Mark Warner's rising stock

The Warner years


2002

Jan. 12: Warner sworn in as 69th governor. He vows to launch "a little revolution" by "changing the way we do business in Richmond."


Jan. 22: Warner and key GOP lawmakers reach an accord on steps to offset nearly $4 billion in budget shortfalls. They agree to withdraw half of the money in the state's "rainy day" fund, transfer money from the transportation trust fund to the general fund and defer pay raises.


June 23: Warner announces that Virginia finished the fiscal year with the most severe revenue decline in its history and has bigger problems looming.


Oct. 15: Warner announces he will cut $858 million from Virginia's budget by laying off more than 1,800 public employees and curtailing services. He also said the state will shut down 12 Department of Motor Vehicles offices, a move he later reverses.


Nov. 5: In a stinging defeat for Warner, voters in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads resoundingly reject regional sales tax increases to pay for transportation.


2003

Feb. 3: A divided House shelves a proposed constitutional amendment to allow future governors to seek re-election, a change Warner had championed. Later, the House kills legislation to strengthen the state's seat belt law, delivering another defeat.


July 1: The Atlantic Coast Conference adds Virginia Tech to the league after some behind-the-scenes arm twisting by Warner.


Nov. 24: Warner calls for increases in taxes on retail sales, cigarettes and incomes greater than $100,000, a reduction in the sales tax on groceries, and increasing personal and dependent income tax deductions.


2004

March 16: Warner orders lawmakers into special session after they adjourn without passing a budget and launches a statewide tour at a Roanoke coffeehouse to push for a compromise.


April 27: The House and Senate agree on a tax bill worth $1.4 billion over two years, two weeks after 17 House Republicans broke ranks to support a compromise.


Dec. 6: Warner unveils a plan to strengthen the economies of rural and distressed areas.


2005

Jan. 12: Warner announces the creation of 400 railroad jobs in Roanoke plus hundreds of new manufacturing jobs in Southwest and Southside Virginia, and pledges to continue working to help economically distressed communities.


Feb. 27: General Assembly adjourns after approving much of Warner's legislative agenda. But lawmakers gut much of Warner's plan targeted to economic development plans for rural areas.


Aug. 29: Warner tells legislative money committees the state's $544 million budget surplus "is clear evidence that businesses and individuals in Virginia are prospering."


Nov. 8: Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine is elected Virginia's 70th governor.


Dec. 16: Warner pitches a two-year budget that plows revenue from a growing economy into core state services and targeted spending for transportation, higher education and environmental initiatives.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-46661

I just saw him speak at the Florida Democratic Party Convention in Orlando and all he could do for an hour was give me his resume and tell what a good job he thought he was doing.

Very uninspiring indeed!

I also saw John Edwards and Barack Obama speak and they were much more inspiring people with a vision that I think most voters would be drawn to. Both are about raising people up, giving them a hand and helping the least among us. I really think Edwards is channeling Bobby Kennedy or something to hear him speak. Both were tremendously powerful speakers in contrast to Warner.

Democratically Yours,

Doug De Clue
Orlando, FL

A friend of mine who just move back from Va and moved there because she was told it was a good place to find work and live comfortable, said she found just the opposite.

with the same BS. I respect your opinion, but seriously, enough is enough.

I and many others happend to believe Warner is great on the stump (see: Mark Warner's 'Why I am a Democrat Speech'), but you dont see us hitting every Warner thread cheering about his charisma and great speaking ability.

you state that it is BS. Oh, I will continue to drive my point across on whatever thread I choose too. It's obvious, you are promoting Warner, but you had better develop a thicker skin because if my comments angry you, you won't last through the primaries.

I was speaking to ddeclue. Maybe I replied to the wrong post?

No worries. You're not the BSer in question.

:)

warner, why don't you post a thread and give some good information on the candidate that you like. i promise not to bash unless it's lieberman.

He has been rated the rising start of the Dems by many sources, and there must be a reason for that. I don't know anything about him, but I appreciate people who support him that post information here.

You see, DU SHOULD be for learning and passing around information, not for immediately slamming info we would rather other's not see.

I like to make up my own mind, thanks.

not just self-fulfilling circular hype.

If all you are doing is saying we should be for Warner because he's the hot topic and he's the hot topic because we're for Warner then that is circular logic and makes no more sense than all the "buzz" about Howard Dean in 2004 which all turned out to be hype too.

You are welcome to watch him speak but since I've already seen him and other 2008 candidates speak I'm offering my informed opinion on the matter rather than simply posting "buzz" everywhere.


Doug D.
Orlando, FL

The "buzz" about Howard Dean was NOT hype. Howard Dean was gutted by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY via a few hundred well-chosen DLC puppets in Iowa and the willing help of the MSM. CA, the most populous state in the union, did not get a choice -- we got the illusion of choice. The DLC decided the nominee was going to be one of their BOYS (Kerry among them) and guess who "won" -- only to lose to the worst president ever. That absolutely WAS predictable.

The DLC is now in the process of shoving their candidates to the forefront (Kerry, Warner, H. Clinton & Obama so far) and what is your bet that one of them WILL be the nominee? I've seen it happen too many times.

As for the rest of it, we agree. Warner IS being shoved down our throats. And for the record, Edwards was BOOED here at the CA convention in 2004 for his support for the war.

what a bunch of hooey! I watched this guy on C-Span a very lengthy interview I think it was Brian Lamb a month or two back -

I fell asleep TWICE (on the repeat)

The guy should just try a run for the Senate, really.

He'd probably be great as a Senator, but not prez.

The Warner folks have all started about 10 different Warner fluff threads in here to praise Warner and complain when we write the truth about how much of a snoozer he really is.

I've alerted the mods to ask them to combine all these simultaneous Warner threads into one as it looks very much like a plant job to me.

Doug D.

on DU.

'Plant job'... :rofl:

Perusing many of the chat-fests over the last week, the many predictions and lists and that sort of subjective handicapping of the 2008 election, I heard his name mentioned many times.

As I posted up-thread, I don't know who he us other than the fact that I've heard his name mentioned many times recently. That's the "buzz" of which I speak.

I also said that I intended to find out about him myself, and I'm terribly sorry that I'm not willing merely take your word for it. You see, I have a brain and I like to use it.

They have nothing to do with the real world campaigning just like in Howard Dean's case in 2004.

I get sick of people hyping Warner but never providing facts - I have brain too.

I've given my informed opinion based on hearing him actually speak. Have you met or seen him or do you just like to talk about "buzz"?

Doug D.

Republican light and a former Southern State Governor.That IMO, is the only reason he is being pushed. It would make no difference how wonderful he was or how much he had accomplished if he was from a more liberal state and was a Senator instead of a Governor.

... another bland, nebulous politician who's afraid to say ANYTHING. Just what we need to stay out of power FOREVER.

who attempts to raise taxes is not someone who is afraid of controversy. The fact that he is still enourmously popular speaks to his skill as a politician.

politically and provide enough time to recover and move on. This just shows strategy.

can always hurt you politically. He's a smart politician, but no one who avoids risks at all costs. He has governed extremely well and is a great hope for victory.

than that, people are jumping on a misguided bandwagon thinking that all we need to do to gain power and win elections is pretend we are red and moderate.I'm not buying into the idea that we need to only present a Red State, moderate governor to win.
One other point, I don't think he has enough experience to run this country. Frankly, we need real experience once Bush is gone. A one time governor with financial management skills doesn't enthuse me at all. I doubt I could ever vote for him for President.

he's a successful businessman and a former state party chair. He's really got a great personal story and a very folksy charm. And Bill Clinton didn't have foreign policy experience. And if you can't vote for a Democrat for President, you are part of the problem. We don't need Nader part 2.

you can bet on it. Which is why I liked Dean so much, he
had an actual record of balacing budgets WITHOUT raising
taxes. Too bad DNC AND DLC killed him in Iowa.

but his campaign was not killed by party insiders. It was killed by actual Democrats who voted for other candidates. That's what happens in elections.

Bill Clinton had a record in Arkansas of raising taxes, and won in 1992. Then, his first major move as President was to raise taxes (OBRA 93) and still won in 1996.

....he raised them on the richest people, to pay for Ronald Reagan's extreme tax-cuts on the rich, and spending us into oblivion.....well...kinda like BUSH>

but the DLC didn't kill him. And neither did the DNC. He simply was not ready for prime time. He was awful in the last few debates before Iowa, stumbling over his words, almost incoherent occasionally. And when that stupid story about how he had denigrated the Iowa caucuses on some Canadian talk show years earlier hit the airwaves, instead of handling it with aplomb and humor, he virtually ran from reporters who were trying to goad him into talking about it. There was actual footage on the news of him walking quickly down the hall trying to get away from having to talk about it. He was NOT READY to be a national candidate, he was still raw and unformed. Sorry, but that's reality. And I think he would have made a terrific President.

But you don't get to play that game in America until you learn how to be a TERRIFIC POLITICIAN first.

Dean would have made a "difference" as a president.
He is not out of it yet. Who knows he may yet run
in 2008. His work as chairman on a national level
has got to improve his political skills.

but i got over it.

with people in a common sense way that people can understand and accept. IOW, he knows how to deliver bad news and get people to join and support him to do better.

with all my critisms of Clinton, i could never accuse him of being dreadfully boring - or an ineffective communciator.

Warner puts me to sleep in about 30 seconds..

I think he would probably be a pretty good Senator, (i guess). but presidential candidate? nothing special about him... sorry.

And I can tell you Warner has done an outstanding job. Governor Gilmore left Virginia's finances in a complete mess. Warner has gotten the state back to where it was named the best run in the country in terms of fiscal matters.

As far as the Virginia economy goes...it is in very good shape actually. For sure there are areas that still need alot of help, but Warner is leaving the state in far better shape than how it was left to him.

to mention it either. Good for him, I applaud him for his fiscal restraint and his ability to make hard decisions. This doesn't however, mean as much to me as someone who actually stands up for what is right and just,has real foreign policy experience and doesn't defend this current administration when it is obvious they mislead us. I will never forget his "this Democrat" comment stating we shouldn't focus on holding Bush accountable for the actions that lead this country into war.

We need a fighter, not just a manager

Warner is far more than just a manager...

Step back and look at what he did...

In a red southern state that hasn't gone for a Democratic Presidential candidate since 1964, that nearly elected Oliver North to the United States Senate, that is the home to both Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and was the capital of the confederacy, Democrat Mark Warner not only got elected, but convinced a state legislature overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans to agree to a targeted tax hike, forced them to accept his budget priorities, swept his Lieutenant Governor, who is opposed to the death penalty into office to succeed him, and is now the most popular politician in the state.

Sorry, but someone who is a mere "manager" would not be able to accomplish that here.

However, that is different than what we need on a national level.

The managerial mentality has its place, but we also need some passion and larger vision. And these days, that means someone who is passionatly committed to more fundamental changs to the status quo than telling poeople to get an education so you can compete better in a global economy. That is the kind of non-positions and placebos that have gotten us into a mess.

If memory serves, the tax hike Warner proposed was LESS than the one bandied about by the Republican legislature.

Everyone knew the finances were horrific - all Warner did was do what EVERY Dem polician that follows a Repub into office has to do - clean up the mess.

The next Democratic Governor of Ohio will have to do the same thing.

Warner was a very good governor, but let's not get ridiculous. :)

P.S. I live in VA as well.

He certainly couldn't of accomplished anything with the help of Republicans if he behaved as a true Democrat.I wonder who did most of the compromising?

"Team of Rivals : The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln." Good politicians are able to get things done, even when they have to work with the opposing team. Crappy presidents like Bush only want to work with yesmen, and end up accomplishing very little. I am guessing that you wouldn't like Warner even if he was governor of an extremely blue state, and I am certainly not claiming he is the second coming of Lincoln. He is, however, an extremely popular governor, and for good reason.

We should simply not run Democrats in Red states...since compromise will inevitably have to occur.

that you would change your Clark avatar for a Warner avatar. Heck, I'd even pay for your star, and make you a custom avatar out of any picture that you chose. Hope you'll consider my offer.

I'm not willing to donate to the cause, tho.

there have been several dem. governors who were touted as having great national potential. Some I understood better than others: Chuck Robb, Jerry Balisles (sp? - btw, he was pretty bland, didn't see the appeal per national stage though he was a good gov., but it was the era of the 'technocrat democrat'), and Doug Wilder. The projected climbing stars never shone.

Well, Robb did go on to be a Senator, and a very popular one, until he self-imploded with some pretty foolish foibles.

My point and question is as follows: What stymies the potential, possibly the one-term nature (by law) of the Governorship of VA? Perhaps that is just too short of a time to fully get national recognition?

Warner seems like a very good governor, and a potential future leader within the party. My comments are just that I recall similar such sentiments being expressed in the past and it all feels vaguely familiar. Not sure if there is a disadvantage from trying to move forward from the VA governor's office, or if this is a case more of individual personalities (that the others' careers fizzled.)

Which is why more governors have been elected; they don't have the copious legislative paper trail.

You can bet the GOP is already on the job excavating dirt on every possible candidate and even employing private detectives to unearth the deep dark secrets to be used as ammunition.

It's all a game. And the GOP plays dirty.

electing this time around. No more surprises like with Bush. Your suggestions that we present some unknown so no one is the wiser seems like an insult to your fellow voters. Dem's win when the voters think about who they are electing.

This is in regard to presenting himself before the opposition has the chance to. You know, the Republicans? They are the opposition. I never suggested they do so to bamboozle the electorate.

Now I realize that's tough for some of you to understand that concept considering that you most fervently oppose those within your own (alleged) party.

And I realize sometimes you just have to twist or misconstrue comments to go off on a bent, but save your nonsensical misplaced rage for something with a semblance of context.

who is not known,I take that to mean we are out to fool the electorate. Honestly, if there is any dirt to be known about Warner, the GOP will find it or create something out of nothing to discredit him. IMO, we will not be able to win with a little known individual and a thin governing record.

and I like Feingold so far.

I had to do a double take. My perverted eyes saw a "c" instead of "st" in the word "stock" in the OP title. Whew!!

Both Warner and Hillary are cut from the same cloth.

I'm just saying...

But Warner doesn't pull away from Hillary's base. If all these guys get in the race she is going to walk with the nomination. It will be 2004 all over again except this time there will be a consensus candidate.

outside of the small Washington crowd do not like her and would certainly be motivated to vote against her. That said, I don't care for Warner either, he is just another moderate candidate with one term as Governor of VA notched on his belt. IMO, not enough to qualify him for President.

I agree completely. Some could argue Tim Kaine is more qualified to run for president as a two term mayor of virginias capital, one term lt governor, and now governor.

nt

Mark Warner needs to find us a candidate to take on George Allen this year. If he has the winning plan for Democrats, this is his real test.

As a presidential candidate, he makes me laugh.

:hi: Welcome to DU!

Thank you. I am excited to start posting on DU! I agree he should run for the Senate seat! If George Allen wins re-election I am going to have to blame Warner. As the Governor, and the number one Democrat in Virginia it is his job to either run or find someone to run as he has said himself numerous times on record - that latest on WTOP on his monthy radio show. We gave him a chance in 2001 yet he wont give us a chance now. It is all about him and running for president. I am dissapointed. At the least we need to find someone who will give Allen a run for his money and empty out that presidential account of his.

I'm not yet convinced about Warner...I like him and all that, but...

If he can get someone to challenge Allen and knock him out, I'd be a tad more impressed.

Not much more to say; he's still relatively unproven as a presidential candidate.

Another post about Warner here reminds us of what a great "manager" he is.

Inspiring language.

I hope that's not what the Democrats try to build an image around in 2008.

I might end up liking and voting for Warner. But I doubt it's going to happen if he becomes the MBA/Market Fundamentals candidate.

it's very hard not to.

And there's nothing wrong with being a terrific businessman. Helps enormously when things like Katrina happen.

But, I agree with you. First and foremost someone needs to inspire, lead and evoke hope.

with them. I'm sorry, but I don't by the image of a tough Warner taking on the Republicans. He is a compromiser-not that that approach is not sometimes necessary, but don't try to say he got things done by any other means, but compromise.

If you had followed the thread, to the post above: "First and foremost someone needs to inspire, lead and evoke hope."

I responded: "...and someone who will stand up to the Republicans from the get-go."

A generic comment. About generic nominee X, yet to be named. (I have already made is clear I don't know anything about Warner.)

I realize some of you are anxious to trash specific candidates, but make an effort to do it in context.

I stated the context in which I said it, although I owe you no explanation.

Who really gives a crap what you have to say?

You don't like Warner. So what?

In all your concerted attempts to throw ice water on his candidacy, you've made me want to get to know him more.

You see, I've seen your third-party type work before, always looking to trash and demean viable Democratic candidates. You may as well be on the GOP payroll, but not to worry, once you few finally latch onto a candidate you approve of who will run independently, you can actually participate in a campaign and go for, what was it 3% of the vote.

Your incessant negative harangue is tiresome, but I won't have to listen to it anymore because a buddy just PM'd instructions on how to deal with you. Bye.

Democrat that happens to believe we need to do some hard work to reconfirm our commitments and reach out to all Americans as Democrats-not Republican lites. It is not a secret that Warner is being promoted by the DLC, who are a part of the party, but shouldn't be its only Representative and declare whom we should support. The answer to winning is not just in presenting what some consider a winning candidate, it is presenting and promoting ideals and pushing issues that affect real Americans. The DLC always takes the short road of package, promote and raise money. I resent more, those that tell me how wonderful Warner is and how electable Warner is and how Warner is from a red state and the people in the red state really like him and if we want to win we need to elect someone from a red state etc. Well, America is blue as well as red, and maybe I have some concerns about how those of us who are blue stater's seem to be ignored in this process of kiss up to the red states. Do you really think they are stupid enough not to realize what we are attempting to do? I don't like the strategy and I don't think it will work.real Honesty will.
One other thing, Warner really angered me with his comments pertaining to "this Democrat", when he basically said we should give Bush a pass on the investigations on what lead up to the Iraq war and his move on implication. Sorry, but I think it is dangerous to ignore and not investigate the overuse and abuse of power. I will question anyones qualifications to be President when he or she doesn't question an obvious abuse of power and doesn't defend the truth.

You don't like him. We get it.
Others would like to find out for themselves.

Welcome to my world. Use the dissent to hone your persuasive skills for later. That's what I do.

and you want to FORCE us to eat that fucking cookie. And goddamn it, I won't eat any fucking DLC cookie! We need a cookie that will stand up to the world and scream I AM A REAL COOKIE! at the top of its lungs, not some DLC sponsored cookie dough-lite.

And what's the deal with all the cookie planting threads? You don't think people can't see through this crap and see that's it a DLC sponsored bouncing cookie planting campaign? You think we're that dim?

Well, I will NOT support any DLC cookie that is being SHOVED DOWN MY THROAT.

I'm telling you.

I like a different cookie.

Sadly there are folks where don't like my cookie either, even though he's only a DINO (DLC-in-name-only)

John Kerry, the red-headed stepchild of the DLC.

the war started?

He said lets "focus more" on finishing and getting out of there. He did not say lets "focus only." I agree that our priority should be trying to end our presence as soon as possible and ultimately saving our troops lives.

We will have plenty of time to analyze this administrations multitude of mistakes once our troops are out of there and Iraq is most likely evolving into a theocracy.

he wants to hold bush accountable then he should say so. but he hasnt - he doesn't want to talk about how we got there.

Now to the second and more controversial of Warner’s comments. Just a quick little one-liner that is probably the “right” thing to say, but politically removes a serious weapon in Warner’s arsenal.


"This Democrat doesn't think we need to re-fight how we got into (the Iraq war). I think we need to focus more on how to finish it," Warner said.
http://warnerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/11/warners-remarks-on-iraq-at-asia.html

The original quote appeared in the Wahsington Post. I will post that link when I can.

The main agenda of the progressive left is getting us out of Iraq. Rehashing how we got there for infinity will not achieve that goal. I agree with Warner - let's focus our energy on how to end this thing.

One of the charges leveled at the Democratic party by the GOP (and believe me, it does stick) is that we have no plan to get out of Iraq and all we do complain about us going in to begin with. Most of us agree it was a fool hardy move by the administration and the public now believes we were lied into it. OK. Now let's focus on getting out.

Is Important for TWO quite significant reasons.

The first was and still should be a at the top of a long list of CRIMES this president Committed against the people of America. It's a crime that Bush, Cheney et al need to be tried and prosecuted for.

Brushing over the reasons why we got into this EVIL war, I will rank as at the most stupid, ignorant dumb ass move the party has been making, but this is at the core of the problem with the DLC and DP Leadership.

But this is stating the obvious.

The fact that this has to be pointed out repeatedly to Democrats is not just bizarre, it's actually quite insane.

The Second significant reason why we have to ajudicate this matter, is so that we deal straight up with the evil policy which should never have been a docrtine hailed by any leader of this country at anytime, regardless of party.

This is no small matter, it is absolutely ignorant for any candidate or party member to act as though it is.

Thirdly, to ignore the reasons that got us into this war, is a LOSING STRATEGY, based on reasons #1 and #2

the American people. Our President should never show such disdain for the public and their will in order to execute an act of war. Should we continue to allow our leaders to mislead or even lie to us in order to achieve and outcome favorable to them? We are suppose to be living in America. We elect politicians who are suppose to be honest and who also uphold the Constitution. What ever happened to our President representing honesty and integrity? Bush has been neither one of these in regards to Iraq. This war has cost us over 2,000 American lives and has cost billions of American dollars.It has caused death and destruction in Iraq and ruined our reputation throughout Europe. Excuse me if I think Bush should not receive a pass on this devastation. Are you suggesting it is ok for our President to do these things and not be held accountable if it can be proven otherwise? Are you suggesting that all our Presidents should be able to get away with these things?
Also, I consider myself a progressive and I too want to see a positive and quick end to this war. However, I don't see why both issues can not be addressed simultaneously. I consider both to be of the up most importance.
Finally, in regards to a plan, we have offered a plan as Democrats, actually at this point there may be several plans, John Kerry offers a very well though out and detailed plan, and Murtha's plan has been reported widely.I want to know where Warner's plan or even some suggestions on the safe return and positive outcome to this war are. Suggestion the situation in Iraq needs to be addressed and not offering any suggestions isn't saying much at all. It's nothing but empty words.

isn't the only agenda, and i will argue it isn't the main agenda.

the main agenda is to put these fascists bastards in prison for the remainder of their lives.

there's a number of other items too, but let's deal with this one now please.

President ranting about putting "these fascist bastards in prison"?

Is this what you believe?

There is a difference between despising Bush and all that he has wrought on this country and publicly going out and making such a jackass out of yourself that you will never get elected to DOGCATCHER, much less President.

Americans want to elect leaders who are calm, cool, adult, decisive, compassionate, firm, inspiring and competent.

Having some enraged BOZO out there screaming about putting Bush in jail might give us our momentary jollies, but it is not going to get anyone elected President.

going on for days. if you don't like him, don't vote for him. you don't have to bash him. focus on promoting your own candidate.

surface material being posted here and to offer the reader a more well rounded view of the man. Bashing is something else and has to do with repeating Republican talking points and purposely posting known lies about someone else in order to inflame those reading the post.

Give us an in depth study of Warner, including his positions, his impact on Virginia over the last four years, what kind of candidate you think he is and will make (and specifically why) and whom you prefer instead.

All you do is tear the man down, I've heard nothing remotely in depth from you whatsoever, just glib, cliched anti Warner talking points.

been around long enough to be a cliche. As far as presenting in depth positions, I don't have to this, you are sold on the guy, I consider this to be your job to relay in depth information. All I've seen are resume materials and fluff pieces. I offer a balance to this. If Warner is applying for the job of President,IMO, he needs to present more that just a litany of accomplishments as a one term VA Governor.Why does he want the job? In other words, there isn't enough to go on in regards to Warner. Maybe some like an unknown that can't be pegged, but I like to know what I'm getting in a President.

Since the theory of detectability is one consideration in regards to Warner, I can only offer that the theory of winning with a red state governor has been disproved just about as often as it has been pr oven correct. IMO, it all depends on the the candidate and the times.

I consider my criticism of Warner over his "this Democrat" statement to be valid. I don't care how others perceived it or may spin it, I took it as an arrogant,smack down against anyone willing to call out the President and his actions, as well as an insult to those who have been addressing both the issue of the President misleading us and a positive outcome for the Iraq war. And he had the nerve to make this statement even though he has never been in a position to have had to make such tough choices before the war. His statement also concerns me on a more serious level. If we do not investigate and confront the mistakes and possible lies now, this will leave open the possibility that a future President will take our unconcern and inaction to mean that he or she is free to behave in a similar manner or even take it a level or two further.

....a strong candidate. He has some of the credentials that might help in Texas. Although, I think we are, in Texas, two years away from making the big moves.....it will come.....I assure you. And it will take people like Warner.

But now, I really believe he might make a strong running mate for Hillary Clinton.