Why America Needs a Leader like Mark Warner
Some Republicans are already boasting that the 2004 election was a mandate on moral values. About 80% of the 22% that listed moral values as one of their top concerns voted for George Bush. To listen to the GOP, one would think they are the only party with moral values. That is hardly the case and the jury is still debating the overall affect moral values may have had on this election. Many Democrats define moral values by more complicated measures than who is the most religious.
If one defines moral values as respect for other people's right to be religious or not, creating and sustaining global peace, protecting the air we breathe and water we drink, helping the poorest among us, being a friend to business without being an enemy of the people, and respecting the views of others, Democrats easily win the moral values race.
Democrats still should not dismiss what a large segment of the American electorate is saying. Rural voters and religious people have increasingly been turning to the GOP (See the front-page story on the Draft Mark Warner website about Democrats in West Virginia).
Issues like abortion, gay marriage, gun control, excessive taxation, defense and national security, resonate with Republican and swing voters. Although Republicans enjoy the support of a slim majority of the voters, there are still many, many, Democrats who are church-going people of deeply held religious faith.
A large segment of the Republican base identifies with the GOP because of these issues and they are emboldened by the Christian right with vast media enterprises, mega-churches, and GOTV operations. These groups solidify the support base and virtually ensure that religious voters turn out for Republicans.
The Democratic Party is a more open party, inclusive of a broader range of people. You might say that in an effort to be inclusive, the party is a melting pot of many types of voters, including Christians. Also in this contingent is a segment of folks who believe in a woman's right to choose, in reasonable limits on high-powered assault weapons, and fairness and equality for all Americans.
There can be no doubt that Republicans have successfully painted (wrongly so) Democrats as out of touch with American values and weak on national security. Republicans have become the big spenders they once accused the Democrats of being while at the same time, successfully painting Democrats as reckless spenders that want nothing more than to tax, tax, tax.
We all know these perceptions are inaccurate but, nonetheless, they are still there and Democrats must deal with the fact that they have a lot of work to do to overcome the fierce power of extreme right-wing Republican deception.
Reality does not matter if Republicans are succeeding. All that matters to them is winning and winning by successfully painting Democrats as something they are not serves their purpose. It is also helping them nationwide in statehouse elections, in the U.S. House and Senate and more recently, a second term in the White House.
Democrats really must ask themselves how they could lose the presidential election at a time when conditions existed like they did in 04. There were so many reasons for the American people to reverse course: The War in Iraq, Out of Control Spending, Expected Supreme Court Apointees, Extreme Neo-Conservative Agenda, A Seriously Flawed Medicare Overhual, GOP Siding with Big Business, Corporate Welfare, Trashing the Environment, and the list goes on and on.
One of the problems Democrats face is how to destroy the deception of the extreme right wing of the Republican Party without turning off voters. Most people are somewhere in the middle, willing to support Republicans or Democrats as long as they identify with their policies and have faith in their ability to keep the country safe.
Ronald Reagan would not have won the White House without crossover voters. Bill Clinton would not have won the 92 election without the support of swing voters, including Republicans. George Bush would not have won in 2000 and 2004 without the support of those same swing voters who cross party lines.
While on the Republican side, the far right elements of the party have seized control of the GOP, many swing voters say that left-wing liberals have over run the Democratic Party. Increasingly, the left-wing of the party has become more vocal, drowning out the voices of moderation. The end result is the democratic party of the common man has been painted as too liberal, anti-Christian, anti-gun, pro-gay marriage, abortion advocates.
You and I know Democrats are not all liberals. They do not want to take away second amendment rights. Many do not approve of abortion and they are certainly not anti-Christian. On the issue of gay marriage, most Democrats are with the rest of the country.
There are moderate voices in the Democratic Party. The DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) is one salvation of the Democratic Party but only if their voices are heard. Blue Dog Democrats still exist. People like Indiana Governor Evan Bayh and retired General Wesley Clark speak the language of the majority of Americans. New upcoming leaders like Virginia Governor Mark Warner speak the language of the American people.
Democratic voters seem to choose candidates that want to be all things to all people. When candidates try to be all things to all people, they end up being viewed as standing for nothing. Was this in the minds of voters when they went to the polls in 04?
During the 2004 primaries, I traveled from one end of the state of Virginia to the other collecting petition signatures to get General Wesley Clark on the ballot. To my amazement, I found Republicans more receptive to his candidacy than some Democrats. When I inquired as to why, the number one answer was "He is too much like a Republican."
Wesley Clark was not the only moderate Democrat that faced fierce opposition in the primaries.
The moderates who were not castigated were just ignored. Granted the media anointing of Howard Dean created the feeling he had the nomination before the first primary was even held. And even Howard Dean was not the liberal he was painted as. His record in Vermont was actually somewhat conservative. A conservative like Joe Liberman couldn't get to first base.
Historically, Governors have faired better than Senators in presidential elections. Maybe that's because they are seen as outsiders. Washington insiders are often perceived to be part of the problem rather than the solution to the problem. Another possibility is that as a Governor, the public record that can be attacked is more vague.
We all witnessed how John Kerry's senate record was attacked. Republicans used his no vote on the $80 billion supplemental funding for the war to create the illusion that he did not support our troops. They also used prior votes on weapons systems to paint him as someone who voted against about every major weapon system being used today in the war in Iraq. Never mind that Dick Cheney advocated eliminating many of the same weapons.
The same tactic was used to paint Kerry as one who voted to weaken the intelligence services when in fact, Peter Goss, President Bush's choice to head the CIA, advocated even greater cuts in intelligence.
The same thing happened with Bill Clinton although moreso in his second term than in the first. When I talk about Bill Clinton to my Republican friends, I hear more about how he cut defense and destroyed the military than I hear about his fling with Monica. The fact that the military base closings were initiated by George Bush 1 and a bipartisan base closing commission because Congress didn't have the guts to take responsibility for closing bases in their own districts, was overlooked.
I may be wrong but I seem to remember the Clinton administration sometimes funded the military above levels recommended by the Republican Defense Secretary. Yet the GOP turned Clinton's support for our U.S. forces into a twisted lie.
Bill Clinton was one example of how Democrats can appeal to abroad range of Americans. He did not do it by just being a Democrat. He beat the Republicans at their own game by touting a balanced budget, welfare reform, support for the death penalty, and strong economic growth.
In other words, he connected with the people on their level, distinct to the times and conditions. He talked about his faith and although he didn't wear religion on his sleeves, no one could discount the power of those images of Bill Clinton swinging to gospel rhythms in the African American churches with a genuine look of glee on his face.
Mark Warner is another moderate that beat the Republicans at their own game. In a "red" state heavily dominated by a largely Republican legislature, he created the perception that they were incapable of governing. How did he do this? How did a wealthy Democrat from the DC suburbs gain the support of rural mountain voters in the poorer, rugged coalfields of SouthwestVirginia? The answer is he did it by refusing to take Republican bait on issues like gun control. He did it by refusing to be dragged into hot topics like abortion. His was a common sense approach. His approach on parental notification was similar to mine: If a teacher cannot give a child an asprin, a child should be able to get an abortion without their parents knowledge.
Mark Warner also pointed out the financial train wreck left behind by the previous Republican administration. He did so by connecting with people in a way Democrats had not connected in many years. But, he was not all talk. He developed a reputation as a straight shooter who would level with the citizens.
One recent example of Mark Warner's using the truth to his advantage was in the costs of running his own office. Republicans accused the governor of hiding the real costs of his office by borrowing staff from other departments and other accounting gimmicks. Governor Warner politely caculated the true cost of running his office which was some $1 million more than reflected on the books and put it in his latest budget. Now Republicans, looking to his departure at the end of 05 and anticipating their own guy winning, are forced with the prospect of possibly cutting their own guys budget before he even takes office! (source Michael D. Shear, Washington Post Staff Writer http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32730-2004Dec28?)
Mark Warner's appeal across party lines is in the essence of the man. What makes him so effective is his unique ability to say what he means, mean what he says, then go out and build public support for his policies. This forces all sides to come together and find common ground.
I have always believed that no matter where the candidate stands on issues, if he cannot connect with people on a deeply personal level, the chances of broad support are zip. Avoiding traps is an art too and few people in politics have the natural instincts to walk a tight rope between competing interests and come out on the other side still viewed by a majority of voters from both parties as level headed and competent.
When a crisis arises, leadership is put to the test. Having won the 2001 Governor's race, it was not long before Governor Warner realized the financial crisis was much worse than imagined and it would take all his business skills and some crafty work to solve Virginia's budget woes. With billions of dollars in red ink accumulating and staunch Republican opposition to any tax increases, Mark Warner knew he had to find some way to reach across party lines otherwise, he would become a failed Governor.
With Virginia educators, municipalities, and critical state projects demanding action , voters were in no mood for gridlock in the statehouse. They demanded a solution and they got one through Mark Warner's bipartisan maneuvering. Just as he had created the notion that Republicans were incapable of governing, he renewed the notion that a Democrat can govern and put the best interests of the public above party politics and find common ground with Republicans. The end result after three years of urgent problems is a record of sound, cohesive government.
Six billions of dollars in red ink disappeared under Governor Mark Warner. Under his leadership, the largest increase in education funding in Virginia history was passed. In recrafting his tax plan, 17 Republicans broke with the party to support responsible fiscal management. While small increases in taxes were imposed on cigarettes and other areas, Virginia's economy is on a roll. Over 100,000 Virginians no longer have to file income taxes, and tens of thousands of children benefit from Warner's health care programs.
Many of my Republican friends will tell you Mark Warner is a different kind of leader. That is precisely what is needed in the Democratic Party. America listens to Democrats when Democrats listen to America. A "New Generation" of leadership is needed. Pulling the party to the center will not be easy.
I am more liberal on some issues than Mark Warner but I frankly do not believe the party as a whole is as far left as it is painted. For one, when you're as far to the right as the GOP, anything resembling moderation is going to be viewed as to the left.
Whatever you think about where the Democratic Party is (left, right, center, left of center, right of center) we have a problem with perception that must be overcome. Overcoming perceptions when you are with the majority of Americans on issues but weak articulating it is difficult. Finding a leader that can articulate who we are, what we stand for, and where we can lead this country is a challenge. I am confident that a leader like Governor Mark Warner has the ability to do it.
If one defines moral values as respect for other people's right to be religious or not, creating and sustaining global peace, protecting the air we breathe and water we drink, helping the poorest among us, being a friend to business without being an enemy of the people, and respecting the views of others, Democrats easily win the moral values race.
Democrats still should not dismiss what a large segment of the American electorate is saying. Rural voters and religious people have increasingly been turning to the GOP (See the front-page story on the Draft Mark Warner website about Democrats in West Virginia).
Issues like abortion, gay marriage, gun control, excessive taxation, defense and national security, resonate with Republican and swing voters. Although Republicans enjoy the support of a slim majority of the voters, there are still many, many, Democrats who are church-going people of deeply held religious faith.
A large segment of the Republican base identifies with the GOP because of these issues and they are emboldened by the Christian right with vast media enterprises, mega-churches, and GOTV operations. These groups solidify the support base and virtually ensure that religious voters turn out for Republicans.
The Democratic Party is a more open party, inclusive of a broader range of people. You might say that in an effort to be inclusive, the party is a melting pot of many types of voters, including Christians. Also in this contingent is a segment of folks who believe in a woman's right to choose, in reasonable limits on high-powered assault weapons, and fairness and equality for all Americans.
There can be no doubt that Republicans have successfully painted (wrongly so) Democrats as out of touch with American values and weak on national security. Republicans have become the big spenders they once accused the Democrats of being while at the same time, successfully painting Democrats as reckless spenders that want nothing more than to tax, tax, tax.
We all know these perceptions are inaccurate but, nonetheless, they are still there and Democrats must deal with the fact that they have a lot of work to do to overcome the fierce power of extreme right-wing Republican deception.
Reality does not matter if Republicans are succeeding. All that matters to them is winning and winning by successfully painting Democrats as something they are not serves their purpose. It is also helping them nationwide in statehouse elections, in the U.S. House and Senate and more recently, a second term in the White House.
Democrats really must ask themselves how they could lose the presidential election at a time when conditions existed like they did in 04. There were so many reasons for the American people to reverse course: The War in Iraq, Out of Control Spending, Expected Supreme Court Apointees, Extreme Neo-Conservative Agenda, A Seriously Flawed Medicare Overhual, GOP Siding with Big Business, Corporate Welfare, Trashing the Environment, and the list goes on and on.
One of the problems Democrats face is how to destroy the deception of the extreme right wing of the Republican Party without turning off voters. Most people are somewhere in the middle, willing to support Republicans or Democrats as long as they identify with their policies and have faith in their ability to keep the country safe.
Ronald Reagan would not have won the White House without crossover voters. Bill Clinton would not have won the 92 election without the support of swing voters, including Republicans. George Bush would not have won in 2000 and 2004 without the support of those same swing voters who cross party lines.
While on the Republican side, the far right elements of the party have seized control of the GOP, many swing voters say that left-wing liberals have over run the Democratic Party. Increasingly, the left-wing of the party has become more vocal, drowning out the voices of moderation. The end result is the democratic party of the common man has been painted as too liberal, anti-Christian, anti-gun, pro-gay marriage, abortion advocates.
You and I know Democrats are not all liberals. They do not want to take away second amendment rights. Many do not approve of abortion and they are certainly not anti-Christian. On the issue of gay marriage, most Democrats are with the rest of the country.
There are moderate voices in the Democratic Party. The DLC (Democratic Leadership Council) is one salvation of the Democratic Party but only if their voices are heard. Blue Dog Democrats still exist. People like Indiana Governor Evan Bayh and retired General Wesley Clark speak the language of the majority of Americans. New upcoming leaders like Virginia Governor Mark Warner speak the language of the American people.
Democratic voters seem to choose candidates that want to be all things to all people. When candidates try to be all things to all people, they end up being viewed as standing for nothing. Was this in the minds of voters when they went to the polls in 04?
During the 2004 primaries, I traveled from one end of the state of Virginia to the other collecting petition signatures to get General Wesley Clark on the ballot. To my amazement, I found Republicans more receptive to his candidacy than some Democrats. When I inquired as to why, the number one answer was "He is too much like a Republican."
Wesley Clark was not the only moderate Democrat that faced fierce opposition in the primaries.
The moderates who were not castigated were just ignored. Granted the media anointing of Howard Dean created the feeling he had the nomination before the first primary was even held. And even Howard Dean was not the liberal he was painted as. His record in Vermont was actually somewhat conservative. A conservative like Joe Liberman couldn't get to first base.
Historically, Governors have faired better than Senators in presidential elections. Maybe that's because they are seen as outsiders. Washington insiders are often perceived to be part of the problem rather than the solution to the problem. Another possibility is that as a Governor, the public record that can be attacked is more vague.
We all witnessed how John Kerry's senate record was attacked. Republicans used his no vote on the $80 billion supplemental funding for the war to create the illusion that he did not support our troops. They also used prior votes on weapons systems to paint him as someone who voted against about every major weapon system being used today in the war in Iraq. Never mind that Dick Cheney advocated eliminating many of the same weapons.
The same tactic was used to paint Kerry as one who voted to weaken the intelligence services when in fact, Peter Goss, President Bush's choice to head the CIA, advocated even greater cuts in intelligence.
The same thing happened with Bill Clinton although moreso in his second term than in the first. When I talk about Bill Clinton to my Republican friends, I hear more about how he cut defense and destroyed the military than I hear about his fling with Monica. The fact that the military base closings were initiated by George Bush 1 and a bipartisan base closing commission because Congress didn't have the guts to take responsibility for closing bases in their own districts, was overlooked.
I may be wrong but I seem to remember the Clinton administration sometimes funded the military above levels recommended by the Republican Defense Secretary. Yet the GOP turned Clinton's support for our U.S. forces into a twisted lie.
Bill Clinton was one example of how Democrats can appeal to abroad range of Americans. He did not do it by just being a Democrat. He beat the Republicans at their own game by touting a balanced budget, welfare reform, support for the death penalty, and strong economic growth.
In other words, he connected with the people on their level, distinct to the times and conditions. He talked about his faith and although he didn't wear religion on his sleeves, no one could discount the power of those images of Bill Clinton swinging to gospel rhythms in the African American churches with a genuine look of glee on his face.
Mark Warner is another moderate that beat the Republicans at their own game. In a "red" state heavily dominated by a largely Republican legislature, he created the perception that they were incapable of governing. How did he do this? How did a wealthy Democrat from the DC suburbs gain the support of rural mountain voters in the poorer, rugged coalfields of SouthwestVirginia? The answer is he did it by refusing to take Republican bait on issues like gun control. He did it by refusing to be dragged into hot topics like abortion. His was a common sense approach. His approach on parental notification was similar to mine: If a teacher cannot give a child an asprin, a child should be able to get an abortion without their parents knowledge.
Mark Warner also pointed out the financial train wreck left behind by the previous Republican administration. He did so by connecting with people in a way Democrats had not connected in many years. But, he was not all talk. He developed a reputation as a straight shooter who would level with the citizens.
One recent example of Mark Warner's using the truth to his advantage was in the costs of running his own office. Republicans accused the governor of hiding the real costs of his office by borrowing staff from other departments and other accounting gimmicks. Governor Warner politely caculated the true cost of running his office which was some $1 million more than reflected on the books and put it in his latest budget. Now Republicans, looking to his departure at the end of 05 and anticipating their own guy winning, are forced with the prospect of possibly cutting their own guys budget before he even takes office! (source Michael D. Shear, Washington Post Staff Writer http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32730-2004Dec28?)
Mark Warner's appeal across party lines is in the essence of the man. What makes him so effective is his unique ability to say what he means, mean what he says, then go out and build public support for his policies. This forces all sides to come together and find common ground.
I have always believed that no matter where the candidate stands on issues, if he cannot connect with people on a deeply personal level, the chances of broad support are zip. Avoiding traps is an art too and few people in politics have the natural instincts to walk a tight rope between competing interests and come out on the other side still viewed by a majority of voters from both parties as level headed and competent.
When a crisis arises, leadership is put to the test. Having won the 2001 Governor's race, it was not long before Governor Warner realized the financial crisis was much worse than imagined and it would take all his business skills and some crafty work to solve Virginia's budget woes. With billions of dollars in red ink accumulating and staunch Republican opposition to any tax increases, Mark Warner knew he had to find some way to reach across party lines otherwise, he would become a failed Governor.
With Virginia educators, municipalities, and critical state projects demanding action , voters were in no mood for gridlock in the statehouse. They demanded a solution and they got one through Mark Warner's bipartisan maneuvering. Just as he had created the notion that Republicans were incapable of governing, he renewed the notion that a Democrat can govern and put the best interests of the public above party politics and find common ground with Republicans. The end result after three years of urgent problems is a record of sound, cohesive government.
Six billions of dollars in red ink disappeared under Governor Mark Warner. Under his leadership, the largest increase in education funding in Virginia history was passed. In recrafting his tax plan, 17 Republicans broke with the party to support responsible fiscal management. While small increases in taxes were imposed on cigarettes and other areas, Virginia's economy is on a roll. Over 100,000 Virginians no longer have to file income taxes, and tens of thousands of children benefit from Warner's health care programs.
Many of my Republican friends will tell you Mark Warner is a different kind of leader. That is precisely what is needed in the Democratic Party. America listens to Democrats when Democrats listen to America. A "New Generation" of leadership is needed. Pulling the party to the center will not be easy.
I am more liberal on some issues than Mark Warner but I frankly do not believe the party as a whole is as far left as it is painted. For one, when you're as far to the right as the GOP, anything resembling moderation is going to be viewed as to the left.
Whatever you think about where the Democratic Party is (left, right, center, left of center, right of center) we have a problem with perception that must be overcome. Overcoming perceptions when you are with the majority of Americans on issues but weak articulating it is difficult. Finding a leader that can articulate who we are, what we stand for, and where we can lead this country is a challenge. I am confident that a leader like Governor Mark Warner has the ability to do it.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home