Governor Mark Warner of Virginia is a 50-year old white Presbyterian. He is married with three children. He graduated from Harvard Law School in 1980. He made millions in business, and then was elected governor as a Democrat in 2001.
There has been quite a bit of speculation about his political future. The Wall Street Journal recently had an interesting opinion piece on the governor. That article is here:
In the past 30 years only two Democrats have been elected president, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and both were Southern governors who ran as fiscal conservatives and skeptics of big government liberalism. In some ways Mr. Warner would seem to be typecast for this role of a lifetime. He is a charismatic businessman who in his 30s caught the telecom wave just as it was cresting, sold out just before the crash, and became a multimillionaire by 40. In 2001 he capitalized on the disarray within the GOP in Virginia (the man has a knack for being in the right place at precisely the right time) and was elected governor. He has started a fund-raising PAC; is traveling the country speaking; and is coyly issuing non-denial denials about his ambitions.Gov. Warner's pitch is thoroughly Clintonian--Bill, not Hillary. He attacks Washington Democrats for "defending the same government programs, thinking they are going to get us new results." Then he adds, "We need leaders who can see a little bit farther down the road." This sounds like a man who wants to build a bridge to the 21st century. He lobs rhetorical grenades at the party leaders for running presidential campaigns that immediately surrender 33 mostly Southern and Western states and then "try for a triple bank shot" to win all the other 17.
[...]
If all of this sounds a little too good to be true--well, it is. As governor of Virginia, Mr. Warner can best be described as a fairly boilerplate tax-and-spend liberal. Even Democrats in the state agree that his only real "victory" in three-and-a-half years in the state house has been to enact a giant tax increase last year that he plotted to enact over his entire term.
Continued on the next page Page 1 — Page 2
Article comments
1 - billy
good point. hopefully warner can snatch away a senate seat too, i dont know what the logistics are of that.
2 - Dave Nalle
So it would be good for a tax and spend democrat to run and win the party nomination?
Enjoy another decade as the minority party guys.
Dave
3 - El Bicho
Dave, I think the Dems see their chances getting better since the Repubs have become "don't tax and spend."
I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that in '08 a third party, any at this point, will have a chance get that needed 5% (or has it been changed since Nader got close with 3% in '00) to start a path towards a viable alternative.
Notice, I'm not holding my breath.
4 - Eric Berlin
El B's right. I think Dems can make one of their most effective arguments in saying they're the party of balanced budgets whereas we've just had X years of Big Budget bizarro neo-conservatism at work.
5 - Bob
RJ appears to forget just what a disaster Jim Gilmore was as Governor given the financial hole in which he left the Commonwealth (and Warner). At least Warner will be leaving with the state's finances in order AND a decent economy.
6 - RJ
Gilmore left office in early 2002, right? IOW, just as the national economy began booming again?
So...of COURSE tax receipts decrease in a contracting economy (which Gilmore had to deal with), just like they increase in an expanding economy (just like Warner was lucky enough to inherit).
7 - bob
RJ come on. Gilmore budgeted like the dot com bubble was going to last forever. And don't get me started on the car tax dodge -- replacing a local tax with state tax revenue and calling it a tax cut. An HONEST accounting of the Gilmore years has to include a recognition of his fiscal recklessness. Drop the partisian hackery and at least admit that.
8 - Josh
Wall Street Journal Editorial Page Rebuttal
As anyone who tracks the media knows, The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page is the heart and soul of the conservative media today. Rush Limbaugh picks up their messages and jokes about them on the radio. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Rielly use their messages as the basis for economic rants on TV. I encourage every Virginian to read the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, for it is on this page itself that you see the crystal clear essence of the "no taxes" mind at work.
How surprised was I today to see an article entitled Virginia Ham, initially singing the praises of my beloved Governor, Mark Warner. I was initially astounded at the tone. It was filled with such glowing praise. It had such wonderful insights in to the workings and strengths of the Warner candidacy.
In the first few paragraphs I thought "Wow! These guys love my candidate. This is too good to be true." It was...
As I say, it starts out nice enough:
Who, if anyone, will emerge as the moderate challenge to Hillary?
The candidate who seems to be rising like a comet is the governor of Virginia, Mark Warner. One Democratic political strategist, Jim Jordan, who served as John Kerry's political adviser, has gone so far to say: "If [Gov. Warner] gets in, there is a real possibility that he emerges as the primary alternative to Hillary Clinton, and there is a strong argument to be made that he would be the party's strongest conceivable general election candidate."
As a Warner supporter this was music to my ears. According to the Wall Street Journal, Warner's candidacy is "rising like a comet" and is potentially the "strongest conceivable" in the general election. Be still my heart.
Now let me say this. Mark Warner has been great for Virginia. When he came in to office his predecessor, Governor Gilmore, had gutted the budget by enacting massive tax cuts. He left the localities to fend for themselves and left education, roads, utilities, and families all languishing.
Warner's Administration has been one of the most successful statewide administrations in the history of state politics. Mark Warner and his lieutenant Tim Kaine began managing the massive deficits by streamling government, but went on to enact well crafted initiatives which addressed pressing problems for Virginians including security, economic development, health, volunteerism, schools, government accountability, and health insurance for children. Together, the Warner/Kaine initiatives established a firm footing for the long run health of the commonwealth.
Smart initiatives, streamlined government and balanced budgets were the beginning.
By streamlining government, Warner and Kaine were able to fully fund the state's requirements, but in order to fulfill the State's obligations to localities especially schools and in order to reduce the amount of taxation on 75% of Virginians, Warner and Kaine coordinated an overhaul of the tax system which has ended a dreaded era of irresponsible government. In 2004, the Warner administration completed the turn around by working with a heavily republican dominated state senate and working a smart tax plan that has created a substantial surplus; over $900 million if I'm not mistaken.
In addition to this, Warner re-tooled the entire workforce in Virginia. Creating one-stop re-careering centers for those who had lost jobs in agricululture and manufacuring, while encouraging a fantastic advances in job creation making Virgina second in the nation.
Virginia is rated #1 by the Government Performance Project. That's right, Warner is head honcho of the #1 best run state in the union.
So it was shocking when the Wall Street Journal Editorial started turning downright nasty:
If all of this sounds a little too good to be true--well, it is. As governor of Virginia, Mr. Warner can best be described as a fairly boilerplate tax-and-spend liberal. Even Democrats in the state agree that his only real "victory" in three-and-a-half years in the state house has been to enact a giant tax increase last year that he plotted to enact over his entire term.
I suppose you have to consider the source; the WSJ Editorial board wouldn't want to see a tax raised if it could save their lives. Still it gets worse:
Gov. Warner alleges that the tax hike was necessary to balance the budget and preserve the state's triple-A bond rating. That was mostly a canard. Months before the tax hike was enacted, the state's revenue office reported a massive 7.5% surge in tax receipts from the previous year due to the national economic recovery. This year, with the higher tax rate, tax receipts have exploded by 12% and the state legislature is swimming in a green river. Just as Gov. Warner's opponents had warned, these extra taxes have not been dedicated to balancing the budget, but to spending on every program imaginable--from schools to mass-transit boondoggles, to day-care subsidies.
Misguided talk like this is enough to make a father cringe. When government balances a budget or creates a surplus, it is Government's obligation to use it to protect and serve individuals. Thus, when Warner turned the government around he was able to help families by making day-care subisidies available.
The Editors of the Wall Street Journal may think that schools, transportation, and daycare are boondoggles, but to real people that's why we pay taxes, that's what government is supposed to do.
Government is for people, for the real, live people who work and raise families and struggle to survive. Government is for the people who have to take the bus to work, as well the people who have limos and drivers. Government is for the people who have their kids in public schools as well as those who can afford private schools. Government is not just for those who can afford a nanny, government is also for those of us who trust our children to daycare every day.
The Editors of the Wall Street Journal are not satisfied with criticism, they are looking for blame. They want to blame Mark Warner for expanding services provided by the state.
The Virginia state budget has expanded by 26% over Gov. Warner's tenure, about twice the national average for the states. He received a "D" on the Cato Institute Fiscal Report Card of the Governors. "The claim that Mark Warner is a fiscal conservative," complains Peter Ferrara, president of the Virginia Free Enterprise Fund, "is straight out of an Aesop's Fable."
Again, here you have to consider the sources. The Cato Institute and the Virginia Free Enterprise Fund are among the pre-eminent radical right-wing think tanks in America and Virginia respectively. Both of these organizations would have prefered that the President's tax cuts would have been deeper and more geared towards the interests of the very wealthy. It seems that the WSJ Editors couldn't get a more moderate source to criticize Warner's performance.
Even Jerry Kilgore, the Republican who's trying to win Warner's office want to be known as Warner's heir, which he clearly is not, he fought against every reform Mark Warner and Tim Kaine championed. With the help of clear minded Virginians, Tim Kaine will be elected Governor to continue and expand on Mark Warner's great work.
If the Wall Street Journal Editors want to argume that Warner isn't a conservative because he raised taxes and expanded government, then they should feel free to make that argument, misguided and ill-informed as it is. I would argue that he is a fantastic fiscal conservative because his streamlined government is much more financially sound than any of his GOP predecessors.
If, however, the Wall Street Journal Editors want to argue that Mark Warner wasn't a good Governor because he didn't abdicate his responsibility to localities, schools, transporation, and families of Virginina, well I think that says more about the pitfalls of radical conservatism than about any shortcomings as Governor that Mark Warner might have demonstrated.
Mark Warner made all the money he needed to in industry long ago. Rather than sit on his fat bank account complaining about about taxes, as the Editors of the Wall Street Journal seem to prefer, Mark Warner put his brilliance and leadership to work in the service of the people of Virginia. Actions speak louder than words, and the power of Mark Warner's accomplishments will be heard by this nation long after greedy critics are forgotten.
9 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave, I think the Dems see their chances getting better since the Repubs have become "don't tax and spend."<<
Don't tax and spend is still better than tax and spend, since the growth in the economy helps cut down the deficit at least somewhat. All that spending with a tax increase thrown on would just balloon the deficit even more alarmingly and hurt every American in their pocketbook at the same time. It's a formula for disaster.
Dave
10 - Jess depot
Mark Warner can't do any worse that W which has done nothing! But you know how the BLIND Bush chicken hawks are they love war as long as it's not their kids fighting it. Republicans hide behind the flag but don't serve the flag!
11 - Zethon
Dave,
If the gov't doesn't tax, then how does it get money for things like police, schools, roads and fire depts? Taxes are a necessary evil.
However, if the gov't is responsible, it can tax lightly and see that it's entire citizenry has a decent life.
Gov't should strive to tax as little as possible while investing in the future.
Not-taxing is a pipe-dream.
12 - Dave Nalle
I didn't actually say the government shouldn't tax at all. I was talking in terms of minimal taxation and minimal spending.
But since you bring it up, it is actually possible to operate a limited government on a fee-for-service basis, with taxes replaced by fees specific to the things the government does for you. For example, a large gas tax, which would essentially be a fee charged to automobile users, which would pay for highway building and maintenance. Almost all truly essential government services could be paid for in this way, just by charging the people who use them. And an argument could be made that if they can't be paid for that way then the government probably shouldn't be providing those services.
Dave
13 - Manuel Freire
At the Democratic Leadership Council, Warner made the statement that the States must act a "heartland" to solve regional economic issues and mark a distance with Washington politics and its foreign policies.... A decentralized government will not be affected so much by the lobby activity favoring special interests above the real national interests..
Manuel
14 - marcusjae
dave,
so are you suggesting that a nation's health policy also be completely subject to your extremist economic theory? i guess we will all just have to make sure that we have our wallets handy in case of a car crash. oh, and if you dont have enough money in it, tough. too many poor people already, eh dave?