Which Democratic Governor should we nominate for President?

I think that Kerry's run has shown us the futility of running Senators for President. We should run a governor this time. Governors have executive experience. Here is a summary of those that I know something about and years of service (in order of longest first)

Governor Vilsac of Iowa. Elected 1998 and 2002. Being governor of Iowa would lock the caucus for him but that didn't do Harkin any good. Vilsac has little to point to on the social issue side but Iowa appears to be economically doing well.

Governor Ruth Ann Milner Delaware. Elected 2000 and 2004. I know nothing about her record and lets face it we are talking about Delaware. But Dean was from Vermont so go figure. Milner would be a woman with a large amount of executive experience in a race without another one.

Governor Mike Easley of North Carolina Elected 2000 and 2004. The anti Bush when it comes to economics and education. Easley inherited a budget mess and cleaned it up. He also increased spending on education while doing so. Downsides are very conservative on social issues and prickly personality.

Mike Warner of Virginia Elected 2001 Won a tough race in a tough state. Virginia is rapidly showing itself to be a mideval back water and Warner is not being terribly effective at preventing it. The economics are going well though. He also is good looking like Edwards.

The following have all been elected in 2002.

Governor Napolitano Arizona
Governor Blagojevic Illinois
Governor Sebelius Kansas
Governor Baldacci Maine
Governor Granholm Michigan (ineligable)
Governor Richardson New Mexico
Governor Henry Oklahoma
Governor Kurlongoski Oregon
Governor Rendell Pennsylvania
Governor Bredensen Tennessee
Governor Doyle Wisconsin
Governor Frudenthal Wyoming

Of this group I think Napoliano, Blagojevic, Richardson, Rendell, and Bredensen are the stars. Depending on what issues are prominate and what happens in 2006 anyone could be in a good position to run.

Finally we have the newbees. Blanco elected in 2003 and the class of 2004

Schweitzer, Lynch, Gregorie, and Manchin. Frankly it is doubtful any of these will do anything due to the shortness of time.

Janet won't be able to go national I don't think in 08

has so much trouble with the GOP whackos in the state legislature in AZ that the pundits would bury her in a national race. She would get 'Janet Reno-ed'.

next election -- we could have Jesus Christ himself on our side it wouldn't mean didly-squat!

As someone said earlier -- it doesn't matter who votes only who is doing the counting -- I think we already experienced that in November.

I used to listen to him on WTOP's "Ask the Governor" program when I lived in Virginia, and he's really a great governor.

and do not discount Governor Schweitzer of Montana. Something tells me we will hear more from him. And he really IS a rancher instead of
all-hat-no-cattle bush the rancher wannabe

though if it is a great term who knows.

n/t

We need someone to lead a revolution. He's just the guy to do it.

Is getting good marks for dealing fairly with the GOP in MT, shows willingness to REALLY reach across the isle, and that plays well with the public. It will be even more important in 08 cuz the public will be getting really tired of the rancor the 'great uniter' brought to D.C.

He took bus-loads of seniors to Canada to get Rx filled when he ran for the senate. And he cleans bush*s clock without breaking a sweat.

He resonates with people. We should not discount the importance of that quality.

The Democrats could do worse than a wildly popular moderate from a Southern state.

also has good marks. In January his ratings were at 70%!

Here's his website: http://www.state.tn.us/governor/

Some people have been asking him to run but he said he wasn't interested and isn't that much of a campaigner. He was also mayor of Nashville so he has tons of experience and is doing a great job!

He's a millionaire, and refused the $85,000.00/year that the Governor of Tennessee commands.

He's a brilliant manager. I'm very proud of him, and he would handle the country very well. He comes across very Mr. Rogers like, which isn't bad until you think about how the country likes the "macho" image that Bush likes to portray.

Bredesen is probably too reasonable, too good at heart, and too much of a real human being to ever be POTUS, unless this country's people change for the better.

the only reason he voted for Bredesen "is because bleeding heart liberals hate him." He also calls "Tenncare and Medicare luxury handouts to bums." This is a man who voted against Jim Cooper and Al Gore because "they were both anti-American commies!" :crazy:

If Bredesen wins the Democratic nomination I'll probably vote Republican.

use their lack of a voting record as a Governor to his/her advantage by trying to be all things to all people. Personally, I like being able to judge people by their record. You get to know them better.

Kerry's problem wasn't that he had a long record as a Senator. It was that he was forced to run away from his voting record on issues like the IWR and NAFTA. The answer is to get someone who has a record of doing the right thing, not looking for a wild card Governor with a short voting history. If Kerry had done the right thing on those issues, the fact that he was a Senator with a long voting record would not have been a problem.

Saying we can't nominate a Senator just because Kerry was a Senator is kind of silly. He was also a white man, so maybe we shouldn't nominate any more white men for President. Maybe we shouldn't' nominate another Catholic, or anyone from New England. There's just no logic to that kind of blanket statement.

but he had a deeper problem in that he voted on both sides of a lot of issues which often happens to Senators. Far from having no record, Governors have a record of directly attributable actions. Every bill they sign, every executive order they sign, every bill they veto, every budget they propose is replete with a record of their priorities.

cast in this country and no teacher intends to educate their students on how senators vote on a procedural basis, so Dems should assume from the get go that ONLY governors can be president.

That was easy. Now we don't have to address the proGOP bias in the media, because it's really just a proGOVERNOR bias that we, too, can take advantage of in the next election.

I voted for the 86 billion before I voted against it. That one line was his exact problem. Like it or not, people prefer to vote for executives for the Oval office. Going back to FDR you had FDR, governor, Truman President (when he won his term), Ike General, Kennedy Senator, Johnson President (when he won his term), Nixon former VP, Carter Former Gov., Reagan former Gov., Bush 1 VP, Clinton Gov., Bush 2 Gov. There is a big pattern here. And as to your post below about media Governors often are covered by state media which has a vested interest in seeing the governor become President and thus they often are easier on a governor.

Kerry told it the way it is, and the media CHOSE to spin it against him as per RNC talking points, when they could easily have CHOSEN to educate the public about how congressional voting works.

Interesting that you promote giving in to "like it or not" when it suits your case and fight giving in to "like it or not" when it doesn't.

BTW...I don't need a history lesson. I do quite well in that area.

Electoral history doesn't even matter anymore now that the GOP controls most of the broadcast media.

Source the second debate "I mistakenly spoke about a war while my opponent mistakenly fought one". One only has to look at the early Clinton coverage to see how benefitial it is to have your state reporters being the only ones who know you. Aside from Flowers who was put out there by the National Enquirer, most press coverage of Clinton was either positive or neutral. A big contrast to later Clinton coverage, Gore or Kerry.

out the rampant ignorance of the public that was fostered by the media during a live debate?

YOU using that is a disappointment. The media BSed the public about the trumped up scream yet there were plenty of us who chose NOT to be BSed by them.

Sometimes, dsc......tsk...tsk.

We should educate the media when the candidate can't or won't. Does that even make a little sense? Unlike you, I can see flaws in my candidate. Dean was stupid to say what he did about Osama (even as it was the correct position to have). Dean should have never sent his wife out campaigning after making a big deal of her not wanting to. Kerry said a dumb thing but it also was a syptom of the problems a Senator has. Dole had similar problems in his runs for President. I don't know when you last were in a school or taught in one, but we now have state tests to teach to. If the kids fail them we are toast. If the kids pass them, all is well. What do you think teachers, books, visual aids, etc are primed to? I don't think you need more than one guess.

You suit yourself, dsc. Just remember how wrong everyone was about that scream while you do the exact same thing with that RNC promoted talking point against Kerry.

You deal with your double standard. I'm done.

I understand the issue regarding running Senators and the disadvantages of it. Although Wes Clark was not a Governor, he handled executive responsibilities in many ways similar to that role as a Senior commander in the Army. But more to the point of where you I assume are coming from, Clark doesn't have a record of thousands of committee votes for the Republicans to twist inside out.

I think we get important international gravitas from Clark that virtually no Governor (except maybe Richardson) can bring to the table.

and I'm pretty sure 96 too, so I don't know that a governor is the magic bullet.

so no he didn't get a bigger share. Clinton also ran in a three way race and won. He probably would have won over 50% without Perot, though that is admittedly debatable.

"In the actual 1992 election, Bush received 37.7% of the popular vote, Clinton received 43.3% of the popular vote, and Perot received 19.0% of the popular vote."

http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/diss/node19.html

where Clinton got a little over 49 percent of the vote to Dole's 43.

Which means Clinton got 43/81 of the non Perot vote. That is over half.

I highly doubt that all of Perot's votes would have gone to Bush given the type of campaign Perot ran (very anti Bush). Clinton would have only had to get about 1/3 of Perot's votes which doesn't strike me as that hard.

The point is that Clinton, the only Dem on the ticket, got a lower percentage than Kerry, who split the vote with Nader, although Kerry got the lion's share.

1/3 of 19% is way, way, way, way more than 99% of 1%.

Many people such as me voted for Kerry despite not really liking him well due to hatred of Bush.

Unless his campaign is why Bush invaded Iraq, ran up a huge deficit, promised to appoint right wing judges, and a host of other abominations.

debunked and dispelled on DU repeatedly.

I don't think Kerry's defeat shows a Senator can never win.

I like Warner best out of all those Govs

more votes then anybody except George W. Bush in this election. And we don't really know that for sure either. I watched Cliff Arnebeck on the Washington Journal and he was saying he had evidance they flipped all republicans who voted for Kerry to Bush. So who knows?

We need a mono-syllabic Anglo Saxon name that fits easily on a sign.

:eyes:

It is way too easy of a gift set up for me to take it. Besides, having a name like Rinaldo, I will find other ways to back my favorite Candidate rather than stressing his Anglo Saxon name.

Poor Tony gets asked all the time 'How do you spell your last name?', and he just hates it.

My name is almost phonetic, but on the West Coast people thought "Hispanic" and assumed Reynaldo. The East Coast has more Italian Americans, but there are 8 Rinaldi's for each Rinaldo, so my name keeps getting changed to Rinaldi.

My girl friend however has a Polish name. She tells people not to even bother. It took me 6 months to always get the spelling right, lol.

Clark, Gore, Dean, Bush, Dole, Hart, Reid....

If you want to really break the mold, you can get the bi-syllabic Irish candidate.... Clinton, McCain, Kerry....

:(

sorry.

Unless you can read his mind or are privy to info no one else is (both doubtful) then you're wrong.

She stood her ground against the Republican machine in '04, and is still standing.

If he doesn't run for POTUS, I suspect he'll be shortlisted for VP by whoever our nominee is. He's young, bright, DAMNED good-looking, pretty wife, cute kids, etc. .

Illinois governors have a habit of getting charged with corruption.

The Repubs shoved a microscope up his a** in 2002, and they've kept it there. He's clean.

:)

I think he has an inside track for the nomination if he does stay clean and Illinois has any kind of economy in 2008.

His margin of victory inclued a LOT of 'pub votes, and a lot of them still like him. We could do worse than to nominate a blue state Dem who knows how to peel off Repub votes.

Blago only got 52% of the vote in the same year a huge Republican scandal was all over the news. Kerry won by about 10% in Illinois, which makes Blagojevich's narrow victory look unimpressive. I run into a lot of people who say Blago is popular. I run into a lost less people who personally like him themselves.

Can you name something impressive he has accomplished as Governor? Balancing the budget doesn't count because only one or two states don't do that every year.

That, in and of itself was impressive. You don't need 'impressive' to win--- competence works just fine.

They should do something more than government on auto-pilot and business as usual.
I was surprised he didn't win by a much larger margin against someone named Ryan.

And :grr: for not including him. (Yeah, I know he's DNC Chair, but that can change at some point, plus there's always the possibility of The People making such a fuss that he MUST run.)

Not good. :(

Explain EXACTLY what Howard Dean has ever done that shows that he is anything less than 100% Democrat to the core, would you? Or was your post just another content-free Dean bash?

Site one, just one, place where Dean said anything at anytime under any circumstance that he would run as an independent. I want a date, time, source citation.

Most of his posts are.

:eyes:

The point is that congressional Dems will kick him out forthwith if he pulls anything, and his loyal followers with him. :)

We're waiting...

Your content-free, anti-Dean bashes are VILE. 'Assasination by innendo' describes about 99% of them.

I'll refresh your memory:

Padraig18 Donating member (1000+ posts) Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Fri Mar-04-05 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. You know this for a fact, do you?



Explain EXACTLY what Howard Dean has ever done that shows that he is anything less than 100% Democrat to the core, would you? Or was your post just another content-free Dean bash?

.

is Chair of the DNC for God's sakes. He's like not running in 08, either as a Dem or as an independant.

One he isn't a current governor and two I take him at his word that he won't run (he made that promise to win the party chair).

Brilliant minds you know.

:)

I've heard him speak several times & was not impressed.

Also watched him on C-Span last week host the Governor's Conference.
I fell asleep..realy fell asleep.

He never smiles, & sorry, I don't think he's good looking.

I don't care about his looks, but he doesn't seem to have a pleasing way about him. No zip, no charisma, no humor.

If someone can carry their Southern state and still have a progressive message that will appeal to Democrats in other regions, then we have a winner. I don't see the appeal or advantage of a conservative Democrat from the South like Warner.
And before someone brings up Clinton remember that he didn't run as a conservative or moderate. He ran as a populist progressive on issues like universal healthcare, change and jobs.

and so far, it's a No Go. Something about him makes him very boring and timid.

I'm trying to think of some current ones and am coming up blank.

That is the problem with a conventional wisdom that says we can't elect anyone progressive in the South so we won't even try anymore. Progressives in the south aren't funded or supported by their state party or the DNC. In the long run that helps move everyone to the right and it's one of the major reasons Democrats are doing so badly there.

There may be some good ones, but I don't know who. John Edwards seemed like the best one.

I think it would be worth trying to fund progressives and give them a chance in some of these future races. Same old, same old has led to there only being 4 Dem Senators out of the 22 in the states of the former Confederacy. Southern states are among those with the lowest turnout nationwide. Progressives might actually attract a new crop of voters to the polls.

is Richardson imo.

and it seems that it was never really cleared up.

Will he get hit with mucho sticky slime if he runs? or will he be able to explain what happened at Los Alamos?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872860.html
Bill Richardson, energy secretary, lost virtually any chance to become Vice President Al Gore's running mate when two computer drives containing nuclear secrets were reported missing from the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in June. The drives were recovered behind a copy machine in a secure area of the lab. The incident is the second security breach in less than a year. Los Alamos nuclear scientist Wen Ho Lee was arrested last year on security violations charges after he allegedly copied top-secret files onto an unsecure computer.

http://slate.msn.com/id/84864 /
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson
He schmoozes. He loses.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/06/16/... /
Missing nuclear secrets found behind Los Alamos copy machine

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=nd99gust...
Los Alamos: A summer under siege

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/light/20000628.htm
Layers to Los Alamos
Firing Richardson won't solve the problem. He would just be replaced by another secretary who would perch 50 layers from the front lines. Moreover, Richardson can hardly be blamed for layers that were created in previous waves of reform.

But Richardson should be held accountable for appointing the same people to hold posts in the new National Nuclear Security Administration and the old undersecretaryship for nuclear security. This "dual-hatting," as Richardson calls it, creates considerable confusion about just who has the authority to act.

http://www.quarterly-report.com/human_interest/wen_ho_l...
We ask today, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, have you no sense of decency?

In early March 1999, Bill Richardson was utterly paranoid to save his hide as a potential vice-presidential candidate to Al Gore. He needed a scapegoat to quell the congressional firestorm over security lapses at U.S. nuclear facilities that was roaring in Washington. He found his sacrificial lamb in the diminutive, soft-soften Dr. Wen Ho Lee, a nuclear scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. What Richardson and the Clinton Administration subsequently engineered against Dr. Lee is an outrage.

A Summary of the Case

Dr. Lee was born in Taiwan and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1974. His status as an Asian-American made him a perfect fall guy for alleged Chinese espionage at U.S. nuclear laboratories. In an orgy of self-protective lies, Richardson, aided by other corrupt executive branch officials, inexcusably branded Dr. Lee as a super spy to suppress the media damage arising from Richardson’s maladministration of the Energy Department. They accused the diminutive, soft-spoken Dr. Lee as "the one" who had passed nuclear secrets to the People’s Republic of China, in spite of the fact that Dr. Lee had passed his December 1998 Energy Department polygraph exam. 1/ The following chronology demonstrates how quickly Richardson acted to save his deluded vice-presidential aspirations in early 1999.

March 5: CBS News breaks the story of a soon-to-be-released
congressional report - The Cox Report -- on security
lapses and alleged Chinese spying at U.S. nuclear
facilities.

The FBI interrogates Dr. Lee.

March 6: The New York Times reports that an unnamed
Chinese-American scientist at Los Alamos is a suspect
in the FBI investigation.

March 7: The FBI gives Dr. Lee a polygraph examination.

March 8: Richardson directs the University of California to fire
Dr. Lee.
Aftermath - Richardson's Role in an Executive Branch Conspiracy

Richardson claimed that Dr. Lee was fired for failing to safeguard properly classified material among other charges. After Dr. Lee’s dismissal, Richardson said that the government "will not tolerate the theft of our secrets."

To dupe the American people into believing that the "FBI had got their man," the Clinton Administration upped the ante against Dr. Lee. On Saturday, December 4, 1999, in the White House Situation Room, Attorney General Reno, FBI Director Freeh, Richardson, and other top Clinton advisors decided to pursue criminal charges against Lee for mishandling nuclear secrets under the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. 2/

Six days later, a federal grand jury in Albuquerque returned 59 indictments against the sixty-year-old Dr. Lee, and the FBI arrested him on December 10. Then, Richardson, in concert with the Administration’s Gestapo justice department, levied the full weight of pre-trial sanctions on Dr. Lee.

It was Richardson who ordered that Dr. Lee be kept in solitary confinement. For 279 days, Dr. Lee was denied bail and was held in extraordinary harsh conditions -– leg shackles when outside his cell and solitary when he was there. He was continually monitored 24 hours a day. It took Richardson five months before he allowed Dr. Lee to have reading materials, longer exercise periods, and more frequency visits with his family.

On September 13, 2000, a plea agreement with the government was reached. Dr. Lee pled guilty to one count of downloading nuclear data to an unsecure computer. The remaining 58 charges were dismissed. 3/ Chief U.S. District Court Judge James A. Parker sentenced Dr. Lee to time already served and released him from prison. The government’s abrupt about face caused Judge Parker to react with amazement, incredulity, anger, regret, and sadness. 4/

I wouldn't think anybody could clean up LANL just by being energy secretary. Richardson has a lot of appeal as a peacemaker internationally. AND he's half hispanic, which would mitigate the jeb factor.

I was pretty happy with Richardson, but then this NM vote fiasco got swept under the table. As a Dem who's lived in several states, I really like what the Dems have going in NM. Great Medicaid benefits, bad schools but the kids DO get a lot of extras they don't - uh, like in COLORADO or California. I'd like to see some of the policies SPREAD FROM NM.

So I'd vote for Richardson!

Foriegn policy is more important now than it was between 76-00, which is when Governor's had their streak. Between 1920 and 1972 every president except for two had roots in the Senate (FDR, Governor of NY, and Eisenhower, a General). When foriegn policy becomes important, Senators rise. That's one of...maybe even the main reason Kerry got the nomination in 2004. Of the ones on your list Rendell and Seblius would be the best candidates.

That said, I think this is the real list of 08 contenders:

Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
John Edwards
Evan Bayh
Wes Clark
Joe Biden


Of those, I'd vote for Kerry. He had an uphill battle this time--despite the fact that I don't like Bush, he's pretty popular with many--and he ran a good campaign and came close. They all would be good presidents though.

"Between 1920 and 1972 every president except for two had roots in the Senate"

You can add Coolidge and Hoover to that list also. Some have had Senate backgrounds but only two were elected directly from the Senate: Harding and Kennedy. The vice presidency has been more of a source than the Senate: Coolidge, Truman, Johnson, Nixon (though the later 3 were Senators before VP, I'll grant you). It's still far more common for a Senator to run and get defeated in the primaries or general election than to win (Harding and Kennedy only 2 of all presidents to come directly form the Senate, I believe).

that Schweitzer is going to be player on the national level.

doing political stuff?

that his state only has 3 electoral votes. I'd love to see a good westerner get the nod, and I feel that one would have greater appeal in other regions. This is particularly true of the south, as I think that westerners and southerners think that they have a lot in common.

Not knowing a lot about him, though, I would say that Schweitzer's residence in a state with only 3 electoral votes is a drawback.

that Montana can provide. its the western, common sense, plain speaking image he gives off.

Which one gets the mainstream media to cover all their issues without spinning it with GOP talking points?

What special American media do governors use in national campaigns?

I really don't believe this rule about governors, especially in a post 9/11 world. I just don't. People are thinking national security. Dean was a governor, and it did him little good. And anyone with a brain can see how incompetent Gov. Bush turned out to be. Bill Clinton won, but not with a majority. It was the divided vote between Perot and Bush I that helped him win.

What is needed is Democratic brand recognition, and a more unified party. Then , any decent candidate we run has a good chance.

The disadvantage of a lengthy Senate voting record were on display for everyone to see in the 2004 election.

Like, a Senator hasn't won since so-and-so, therefore Senators can't win. That's a little to simplistic and arbitrary for me.

NGU.

Four Star General Turned Governor Jesus Christ won't win unless the GOP's media control is EXPOSED.

Warner's a smart guy. Hell, after the Virginia Democratic Party collapsed in the early 90s, you'd have to be smart to find a way to get elected governor as a Democrat. Of course, he had some help from the Republicans, whose feuding and problems with the budget certainly helped Warner get reelected.

I wouldn't count on Warner carrying his home state in the general election -- that would still be an uphill battle. But he would put more states in play that we had in 2004.

I'm not troubled by his relative lack of experience, having served only one term as governor. Hell, the current occupant of the White House had a meager record to run on. And at least Warner had a successful business record before entering politics.

Of course Warner has some vulnerabilities. The Republicans will tag him as a tax raiser. And he's not the best speaker around. But I think he'll be much harder to tag as an out of touch liberal elitist than many of the other potential nominees.

He's trying to reduce pensions for state workers just like W is trying to on SS. He has pissed off the unions, his secretary of state, the speaker of the House, the attorney general, and Daley...all Dems.

the 2nd highest total of all time. So that supposition is a bit empty....
Whoever runs will need defense/ nat. security experience.
Kerry and Hillary are on my short list. Warner is too.
Romney and Jeb are the likely opponents.

Supposedly they are so important yet you ignore Richardson who was Ambassador to the UN. Kerry got a lower percentage than Carter, or Gore.

witness shrub.

oh and to hell with the percentages. If Bush had not gotten the 9/11 obsessed and assorted Christian zealots out in prodigious numbers, Kerry would have had impressive winning percentages as well.

because he might very well win the conservative vote. I'm from NC, and we had no problem getting him re-elected in a state that values conservative candidates more than anything else. From what I understand, most NCers think of Easley as conservative.

At the same time, I don't want the Democratic Party being sold out.

He might be great for helping to clean up the deficit though.

To the AG, an asshat named Kilne. He is currently using his position as AG to go after abortion clinics, thus locking up the fanatical wingnut vote. Then, all he has to do is play the moderate for a few months in 2006 and he will win in a walk.

...result in putting a dagger right in the Republicans "solid South".