Politicians are fond of characterizing their candidacies as historic choices, with the opportunity to elect them and usher in the Age of Paradise, or elect their opponents to preside over the destruction of All That Is Good and True. Today, the party lines are so blurred that such distinctions are minimal at best. Republicans want to spend a lot; Democrats want tospend a lot more.
But the 2008 Senate race in Virginia apparently will offer a refreshing contrast between two former governors: Democrat Mark Warner and Republican Jim Gilmore, who announced his candidacy last week.
Warner has the advantage of being a cipher. He evidently holds no deep convictions or clings strongly to any bedrock principles. Having made a fortune investing in the cell phone industry, the only acquisition that’s a challenge for him is power. Warner apparently likes to hold office merely for the sake of holding office.
As governor, he had only one substantial achievement: enacting the largest tax increase in Virginia’s history, and he achieved that only because the General Assembly was even more tax-happy than he was. By contrast, Gilmore ran on a pledge to reduce taxes — in particular, the hated car tax. He persuaded the legislature to pass a bill phasing it out over several years, and when lawmakers later tried to renege, Gilmore insisted they keep faith with voters.
People who stand on principle make enemies, which puts Gilmore at a disadvantage to Warner.
But Gilmore has several advantages. For one thing, Warner was a governor of trivialities. By his second year in office, he was so desperate for a legislative victory that he was reduced to lobbying for a new seat belt law. Gilmore addressed substantive issues, such as protecting the large concentrations of critical data centers in Virginia — the Pentagon, the CIA, the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, etc.
Moreover, Warner was wrong on some of the issues that matter most. Although the vast majority of Virginians want to see immigration laws enforced, Warner sided against the law-abiding in favor of criminal residents. He vetoed legislation that would have prohibited people living in Virginia illegally from receiving the in-state discount for college tuition — yet refused to extend in-state tuition rates to the dependents of military personnel stationed in Virginia.
Another advantage Gilmore has is that he is among the most knowledgeable politicians about our most pressing problem: terrorism. In 1999, he was tapped to head a national commission on terrorism. At the end of that year, the panel reported that a catastrophic attack in the United States was inevitable and recommended dozens of steps the nation should take to prepare, such as coordinating strategy among federal, state and local responders. Many of the Gilmore Commission’s proposals were among those quickly adopted and put into operation after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
Even more important, Gilmore understands that forfeiting freedom does not defeat terrorists. “By moving into the homeland, the enemy is trying to force the government to invade all the liberties and privacies of the American people,” he said. “The challenge is to develop procedures and systems to combat the enemy while preserving the civil liberties of the people.”
Gilmore also has the advantage in the characteristic that should matter most: He can be trusted to keep his word; Warner clearly cannot. Recall the 2001 gubernatorial race, when Republican candidate Mark Earley warned that Warner would raise taxes if elected. “The fact is that I will not raise taxes,” Warner repeatedly assured voters. “My plan states it. I’ve said it throughout this campaign.”
He could have said it ad infinitum; it never would have been true. Instead, Warner proved to be precisely the sort of politician he convinced gullible Virginians he was not. “The old style of politics of saying anything to get elected is not what we need,” candidate Warner said. “And no matter how many times my opponent may say otherwise, I will not raise your taxes.”
He deceived enough voters to defeat Earley, one of the most decent men in state politics. In a race between Warner and Gilmore, voters will be faced with much the same choice. It will be interesting to see whether, in 2008, they make the same mistake.
Examiner Columnist Melanie Scarborough lives in Alexandria.
