|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Admiring Warner for Not Running Susan Estrich You know the race for the presidency has begun when first-tier candidates start bowing out before others have even announced they're running. Whatever the reasons - we'll get to that - it's a reflection of the structure of the system that the decisions are being made even before the results are in on the 2006 elections. Mark Warner's surprise announcement that he would not seek the 2008 nomination eliminates from contention one of the prime obstacles to Hillary's ascension to the throne. He is the only candidate who, without his wife's help, could give her a run for her money, literally. The wealthy venture capitalist could have taken out his checkbook and done in a flash what it will take Terry McAuliffe months of phone calls, backslapping and more to accomplish. As a Southern governor with no full-time job to hold him down, he had the time and the profile to sell himself, daily, as the kind of candidate, the only kind, who could actually beat a Republican by not sacrificing the South. He had a message - "past vs. future" - that underscored Clinton's vulnerabilities without mentioning her directly. He had already raised substantial money for his PAC, begun traveling, hired Jim Margolis, a first-rate media man, and begun putting together the infrastructure for a top-tier campaign. With the current schedule moving South Carolina to the first block of states, and with the time and personality to work intensely in Iowa and New Hampshire, Warner definitely had the capacity to emerge as the Un-Hillary, as one candidate surely will. None of that is to say he was a sure thing. As a one-term governor, he had limited experience in politics. Some of my friends who saw him in action said he wasn't yet ready for primetime. While his centrist positions are ideally suited to a general election, they are less well matched to the Democratic primary electorate, which (like the Republicans) tends to skew toward the extreme. Remember what happened to Joe Lieberman as a candidate? Still, governors fare better in national campaigns than senators; while they have to worry about defending tax increases (which Warner did) and parolees and probationers, not to mention men on furlough named Horton who go wrong, at least they don't have those endless and sometimes inscrutable voting records to defend. And they can claim to have executive abilities, to be real leaders, to have balanced actual budgets, which may be one reason four out of five of our last presidents, unlike Hillary and like Warner, have been governors. Story Continues Below
Warner has not ruled out running for political office in the future. But Margolis, his adviser, acknowledged that this might be the best year. So why not take your shot in your best year? What does he have to lose? His father has just turned 81. He just returned from visiting colleges with his daughter. "Fleeting moments," he described them. They are. Most politicians don't realize that because they miss them completely. Most politicians are lying when they say they've decided not to run because of family concerns. Usually it means they're out of money, support and gas. Warner had barely begun, but it was clear that he was out of none of those things. He had a shot, and for all appearances, he really might have given it up so as not to meet the "fleeting moments" that at some point in life we all recognize as the most important. How refreshing to find a politician who understands that, and just might find them important enough not to run. He may be ready for primetime yet.
COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Editor's note:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |