Posted on 11/08/2005 6:11:17 PM PST by BransonRevival
well said!
Kilgore was weak and had no policies except those at the far right (far far FAR) of the party. He was an unappealing candidate who fared poorly in the debates, ran ill-advised commercials and didn't have a semblance of message.
I'm surprised he kept it as close as he did.
Are you a Virginia resident? It seems to me that Warner had broad appeal across both parties.
I think the impact of Bush's numbers is being overplayed such that the larger message is undboutedly being lost - the key to Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008 were in this race and it had nothing to do with popularity or Iraq or Bush. It had to do with moderacy - there are many many many moderate Republicans who are qualified and credible people who undoubtedly took notice of this victory and the reasons why it occurred.
No, I am not. I have followed Warner a little since last fall, though, because of sen. Allen and people who are talking about dems who may be more of a threat to winning in '08 than hillary.
Pretty effective though very different than Allen philosophically, imo. Warner is the quintessential moderate - he falls right of center on some things (traditional fiscal responsibility and spending cuts and gun issues) but left of center on others (mild tax increases and pro-choice). Generally, it's a blend that keeps most of the people mostly happy most of the time, especially given that jobs grew under his tenure.
Don't get me wrong - I don't know if Kaine is a Warner type. Both the far left and the far right dislike Warner's moderacy. But I would bet my best shoes that he's a bigger threat than Hillary - Hillary is running to the center with the shift of the political wind. Warner has always been there.
You are in a California situation. It probably will only get worse.
But I would bet my best shoes that he's a bigger threat than Hillary - Hillary is running to the center with the shift of the political wind. Warner has always been there.
--
And I agree with you. Hillary is a snobish senator who thinks she is all that. Warner is a governor who has proven his worth (like it or not) at doing somthing other than just giving his opinion on somthing.
For me, Governors have an edge over senators because governors LEAD while senators blather.
But 2002 can't be all that predictive, either ... after all, it was pre-Iraq War
Because the state was in a $6 billion deficit and federal aid from Washington has been squeezed for every state in the union. States, unlike the federal govt., have to balance their books. Even in Colorado, Gov. Bill Owen, once a GOP rising star, supported a ballot initiative to raise taxes to overcome budget shortfall. Warner can expose Republican hypocrisy on fiscal conservatism if he runs for president.
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.