his image as a non-crazy non-fringy politician who can sometimes reach across the isle.


30 posted on 10/12/2006 4:33:28 PM PDT by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener

The best I can say for Warner's decision is that he's angling for '12. To think otherwise is to say that the man does not want to be president. He wants to be president. That is, he's either going for '12 or he's entirely pulled away from it.

The latter is the more likely scene. I can see no reason whatsover for the man to put off for '12. A Senate run? VP? Come on. No one aspires to be VP. With the marvelous exception of Dick Cheney, the VP office is a reward held only for runner ups of the Presidential race. Warner ain't no Cheney.

I'd rather agree with freepers here who think Hitlery -- or someone -- has found the goods on Warner. I've dealt in the past with some of his associates; they are ugly people. I'd guess some of the slime showed through.


31 posted on 10/12/2006 5:02:56 PM PDT by nicollo (All economics are politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: nicollo
VP? Come on. No one aspires to be VP. With the marvelous exception of Dick Cheney, the VP office is a reward held only for runner ups of the Presidential race.

First of all, the VP nomination is not a "reward" for runner ups, it is traditionally a means of balancing a ticket or targeting an important state or region of the country so as to improve the ticket's chances of winning. Cheney was a rare exception to geographical targetting and conventional balancing. Cheney was chosen mostly for his real abilities, which he has indeed exercised as VP, but also for his "gravitas" to lend Bush credibility.

Second, many people aspire to be the VP nominee, for a very simple reason: It gives them an excellent chance of eventually becoming President. With the country as divided as it is, the Presidential/Vice-Presidential ticket of either party has at least a 40% chance of winning the election, just on general principles. And once elected, the Vice-President has a significant probability (I don't know the exact percentage off-hand) of later becoming President, either because the President dies or otherwise has to give up his office, or because the VP will win the Presidency on his own during a future term.

The odds are long against any specific individual ever becoming President. But the odds for a Vice-President to become President are relatively better than for almost anyone else including prominent Governors and Senators.

I would have given Warner a 5% to 10% probability of winning the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008 if he'd stayed in the race. But I give him a 15% to 30% chance of being picked for the VP slot this way. And that in turn gives him as good an overall probability of someday becoming President as if he'd run directly for the Democratic Presidential nomination.

32 posted on 10/12/2006 5:52:12 PM PDT by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener

With rare exception in the modern era, you gotta run for president to get the VP nod.

Warner just denied himself both. Sorry, this decision ain't strategic. It's catastrophic.


33 posted on 10/12/2006 6:58:11 PM PDT by nicollo (All economics are politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

Remember the FBI files hitlary obtained? There were, I believe, around 2100 of them in total, and entered into a database caled WHoDB. There were quite a few dems in the pile, I believe.

Wonder if Warner was one of them..?


34 posted on 10/13/2006 2:50:36 AM PDT by MonroeDNA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfield

There's something in his closet....IMO.


35 posted on 10/13/2006 2:54:21 AM PDT by DCPatriot ("It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot
There's something in his closet....IMO.

I think more likely it's the realization that there is no room in the RAT party for anyone who isn't a flaming rabid dog anti national defense, anti-Bush, liberal. Say what you will about Warner, he doesn't fit the RAT profile of those that are running the party...IMO.

Plus, there probably is something in his closet.

36 posted on 10/13/2006 5:06:15 AM PDT by evad (sarcasm may be introduced at any moment of any post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Renfield
Perhaps Warner calculated that there's not enough room on the right to win a Democratic nomination.

... or perhaps Hillary pulled Mark Warner's raw FBI File and had one of her operatives suggest to him that he really wanted to go the way of Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Rudy Guiliani. No one is to stand between Hillary and her goals.

37 posted on 10/13/2006 11:46:06 AM PDT by bimbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-37 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson