Update on John Warner's plan to seek reelection
Since I posted last night that John Warner WILL seek reelection to his Senate seat in 2008, several others have chimed in with their thoughts. Some of those joining in the discussion include: Raising Kaine, Bryan J Scrafford, and even The Hill is reporting on it.
Not Larry Sabato has an excellent list of "losers if John Warner runs for reelection" (which he is). The list includes Tom Davis (who was rumored to be interested in the position), George Allen (I don't really agree with this pick), and one I find to be really interesting, Nancy Pelosi (the reasoning behind this is that Tom Davis would likely have vacated his seat to run for Senate, giving Pelosi an opportunity to pickup a Republican held House seat in 2008 when Dems will be playing defense). The only thing missing from Ben's list is MARK WARNER, who some have said should/may run for the seat, but it's unlikely (according to some) that Mark Warner would even consider challenging John Warner again.
Several of the comments in the NLS post are pretty interesting, and some funny ones as well. Jaime of West of Shockoe gave a witty (and hilarious) reason as to why Warner wants to serve another term:
"It's bc he loves Jim Webb and is super psyched to work with him until 2012. He's like, 'FINALLY-someone competent!'"
UPDATE: I see Vivian Paige is blogging on this now as well. Vivian offers some good commentary as to what this might mean for the 2009 gubernatorial election in Virginia, and who may be running.
2 comments:
OK. Wait. Hold the friggin phone. Let's have a reality check, here.
a)Tom Davis? OK, duh. Of course he's a loser in this situation. It has been common knowledge for years that he is the heir apparent to the GOP Senate throne in Virginia, and it just so happens that he's one of the few Republicans that Virginians as a whole feel they can trust. The fact that NORTHERN VIRGINIANS feel they can trust him speaks even louder volumes.
b) George Allen. (snickers)
"Who's George Allen?" You really gotta be kidding me. He's political toast, mark my words.
c) NANCY PELOSI? Ok, I understand the rationale, but it's a quantum leap to say the least. I mean, I'm quite sure that there will be a dozen (or more) districts in which Democrats have a shot to take power. By this same line of logic we could also call Harry Reid a loser due to this decision based on the fact that Dems don't stand a very good chance of picking up this seat since John Warner plans to run again.
d)Mark Warner? Before November 7 of this year, the basic notion was that some Virginians were pissed at Mark Warner for not challenging George Allen (whom he would have smoked)and instead jumping right into the presidential ambitions. Then, those people got used to the decision that he made and suddenly made peace with him and became excited about his chances for being the 08' nominee. Then he quit that. Pissed those same people off yet again. So whatever. He likes the non-political life for now, and I must say that the only office I can see him running for in the near future is Governor in 09'.
Mostly because
a) We've already had a Warner-Warner Senate matchup (1996)
b) Dems might feel their luck is running out in 09', might wish to play wild-card.
That's my take.
"OK. Wait. Hold the friggin phone. Let's have a reality check, here."
Hey, it wasn't MY list, it was Ben Tribbett's list.
I will say though that I hardly think Nancy Pelosi is going to lose any sleep over this.
Post a Comment