Home Politicians Mark Warner – I will no longer support you

Mark Warner – I will no longer support you


(Mark Warner richly deserves this not just because of his egregious votes yesterday, but for his constant bashing of progressives, for his support of mountaintop removal coal mining and the Keystone XL pipeline, etc. Also note, I added the photo, courtesy of DonkeyHotey’s Flickr stream. – promoted by lowkell)

Mark Warner voted against the assault weapons ban. Mark Warner voted against limiting the size of magazines. Mark Warner is the most popular political figure in Virginia, and could have voted for both measures without in any way jeopardizing his reelection in 2014

Mark Warner is from a state that saw the slaughter at Virginia Tech.  Cho used both ten and fifteen round magazines for his two handguns.  Think how much damage he did.  Think how much more he might have been able to do had he had 30 round magazines and had to change less frequently.

I have been involved in Democratic politics in Virginia including at a statewide level. Mark Warner is considered the 800 pound gorilla of Virginia Democratic politics. In a sense my taking this stand may make me toxic in Virginia politics.

I don’t care.

It does not matter that neither of these amendments were going to pass. I rely on the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.:

There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.

It matters not to me whether Mark Warner believes the baloney of the gun lobby or merely lacks the guts to stand up for what is right.  What is right is to stop the slaughter.

If you are unwilling to step up to that, I am unwilling to offer you my support, my money or my vote.

  • teacherken

    made in my capacity as a citizen of and voter in Virginia.

    Because it is so personal, and because of its nature, I chose not to exercise my right as an editor and place it on the front page.  If one of the other editors chooses to do so, so be it.

  • teacherken

    being willing to allow states that allow almost anyone to conceal carry to impose their low standards upon states that choose to regulate more rigorously.

    I did not include that in the diary because it is not one of the issues raised in response to the slaughter of Newtown, even though it itself is an abomination.

  • Jason

    I agree with you. Mark’s voting on this issue was hardly a profile in courage. I expect better.  

  • Jim B

    I wonder why Warner has at time been republican lite. It would be great if the dems and repugs could work together, but those times are ancient history. So far I believe he has gotten the same results as Obama trying to work with republicans.

  • IBelieveInHenryHowell

    Can’t get the NRA mad at you if you are only in the senate as a stepping stone and not to represent the people of Virginia. Mark has never been a profile in courage, he is republican lite. He has never been from the democratic wing of the Democratic Party, but more from the Eisenhower wing of the Republican Party. With no seat at the table at the Republican banquet he was able to tap the energy of a Democratic Party desperate to win something and he still thinks that’s the wave he will ride to the White House. I may be wrong, but I’m only expressing my opinion.  

  • The last part of what Mark Warner has to say in this 2010 video is alternately ridiculous and insulting. For starters, dealing with climate change is about science, and about keeping the earth we all live on habitable. It has NOTHING to do with being “liberal,” as Mark Warner falsely claims. Instead, it has to do with being “smart” and understanding where the lowest-hanging fruit (aka, “biggest bang for the buck”) happens to be. And the fact is, the lowest-hanging fruit in energy is (e.g., energy efficiency, increasingly solar and onshore wind). As for nuclear, I’m not philosophically opposed, the problem is that that nuclear’s super expensive, plus there’s the waste disposal issue to deal with. As for coal, it’s a non-starter in terms of climate change, and it’s not even close to the “lowest hanging fruit” compared to energy efficiency and the other options mentioned – certainly not if carbon and other pollution costs are “internalized.” So why on earth would we invest our resources in that direction, aside from crass political pandering and kowtowing to large fossil fuel corporate interests? Ask Mark Warner, maybe he can answer that question, but I doubt it.

    It is stunning to me that we are as screwed up as we are in this country on energy policy…and both sides have been crazy on this, there are no clean hands on this subject.

    It pains me as a former telcom and IT guy to say this, but if I’m talking to a business school class today, I would argue the place to be where the most jobs and the most wealth created worldwide over the next 25 years is going to be in the energy sector. And one of the things that just blows my…blows my freakin’ mind is that we have got certain business organizations in America are basically saying, ‘let’s just keep the status quo,’ who are opposing a fundamental change in our energy policy. It would be like in the 80s if the National Chamber of Commerce said ‘we are adamantly opposed to cell phones.’ Or in the 90s, the National Association of Manufacturers said, ‘this internet stuff may not be worthwhile and let’s not just change our information technology systems.’

    Now, I am – and Lowell, get this down – I think there is not a silver bullet, I think your word exactly is right, ‘portfolio approach.’ None of us in this room are smart enough to figure out what’s going to be the silver bullet. So yes, more wind, more solar, more biofuels – although I think corn-based ethanol is a stupid, government-driven decision and not a market-based decision, but other biofuels make more sense. More nuclear energy. Yes, we’ve gotta use coal, continue to find ways to do it in a cleaner, more efficient way. Smart grid technology. I am not opposed to additional domestic oil and gas exploration. I think we ought to put it all out there…

    And I actually think there are three reasons why this has actually got a better chance, whether it is a national renewable energy standard, whether it is a cap-and-trade system, or whether if we were really starting from scratch we ought to have just done a carbon tax as opposed to the system that can be gamed the way cap-and-trade can be. But there are three reasons why I think this perhaps has got a better possibility of success than the political prognosticators indicate.

    One is, I think that most American business, as kind of messed up as Copenhagen was, most American business realizes that China is starting to eat our lunch. Even though they have not put in place national standards, they have higher auto efficiency standards, they are 5x or 10x investing on carbon sequestration than the way we are. You talk about the wind turbines and solar, they have made an economic decision that this is going to be a major job creator for their country, and they are eating our lunch number one.

    Number two, you have on this bill or on this approach, unlike on health care unfortunately, you’ve got a number of our colleagues on the other side who are recognizing from a business standpoint that we’ve gotta do this. People like, for example, Lindsay Graham recently, and a host of others…there’s a lot of bipartisan potential to change our energy standards.

    And third is, I would say to some of our more liberal Democrats in the room, there is an acknowledgment that you can’t have this purist approach. That this is not going to be totally solved by some airy dream of it’s just gonna be all solar and wind, that nuclear has to be a piece of this, that coal has to be a piece of this, that there’s gonna be a portfolio approach. And I think those three factors make the possibilities of some action on this area on a national basis much higher than it was, say, six months ago.

    Can we say “straw men?” Can we say “hippie bashing?”  

  • pontoon

    Democrat and has never been a Democrat in my opinion.  He relentlessly badmouths liberals in the Democratic party, and consistently supports legislation like Keystone, and votes in favor of the NRA far too much to name just a few.

    He’ll never be President.  He doesn’t have the charisma, nor the stones to stand on principle when it is required.

  • kindler

    …for a center that no longer exists.  He seems to be determined to become the Senate’s last Lieberman, even as every sign indicates that all the Joementum is going in the wrong direction.  

    And teacherken, you are completely correct in calling Mark Warner out on his shameful attempt to triangulate on assault weapons.  It shows that, contrary to the “conventional wisdom”, centrism is by no means necessarily more morally justifiable — often, quite the opposite, it means determining one’s position based not on principles but strictly on political calculations.