2008 campaign starts in Virginia Posted by: Jon Henke
on Monday, December 05, 2005
I've been saying this for awhile now, and I think it's going to be a theme for quite some time: pay attention to Virginia over the next 18 months. Virginia politicians are going to play a major role in the 2008 Presidential elections, and the intervening period will be spent building organizations and establishing credibility.
First, Mark Warner, acknowledging two obvious candidates...
"So that brings us to today, and the question that brings me here: What are my plans?" Warner said. "Well, let me say this: As you know, many Virginians went on to become president of the United States—Washington, Jefferson, Madison. Eight Virginians in total have served as president. That means for every six presidents, you get a Virginian. ... And we haven't had one since our 28th president, Woodrow Wilson. So we're due. We're overdue, in fact.
"And I tell you this, ladies and gentlemen, for one simple, obvious reason—George Allen told me to."
This was pretty funny, too...
"That's why, if I do run for president, I may ask Senator Allen to be my running mate. Think about it—what's more presidential than this:
"I'm a red-state governor, who failed at a couple of businesses, and I liked to party too much in college, and I recently got in a well-publicized bike accident," Warner said.
"He's a guy named George who's done nothing more than live off his dad's legacy. Together we wouldn't just get elected president—together, we already are the president."
Mark Warner is already running. For Vice-President, maybe, but he's running. And, really, the Democrats could do much worse. Much, much worse. A Mark Warner nomination would represent the salvation of the Democratic Party from the far-Left fringes.
Sen. George Allen rallied fellow Virginia Republicans to his 2006 reelection campaign Saturday, telling them that he would stand for low taxes, energy independence and opposition to "activist judges" on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Allen, who is widely thought to be considering a presidential bid in 2008, also told the state party activists gathered for an annual conference that they must stand behind "common-sense Jeffersonian conservative principles" that have helped propel the GOP in national and state elections.
Everything from here on out in Virginia is pointed, directly or indirectly, at 2008. It's early, yet, but I've been encouraged by some things I've seen from and read about George Allen. He might be much more acceptable to liberty-leaning voters...
When he gives his campaign pitch, Allen quotes Jefferson and advocates for his “libertarian, trusting, free-people approach.”
I'll be keeping an eye on Allen. If he's willing to push some of those "libertarian, trusting, free-people" policies, I think he could motivate the Republican and libertarian bases.
That’s a very tough question. I’m honestly not sure. I could see a number of people being tolerable for the GOP, depending on what they emphasize. I think Romney is competent, tolerable on social issues and a good leader/communicator; the same goes for Giuliani. But I’d have to see where they’d stand on economic issues. I’m favorably inclined towards Allen due to what I noted in the post and his predisposition towards states rights.
Rice would be cool for a variety of reasons, but I don’t think she’ll run. Same goes for Mark Sanford. I’m not disposed towards McCain. Who else you got?
I think Allen would be wonderful for a lot of reasons, primarily because of his stance on economic/freedom issues. However, I just don’t think he can win the nomination, and if he did, I’m not convinced he would be any better in the White House than GWB is now (provided that Congress remains controlled by the GOP—a dubious proviso for sure). Unfortunately, Allen hasn’t really done anything at all to restrain Congressional spending since he’s been there. Like Bush II, Allen talks a good game, but the final product doesn’t match the rhetoric. A Congress controlled by Dems, however, might put some of that rhetoric into action.
Depending on what happens in 2006, Warner may be the better of the two with respect to reining in Congress. Warner is prone to raise taxes, as opposed to cutting spending, in order to restore fiscal security, but I don’t think he’d go anywhere as near as far as a Clinton (Bill or Hill) and certainly nothing like what Dean, Kerry or Edwards would attempt.
Are you kidding? Allen? Have you actually listened to him? He’s a knucklehead - he literally sounds like he suffered a head injury. He makes even Bush look smart. He’s a mouth breather.
Forget politics for one second. Is it too much to ask that we have a smart president, you know, one who is actually articulate?
He’s a knucklehead - he literally sounds like he suffered a head injury. He makes even Bush look smart. He’s a mouth breather.
Substantive criticism, there, MK.
I actually want a decent communicator in office, too, but I’m not terribly dismayed by Allen’s accent. I was never all that impressed with Clinton’s voice, either. (or Bush 41, for that matter)
Forget politics for one second. Is it too much to ask that we have a smart president, you know, one who is actually articulate?
Articulation is not equal to intelligence, mk.
If you’re arguing that you want someone who sounds smart as President, I’d say that I’d rather have someone who was actually smart, instead of merely able to fake it.
In fact, not only is articulation not equal to intelligence, they’re very often inversely relational. People who are good at public speaking rarely come up with their own ideas, they just present whatever people give them.
The nature of the job of president obviously requires *some* public speaking skills, but as Steverino said, I’d rather have someone who was actually smart than someone who can just talk well.
I actually want a decent communicator in office, too, but I’m not terribly dismayed by Allen’s accent. I was never all that impressed with Clinton’s voice, either. (or Bush 41, for that matter)
The issue is not the accent, Clinton had an accent and was a great communicator. Bush 41 didn’t have much of an accent, and he was a lousy communicator.
No doubt Clinton was a better communicator than Bush 43. And he was a helluva lot smarter than Bush too. Chelsea is smarter than Bush. Socks was smarter than Bush.
Giuliani is a smart guy. If we have to have a Republican, why can’t it be someone who is a statesman like him?
Part of being a leader is being a statesman. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is. Bush is not one.
And as for the old canard that the better your verbal skills, the less smart you are - two letters: BS. This canard is usually tossed out there to defend Bush. But it just that - a canard. Words represent ideas - just ask Orwell. Your ability to work with the language reflects on your thinking skills. Someone who has a larger vocabulary than another person can communicate their ideas more effectively because they can express their ideas with greater precision.
You can be a genius - but if you cannot communicate your ideas, you might as well be a lumpo of mud.
If you’re arguing that you want someone who sounds smart as President, I’d say that I’d rather have someone who was actually smart, instead of merely able to fake it.
But with Bush you have neither. Bush’s problem is that he is simply not curious about anything. Part of being intelligent is having intellectual curiosity. A sense of wonder about the world. It’s how we learn, and become more intelligent, hopefully.
Bush prides himself on being anti-intellectual. He gets off on it. And while that might be great for the president of a frat, it is not good for the USA.
I’d really love to know what makes you think that you are in any position to judge what "intelligence" is, much less who is in fact "intelligent" and who is not. I’ll bet your answer is ... illuminating.
I’d really love to know what makes you think that you are in any position to judge what "intelligence" is, much less who is in fact "intelligent" and who is not. I’ll bet your answer is ... illuminating.
Jesus Christ Michael - I’m not the only one saying Bush is not intelligent. This is not about my personal opinion.
Do you really think there is a debate in this country over Bush’s intelligence?
Tell you what, genius, why don’t tell me why you think George Walker Bush - not Karl Rove - is a smart and intelligent person. This I gotta hear.
MK, it wasn’t just Hitler’s opinion that the Jews were the enemy in Germany, either, but just because a lot of folks believe something or want to believe somethng don’t make it so.
Many critics of the Right and Progressives think complexity and "nuance" are the mark of intelligence. At one level almost everything is simple, sorry.
1) Love your God with all your heart mind and soul. 2) Love your neighbor as yourself
The two rules of Salvation. Or:
1) Gravity 2) Electromagnetism 3) Weak Force 4) Strong Force
Four fundamental forces that structure the Universe. Complexity emerges from simplicity. You guys seem to view the Universe as a complex place and really it needn’t be.
Also you you guys, if not you personally, seem faddish. What’s "new" and if you’re not on the "new" thing you aren’t intelligent. Really all this "intelligence" is just fad... passing fad off as research or intelligence is necessary in the publish or perish world of academe or in the world of punditry, but it doesn’t really equal wisdom or intelligence.
It just seems to me that the Left believes that unless Bush has a new thing every day and voted for something before he voted against it, he isn’t very smart. I don’t think that follows.
Finally, MK how does it feel to be bested by a "Moron" for the last 6 years? Really, I’d give Dubya more credit, because if a moron is beating you it certainly doesn’t speak well of your side. Lou Holtz made very team he played sound like a Super Bowl Team, if he lost he laid the ground work and if he won, well then he just beat a pretty good team. You don’t hear a lot of coaches saying things like my opponents are lousy and stupid and we lost to them six years running... because then the fans start asking questions about the coaches, players and team strategy. Now on the Moveon.org side of the road Bush Derangement Syndrome may have limited your reasoning skills, but I say this in some honesty... You really need to have some verbal respect for your opponent, because the rest of us begin to think you’re pretty stoopit yourself if you’re losing to an evilllllllllll dunce.
And as for the old canard that the better your verbal skills, the less smart you are - two letters: BS. This canard is usually tossed out there to defend Bush. But it just that - a canard. Words represent ideas - just ask Orwell. Your ability to work with the language reflects on your thinking skills. Someone who has a larger vocabulary than another person can communicate their ideas more effectively because they can express their ideas with greater precision. You can be a genius - but if you cannot communicate your ideas, you might as well be a lumpo of mud
No one ever said that the better your verbal skills, the less smart you are. Go back and read what I wrote, because it’s clear to me that your comprehension skills are woefully inadequate.
What I said was that articulation is not the same thing as intelligence. There are plenty of ways to be intelligent without being articulate. I worked in software engineering for almost 25 years, and knew some incredibly intelligent people who just couldn’t speak a straight sentence. They weren’t stupid by any stretch, and could easily run rings around you, but had trouble with oral communication.
If articulation were a sine qua non for intelligence, then actors and lawyers would be the smartest people on the planet.
Let’s also remember that there are forms of communicaiton besides speaking skills. Writing skills would be more indicative of intelligence and deep thought than speaking ever would.
Jesus Christ Michael - I’m not the only one saying Bush is not intelligent. This is not about my personal opinion.
Do you really think there is a debate in this country over Bush’s intelligence?
Tell you what, genius, why don’t tell me why you think George Walker Bush - not Karl Rove - is a smart and intelligent person. This I gotta hear.
As a matter of fact, I am a genius, but since you weren’t talking to me this particular time, I’ll let it slide.
Bush has an MBA, and according to people who attended school with him, was a pretty savvy student in the masters program. He also flew supersonic jets, which takes more than a rudimentary education. It’s been estimated that Bush’s IQ is in the range of 125...hardly unintelligent.
The only people saying Bush isn’t intelligent are hacks on the left.
I disagree; being a leader has nothing to do with being a good politician. In fact, I’d say often the two run counter to each other. Bill Clinton, for example: There’s no argument that he was a great politician and a good communicator, but he was a lousy President and a horrible leader.
There are also a lot of ’intelligent’ people who can’t lead for shit. The two qualities are not related. Of course you don’t want a President who is dumb as a post, but just because someone’s a Rhodes scholar, it doesn’t make him any more qualified.
As for candidates...
I think Mark Warner could be a good one for the Democrats. Barack Obama also sounds promising. Personally, though, I’d like to see Bill Richardson get the nomination.
The GOP has some decent choices as well: Chuck Hagel, Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour. From what you posted, Jon, George Allen sounds more impressive than I previously thought. I’d like to see Colin Powell, but it doesn’t look like that’s ever going to happen.
Giuliani wouldn’t be terrible, but I’m not exactly enamored of his politics. I think he’d be a good leader, and he’s certainly a good speaker. But he seems too liberal and I have the sneaking suspicion he’s fairly anti-Second Amendment.
With all of these good candidates available to both parties, it’ll really be ashame if it ends up something like Clinton v. McCain or Rice. Yuck...
I’m not the only one saying Bush is not intelligent.
You’re the only one making such point on this thread.
This is not about my personal opinion.
Well it certainly isn’t about fact, so whose opinion is it then?
Do you really think there is a debate in this country over Bush’s intelligence?
I don’t really care if there is or isn’t, and I’m still sort of curious as to why one appeared on this thread. The fact remains that you, MK, have crowned yourself as the arbiter of intelligence and I’m just wondering what you based your qualifications upon.
Tell you what, genius,...
First the Lord our God and now "genius"; you really shouldn’t flatter me so, MK!
...why don’t tell me why you think George Walker Bush - not Karl Rove - is a smart and intelligent person. This I gotta hear.
Well, I really don’t know how smart GWB is, but he must be at least of average to above average intelligence in order to have graduated from two Ivy League schools (Yale B.A.; Harvard M.B.A.). And in fact his test scores for entering the military do indeed show that he is in the above-average intelligence on an IQ scale (and may indeed have a higher IQ than Sen. Kerry). But as I mentioned above, I don’t really care exactly how smart GWB is—Jimmy Carter is often recognized as the smartest American President ever, and look where it got him and the country.
All of this still leaves the question unanswered as to just what makes you, MK, think you are qualified to make any determination whatsoever as to the intelligence of one person or another?
Just pull the offtopic thread even further off topic, actually electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force have been shown to be the same force, named the "electro-weak force". And this does have to be the first time I’ve heard someone list out quantum mechanical concepts as "simple".
Also, regarding complexity/intelligence and stupidity/simplicity false associations, actually one of the hallmarks of intelligence is to be able to take what appears to be a complex sitation/phenominum/etc and reduce it to it’s essential simplicity. A hallmark of stupidity is reducing beyond it’s essential simplicity.
Of course none of this has any bearing on Bush’s ability (or lack thereof) to lead this country, much less lead it is a good direction.
Funny you should say that. He and Joe Lieberman are the two Dems with which I’m most comfortable.
I agree, I think Lieberman is a good guy and one of the more tolerable Democrats. In fact, I’d prefer him over a lot of the potential GOP candidates. Unfortunately, I think he may have a lame duck stigma attached to him from affiliation with Gore.
But a Richardson/Lieberman ticket would be a good combination.
Great mathematicians and physcisists are supposed to learn to talk later than normal kids...and thus aren’t bound in by verbal constructs.
Interesting conversation with some British guy said that in the UK, since the PM has to do live debate all the time, it would be unthinkable to elect a Bush there. (with the subtext was Bush was stupid...)
Now, I can understand in the British system that verbal dexterity would be more highly valued than in other systems, but the drawback is that it takes talent out of the pool. I don’t think LACK of speech and debate skills makes someone smarter, though having such skills is probably correlated with intelligence. (Please refer to Kerry and Bush academic grades both being C average.)
In the US system I think being photogenic is close to verbal skills since few people actually listen to anything but a soundbite with commentary brackets by the talking heads.
In reality, the best skills for a president are probably managerial and not verbal style...can you chair a meeting, do you understand bureaucracy, can you make a decision, can you build a consensus, etc.
If you want glib, articulate, and witty, then Prof. Irwin Corey, the world’s foremost authority, is your candidate. A little short on substance, but being articulate seems to be more important to some.
