« Building The Box | Main | Sanford: No On '08 »

December 11, 2005

The Warner Stump

Buzz words: "results matter" "tax reform" referring to himself in the third person

Life lessons learned: lived the American dream; perseverance through failure; A Dem can raise taxes if he's honest about it

Narrative structure: How did we win in VA? I'll tell you. But first, I'll tell you about myself. Out of college, raised money for the DNC. Went into business. Failed a few times. Co-founded Nextel; tells his cell phone joke. Political history. Ran for governor. Virginia and Florida are similar. South Florida = Northern Virginia. The rural strategy. Economic hope and opportunity. NASCAR, bluegrass, and guns. And then Tim Kaine won. Why? Results matter. We changed the way the government operates. And so we raised taxes (but called it "tax reform") And our economy improved. And we're the best managed state in the US. High school, education and vocational diplomas. Economic development. Rural broadband development. Results matter. 9/11. War. Iraq. India, China, enter in to the workforce. The future versus the past. Washington is stuck in the past. Schiavo. Health care. Stem cell research. The historic inflection point. Virginians like the way the Democrats govern. What do Dems do? We're crazy if we put up candidates and ideas that are only competitive in 16 states. The President has missed opportunities to call on us as Americans to be at our best. Enormous challenges. But Dems are the party to face them. If we come up with a positive agenda. Dems' core values we must stress.

Red meat: "I was a state party chair in Virginia. . . . " "Thank god for the student loan program." "We were going to have an honest discussion about what people wanted from government and what they were willing to pay." "People are so ready for someone to tell them the truth without political spin." "Washington has become the land that time stood still." "We've got an administration that has a foreign policy that has undermined America's stature in the world."

Closing thoughts: "if you think the changes of the last 10 years economically, culturally or technology have been significant, you haven't seen anything like the change that's going to come during the next 10 years."

Reaction from journalists/Dem strategists: for a guy two years away from a presidential bid, he has a darn good message

Audience reaction: the only featured meal speaker to get a standing ovation upon introduction. And during the speech.

Staffed by: Mo Elliethee and Jerome Armstrong.

Posted at 10:23 AM

Comments

I'm bullish on Warner, Feingold, Rendell.

Bearish on Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Richardson.

Badgeraholic | 12.11.05 11:57 AM

Warner travels with his web guy (Jerome?)? Isn't that some kind of presidential politics first?

liveoaktree | 12.11.05 03:02 PM

Interesting Warner is touting the "rural strategy" in his stump speech. Especially since it seems the people he has advising him now don't believe in it.

oldsouthdem | 12.11.05 07:51 PM

It's the Edwards debate all over again: he's obviously the right profile for a candidate seeking votes, but a candidate's work doesn't end on election day, it begins there. Dems may not want someone who has spent this much time reaching for the middle: guns, NASCAR, never mentions the right to choose. Hasn't this strategy failed the last 14 times?

Exile | 12.12.05 08:54 AM

I guess you're referring to Lieberman with the "this strategy has failed" comment. Although on the surface they're both more centrist than leftist, Warner is still more liberal than Lieberman, and people within the party actually *like* him, as opposed to Lieberman who, at least among the grassroots people, is almost as hated as Bush.

Even though every politician who can talk like a normal person is compared to Clinton (Reagan if they're a Republican), I think the comparison actually works for Warner. He'll probably be very appealing to the over-30 primary voters, and to some of the more moderate college kids, AND he doesn't even have to finish first in any primaries until after New Hampshire, so, along with Feingold, he probably has the best shot at being an anti-Hillary candidate. He's certainly got at least a 50-50 shot at the VP slot.

PantslessYoda1 | 12.12.05 10:42 AM

He is an excellent candidate and has the right message but I have 2 things to ask
(1) Is he in danger of peaking too early?
(2) Is he SOB enough to fight the GOP when it gets dirty??

UVA Admit | 12.12.05 11:09 AM

the trouble is that he was utterly uncharismatic. C-Span had him back to back with Mitt Romney and the contrast was, alas, rather telling in the Republican's favor. Warner could be another Gore/Kerry in that likeability is front and centre when choosing anyone for office.

SRinRI | 12.12.05 12:51 PM

During the Cold War Era-to the War on Terrorism- There were 5 Democratic US Presidents
1)Harry Truman
2)John Kennedy
3)Lyndon Johnson
4)Jimmy Carter
5)Bill Clinton

Clinton,Carter,and Johnson were southerners
Kennedy was a Northeasterner
Truman was a Midwesterner

We should nominate a Southern Democrat as the 2008 Democratic Presidential nominee
1)Edwards-NC
2)Clark-AR
3)Warner-VA

Looking at the Democratic US Presidents from the South(Clinton,Carter,and Johnson)
Carter and Clinton were both Governors

Democrats should nominate a governor from a southern State-

Mark Warner(D-VA)
Governor of Virginia- 2002-2006
1996 VA US Senate Candidate
Chairman of the Virginia Democratic Party-1990-1995
Warner spent most of his career in the private sector working as an entrepreneur- CEO of Nextel Cellular.

Warner's Vice Presidential runningmate should be New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.
Richardson is a former member of the US Congress- 1983-1997, US Ambassodor to UN-1997-1999,and US Energy Secretary-1999-2001- Governor of New Mexico-2003-

Warner/Richardson Ticket will be the Democratic Party version of the Bush/Cheny ticket

Warner/like Bush- was a one term Governor of a Southern State- Both spend their career working in the Private Sector-as Corporate CEO's

Richardson/like Cheney is from a Western State-a former member of Congress who later served in a Presidential Cabinet.

Neal Patel | 12.12.05 12:59 PM

Exile, I've got to disagree. The last two Southern Democrat Governors we ran won the presidency. In fact, those were the only presidential races in the post-watergate era that we've won.

Edwards had a good message, and was a somewhat strong speaker, but his time in the Senate wasn't long enough for people to consider him anything but a lightweight. He'd never run a large organization before.

Warner, on the other hand, has run a state (and notched the "best managed" award in the process) as well as a succesful business. It's clear he has the chops to be president. As someone who has seen him speak, he's matured a great deal in the past four years and is amazing on the stump. Edward, by contrast, always sounded nice and reasonable but never got people fired up the way Warner has at his events.

edward | 12.12.05 02:31 PM

A great synopsis. As a veteran of the Dean campaign I particularly like:

Reaction from journalists/Dem strategists: for a guy two years away from a presidential bid, he has a darn good message

Audience reaction: the only featured meal speaker to get a standing ovation upon introduction. And during the speech.

Go to draftmarkwarner.com to learn more - and start a group in your own area!

Mark Warner for President 2008
Renewing the Promise of America

IL4Warner | 12.12.05 03:16 PM

Disagree strongly on charisma. Warner is more 'regular guy' than anybody to run for President in many years. I think he's pretty likeable.

Romney? Mr. Blow Dry Electric Smile? The guy is uptight and phony. No contest.

Franklin Delano Sinatra | 12.12.05 04:46 PM

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Mark Warner was elected president, he has everything that the democratic party needs from a winning candidate. He's won over the media, the party is starting to warm up to him, he has Clintonesque (Bill not Hillary) fundraising ability and he's a southern governor. Warners a heavy favorite for the smart money types.

Ricahrd | 12.31.05 03:27 PM

The "Edwards is a good candidate because he's from the South" line is a gross oversimplification of American politics.

It doesn't matter if you're just FROM the South, it matters if you're POPULAR there. John Edwards wasn't even going to be reelected to his Senate seat; that's probably the main reason he ran for president in the first place.

Mark Warner, on the other hand, consistantly hands in 70-80% approval ratings. Unlike Edwards, he could actually carry his own state.

And Clark? Are you high?

VAguy | 01.11.06 11:39 PM

http://www.insurance-top.com/company/ car site insurance. car site insurance, The autos insurance company, compare car insurance. from website .

insurance auto | 06.21.06 05:42 AM

When I see that happen I'll be one happy girl.
http://www.fioricet-plus.com

order fioircet | 07.20.06 03:56 PM

listik-28081 | 01.31.08 11:36 AM

listik-28081 | 02.26.08 03:38 PM

listik-28081 | 02.26.08 03:39 PM

listik-28081 | 02.29.08 10:49 AM

listik-28081 | 02.29.08 10:50 AM

--Advertisement--

--Advertisement--

December 11, 2005

The Warner Stump

Comments

Post a comment

Hotline On Call Editor

Breaking News Alerts

Tips, Comments, Suggestions

Want To Be A Hotline Intern?

Search

Recent Entries

Archives

--Advertisement--

--Advertisement--

Resources

STAFF

Disclaimer