Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 28, 1990 TAG: 9003280471
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Geoff Seamans Associate Editor
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
But in these parts anyway, conversation stirs anew. Not one but two Democratic pols (that's pols, not pals) from Virginia, Gov. Doug Wilder and U.S. Sen. Charles Robb, are being mentioned as prospective saviors of the party and candidates for national office.
After years of infertility, the mother of presidents may again be pregnant.
Still, the dilemma remains.
Localism and attention to the operational details of government enable Democrats to remain dominant in city halls, statehouses and Congress. But localism and attention to governmental detail help little in presidential races nowadays. In fact, they may be a hindrance, by deterring the party from developing a coherent national vision.
Ronald Reagan had (or at least plausibly pretended to have) such a vision, however cramped and wrongheaded it may have been. George Bush doesn't seem to have one of his own, but of course can borrow freely from Reagan's.
Wilder and Robb are very different men with very different personalities and very different styles, a point detailed in a news analysis this week by Margie Fisher of this newspaper's Richmond bureau.
Yet neither man so far strikes me as offering much promise for the Democrats. So far, both are being considered potential presidential timber (haven't heard that cliche in a while) more for what they are not than for what they are.
Robb, unlike losers Michael Dukakis ('88) and Walter Mondale ('84), is not a Northern liberal. But in the what-he's-not department, Wilder has the advantage. Not only is Wilder not a Northern liberal (well, he's not Northern, and he hasn't been a liberal since the early '80s), but also he is not Jesse Jackson.
Granted, Robb too is not Jackson. But Robb is not not-white. And in the Jackson context, for one of the few times in U.S. history, being not white is an advantage.
Both men, though, are Virginians, which raises intriguing questions about what each thinks of the other's quest for prominence.
On one level, they wouldn't wish each other well for the simple reason that they're rivals who aren't exactly personal chums, either. (Even if it were politically practical for both to be on the same ticket, the Constitution doesn't allow it.)
But on a second level, each might wish the other well - at least in '92 - for strategic reasons. Bush is a popular president; the Republicans will win anyway; let Robb (if you're Wilder) or Wilder (if you're Robb) run and lose, and then get off the stage.
But there's a third level, illustrated by a story told of a visit paid New York Gov. Mario Cuomo by Massachusetts Gov. Dukakis, before Dukakis decided to seek the '88 Democratic nomination.
During the visit, it's said, Cuomo noted a political fact of life. If Dukakis were to get the nomination, regardless of what happened next, Cuomo's chances for the presidency would be shot.
If Dukakis were to become president, Cuomo would be forced to the sidelines for the next eight years. (Even trouble-plagued presidents, Jimmy Carter being a case in point, are given their party's nomination for a second term.)
And if Dukakis were to lose to the Republicans, which is what happened, the Democrats would not soon turn to another Northeast ethnic.
Similarly, it's unlikely the Democrats would soon turn to another Virginian if either Robb or Wilder were on a losing national ticket in '92.
The political fate of either man, then, might depend not only on how well he can keep the other guy off the '92 ticket. It also might depend on how well he can stay in the limelight - yet keep himself off the '92 ticket.
by CNB