He has a lifetime American Conservative Union (ACU) score of 12.5 (his lowest marks were in 2011 with a score of 5), a 100 percent rating by the NARAL Pro-Choice America, a zero rating from the National Right to Life, and a solid 85 percent in 2012 (the last year the ADA scored) from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action. With numbers like that, Virginia's senior senator Mark Warner (D) may be a rather plain vanilla legislator when it comes to rhetoric and demeanor -- he's no bombastic camera mugger like say Chuck Schumer -- but he is far from a political moderate on either economic or social issues.
Yet in reporting on Republican senator John Warner (no relation) endorsing the former governor's 2014 reelection bid instead of getting behind former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie's bid for the seat, the Associated Press's Larry O'Dell described Mark Warner as a "centrist" and uncritically forwarded the meme that both Warners exemplify the sort of bipartisan collegiality that is missing in Washington today but which Americans and Virginians particularly long for (emphasis mine):
On the eve of the 111st Congress's first day of business, the Washington Post and Baltimore Sun aimed to send off outgoing capital-area legislators Sen. John Warner (Va.) and Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (Md.) by piling praise on the moderate-to-liberal Republicans for their "independence" (read: opposition to conservative Republicans).
The January 5 Washington Post heralded outgoing Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) in "A Political Giant Takes His Leave." Warner's absence will leave a "void in [the] Va. delegation," the subheader to Amy Gardner's Metro section front-pager lamented.
Gardner gushed about Warner leaving "the broad legacy of a man who came to personify the Virginia political gentleman," and quickly turned to Democrats Mark Warner and Jim Webb to praise the former Mr. Elizabeth Taylor. Gardner then turned to her focus to "Warner's independent-minded style," citing his criticism in 2006 of the Iraq war effort and his opposition, in campaign cycles past, to conservative Republicans candidates.
As part of the liberal media’s ongoing tributes to moderate Republicans and their shrinking role in the GOP, The Washington Post on Monday boosted the "legacy" of Sen. John Warner of Virginia, with the headline: "A Political Giant Takes His Leave: Warner Leaves Legacy, Void in Va. Delegation." Unsurprisingly, the Post and reporter Amy Gardner want Republicans to know that Sen. Warner wants them to put on their best bipartisan faces for President Obama:
More than ever, Warner warned, the nation's leaders must work together. "I would hope -- indeed I would urge my colleagues to give the maximum bipartisanship to help his team resolve these almost unprecedented problems facing this country."
Amy Gardner also used this occasion to wonder which Virginia Democrat would be the best nonpartisan centrist to fill the "void" of the "giant" GOP moderate:
It's not unusual for journalists to attempt to distance themselves from the appearance of political ties, especially when trying not to be perceived as biased. But saying you do and actually doing are two separate things.
U.S. News & World Report Editor-in-Chief and chairman of Boston Properties (NYSE:BXP) Mort Zuckerman was asked about donating money to Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton's fading campaign by Huffington Post blogger and MSNBC "Morning Joe" regular John Ridley on the May 9 "Morning Joe."
"I wish I could make a contribution, but I'm in the world of journalism and I can't, but thank you for the offer," Zuckerman said.
What's another $500 taken out of your paycheck over the course of a year? It probably isn't much to global warming alarmists like Al Gore, but that's what it could cost you if legislation pending in the U.S. Senate is passed into law.
Does that $500 have your attention? Well, multiply that times every member of your immediate family.
According to a November 11 Washington Times editorial, a bill introduced in the Senate by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) that would require companies to scale back greenhouse-gas emissions could cost Americans $4 trillion to $6 trillion over the next 40 years.
If that bill were passed and made law, the tax would cost every man, woman and child - more than 303 million Americans - $494 a year, a significant burden on the U.S. economy.