How long until they go after Mark Warner?

After all, "Soft on Crime" (or terrorism) is on page one of the Repug campaign manual. Never mind that Governor Warner's pardon is one of the most principled acts I have ever seen by a Virginia politician (I'm 54 years old and was born, raised, and have spent most of my adult life here). But what Repug would recognize principle, even if it bit them on the ass?

on Dems to go after him. And that happens every day here.

citing out of context quotes. Knowing damn well that he has held the same position on Iraq for a while now. Less on how we got there, more on how we get out.

The next day they're praising him for his courage in granting clemency.

It is a bit more involved than "less on how we got there" than I think you are giving credit for, but we have been over that ground before. So, unless you object, I will continue to defend Warner on this one.

who commented on his statement.

:hi:

Until I read your post. I'm sure the same is true for those who read the thread that Will Pitt started. Why would we?

One has nothing to do with the other. If you want to survive and promote a candidate on DU, nick, you take the good days with the bad, you know? Some days your guy will be a hero, and the next people will call for his head on a stick, that's the way it is for everyone here.

be opposed to the person as a whole. Oh, and actually, why would anyone outside of VA be aware of Warner's position on the Iraq War? He hasn't even been on the radar screen until recently.
Oh, and by the way,whether I found out now or knew before it is irrelevant, his "move on, nothing to see here" attitude on the events leading us to the war and the way it was carried out smacks of letting the repubs off the hook leaving it alone and allowing some other Administration to try the same tactics. Hasn't Warner ever heard of multitasking?

Mark Warner is getting a awful lot of great free publicity these days....so I don't know who the "They" is that you refer to.

If you are talking about the REpublicans....they may wait till after he's the nominee.

Democrats...well most don't know Warner well enough to "go after him"....This particular issue wouldn't have Democrats attacking him. However, once most understand his positions better, he'll be "fair" game, I guess....especially during Primaries, since that's what primaries are about.

Not until or unless he wins the nomination.

But they won't start in on him until he gets way closer to tossing his hat in. They want to roll out their product when it has the greatest impact. Probably after summer, if it really looks like he is going to go for it....

I am sure that National Republicans will try to twist this against Warner wherever they think they can get traction with it, but Warner it seems will be operating on a National scale from here on out, or at least attempting to. With advances in DNA testing and more and more innocent people being discovered to have been falsely imprisoned through use of DNA testing, the national electorate might be less open to being critical of Warner over this than the typical Virginian, and Kaine just won in Virginia. I am very comfortable defending Warner on this whether or not I initially support him for President, and I fully intend to defend him. I hope Democrats can turn attacks against Warner based on this principled stand of his back against the attackers, just like Kaine did with the "Pro-Hitler" death sentence ads run against him.

but if he is the nominee, count on Repubs running "Willie Horton" style ads on this.

No Democrat will go against him on this but Republicans would if they think they can get away with it. One Democrat might debate the wisdom of the Death Penalty with another, but not a death sentence commutation on these grounds. Even if they did believe it were wrong, which I doubt many would, it would be too risky for them to make into an issue inside Democratic circles.

the more Liberal ones, those who are anti-death penalty...a back handed compliment, a subtle remark...can't you just hear some one like Kucinich saying, "I commend Governor Warner for this pardon, however, what about the xxx more on death row..." or some one like Sharpton saying, "some people get praise for taking a courageous stand pardoning one man on death row. I say why don't we commute all of these sentences..."

There is plently to criticize from the left flank too. I believe as DEmocrats we can and should have an honest debate about issues, but it's a fine line between that and eating our young, which we tend to do.

if he wants to show some spine, and/or avoid criticism from within his party. It's been years now.

Having said that, you're right that primaries can be brutal and damaging to our candidates AND our party.

The case was seriously flawed. A clerk tossed out DNA evidence that could have proven the defendant to be innocent. By Virginia Law all evidence must remain available until the defendant has used all of his appeals. That clearly was not the case in this situation.

I believe a majority of Americans would have granted clemency.

If anything Governor Warner put some much needed trust into our judicial system with his actions today.

people not knowing the details of anything.

They can put out the message: Warner is soft on crime.

5 easy words. An attack ad can effectively do it.

The defense of course requires an explanation of a couple of paragraphs, conveying to the voter that the original case was flawed due to the destruction of DNA evidence.

But, all the voter remembers is the attack ad with the simple message:

Warner is soft on crime.

They do this because it is effective.

We don't do it because we're more principled and stupider.

But the Republicans are going to very upset not getting to sentence a black man (whether guilty or innocent) to death.

Ken Starr was Lovitt's attorney, and urged clemency. And the guy's getting life without parole. So there's no "Willie Horton" here.

Do you honestly believe that any of that will matter if Mark Warner faces a Repug challenger? By the way, Mike Dukakis did not personally let Willie Horton out of prison so he could commit rape and murder, John McCain did not father a mixed-race child out of wedlock, Max Cleland did not support Osama bin Laden, and John Kerry did not give himself a self-inflicted wound in order to avoid combat.

and if it's framed that way- people will support it (except of course those from the fascist far right who would never vote for the guy anyway).

ten years and more ago when violent crime was a major concern. The crime rate is way down. No doubt Americans have lost their blood lust.

The same pages from that playbook will be used against him. Count on it.

People who think that governors have a much easier time than Senators when they run for President forget some very recent history.



Check this out:
http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/election/index.php?ad_id=944

Poppa Bush ran negative ads on both Governors Dukakis and Clinton:
(RealMedia)
http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/course/commercials/bush1988-willie-horton.ram

http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/course/commercials/bush1992-arkansas-record.ram

comparisons will come out. But maybe not:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a6LRxhEqqaHE&refer=top_world_news

"Warner's decision is likely to bring few consequences if he runs for president, said Robert Holsworth, a political science professor at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond.

``There wasn't much of a downside here because of the fact that the evidence that could have provided the final, absolute bit of proof had been discarded,'' Holsworth said. Warner ``can always argue that there was this scintilla of doubt.''

Among those on Lovitt's legal team was Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who headed the investigation that led to Clinton's impeachment."

His conviction was questionable and there was controversy over the evidence. The fact that Right-Wing butt-boy Ken Starr is representing Lovett will also prevent Republicans from attacking on Warner in the following four years.

Looking at this case --- it appears that they (as in the GOP) have already started.

Why on earth would famed attorney Ken Starr, who lives in California -- NOT VIRGINIA -- and who supports the death penalty -- be taking this case in the first place?? Lovitt has no money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32443-2005Mar13.html

.."Few people as poor as Lovitt have such luminaries as Starr as their attorneys, particularly on death row. Among the roughly 3,400 people who await execution in 38 states, most have little or no funding for private lawyers. Some have no legal counsel."

Think about it.

I'll bet anything the outcome isn't what the GOP would've ideally wanted for future "swiftboating purposes"