Some debate thoughts
Two lingering thoughts about Saturday’s debate between U.S. Senate candidates Mark Warner and Jim Gilmore.
Gilmore may have scored some points on Warner’s trustworthiness about a major tax increase while governor in 2004, but the real question is, did anyone notice? Warner’s support is pretty strong, and Gilmore needs to appeal to independents and those undecided. The trust question may not be enough to dent the armor of Warner, a popular politician.
The second question relates to Warner’s plan to form a bipartisan coalition of senators once he takes office to get measures through. Such coalitions were once a big part of the way the U.S. Senate operated. Senators traded on legislative promises and formed close bonds to help one another out. And it seems John McCain has reached across the aisle a lot to work with Democrats since his first bid for president 8 years ago.
But I remember hearing presidential historian Michael Beschloss make this point a couple of years ago. The Senate is different now. Senators don’t have the relationships with one another they once had, and instead of sticking around Washington, head back to their states on the weekends to raise money.
I wouldn’t bet against Warner being able to pull off his “radical centrists’‘ coalition. But I think there are forces at work that will make that task difficult. And if elected, I think he will have to cope with the frustration of not getting much of legislative agenda through in a timely fashion.
He is accustomed to being a chief executive, both in business and in government. It’s a different role being one of 100 senators, and one without any seniority.
With all that considered, the question becomes: why didn’t either of these candidates opt to run for governor again next year? In Gilmore’s case, he would have had to battle Attorney General Bob McDonnell for nomination. Warner could have garnered the Democratic nomination.
And while Warner is perceived to have a lead in the polls over Gilmore now, stay tuned. The race will tighten between now and November. And Warner could be vulnerable on the trust issue.
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( ) on July 21, 2008 at 2:09 pm
The ‘04 budget reform and the ‘01-‘02 budget mess go hand in hand as far as the trust issue is concerned. Jim Gilmore has vehemently resisted the suggestions that he left the state in a fiscal crisis, even as members of his own political party have been saying so for years now. That’s a strike, and a big one, against Gilmore on trust. Warner and a coalition of Republicans and Democrats in the General Assembly passed the budget reform in ‘04 as a response to the fine mess that Gilmore got us into. For Gilmore to cast this as evidence of Warner being a tax-and-spend liberal is strike two against him. An 0-2 count against a guy with a 110-mph fastball isn’t a good place to be, but that’s where Gilmore is.
Report Inappropriate Comment