Thursday, January 19, 2006

National Review on Warner

The main magazine of conservativism has two articles focusing on Mark Warner this month. Much like a boxer pacing before a bout, conservatives are sizing up a formidable potential challenger. For Warner, this should be the ultimate form of flattery to have the "main organ of conservativism" after you three years before the election.

In article one, Jim Geraghty nervously wonders if there is a nefarious Mark Warner-Deaniac courtship occurring. He seems to suggest by Warner reaching out to bloggers like Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, it has made him palatable to the Dean revolutionaries.

There are two conclusions to be drawn from this. One is that Mark Warner shouldn’t be caricaturized as the “conservative,” “centrist,” or “moderate” candidate in the race when he's willing to associate himself with the fervent antiwar left for his support. Secondly, some (including myself) have predicted that the Deaniacs of 2004 would be a ready-made engine for a liberal challenger to Hillary Clinton in 2008 — Feingold, Gore, or perhaps some other Democrat seeking to represent “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” That assessment ought to be reconsidered; at least some of them appear to be demonstrating they’ll back any Democrat who looks like he can win some red states. Read entire post.

John Miller pens another article called A Dem Golden Boy. Largely he is struck by the "stupidity" of Virginians on how Warner could break his tax promise and "gasp" get away with it. Read entire post.

From Miller's article, looks like conservatives mode of operation is to paint Warner as a "tax and spend" liberal. Oh boy, this tired line to use on a businessman job creator and governor who decreased unemployment. This could be fun if that is all they got!


Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares