Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, June 16, 1994 TAG: 9406270172
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-13 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Ray L. Garland
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Just how low? The some 265,000 votes cast in the 1994 Democratic senatorial primary compares with 403,000 in the 1989 Republican gubernatorial primary and 477,000 in the last statewide Democratic primary in 1977 when Henry Howell and Andy Miller sought the nomination for governor.
The '94 primary looks even more tepid when compared with some of the notable contests of the distant past. In the senatorial primary of 1952, which pitted the legendary Sen. Harry F. Byrd Sr. against Miller's dad, 346,000 votes were cast from a population less than half the size we have today. In the 1966 senatorial primary between Harry Byrd Jr. and another liberal hope, 434,000 Virginians voted.
But context is everything. Those primaries of 1977 and 1989 featured well-known and well-financed candidates. The primaries of earlier days took place in a tradition in which the Democratic nomination was tantamount to election and naturally drew a stronger interest, even in a state where voter participation was among the lowest in the nation.
Still, the dismal state of voter interest in party primaries does not bode well for their future use, which is too bad. Functionaries in both parties prefer on principle to keep nominations in the narrow bosom of the family. The Republican state central committee reluctantly agreed to hold a primary in 1989 because none of the three candidates (Marshall Coleman, former Sen. Paul Trible and then-Rep. Stan Parris) saw a clear advantage in a convention. Last December, Democrats were shamed into scheduling a primary by the taunts of then-Gov. Douglas Wilder, who reciprocated by promptly announcing he wouldn't enter the contest for which he had pressed.
Certainly, all seriously contested nominations should be decided by the participation of the general public in a primary. And deciding whether to hold a primary shouldn't rest exclusively with party committees. State law should provide a means whereby a candidate backed by a sufficient number of voter petitions could compel a primary. But the evident lack of public interest in party primaries makes it hard to argue the point. I don't know what it cost taxpayers to hold this primary, but it couldn't be much less than $500,000.
You can look at Robb's win in several ways. Logically, he is a stronger candidate for November because even the mass of voters who didn't participate now see him in the media limelight occupying the winner's circle. While the turnout was terrible, the primary at least demonstrated there was no great protest vote waiting to be mobilized against him in retribution for the scandals that have soiled his name for more than five years. He can claim vindication of a sort. And the money he spent for media seems to have bought a general improvement in voter attitudes toward him.
The Mason-Dixon poll has an excellent record of predicting trends and outcomes. Two years ago, it reported that only 19 percent of those polled held a "favorable" opinion of Robb. In the survey released one week before the primary, Robb's favorable rating had risen to 32 percent and he was leading (narrowly) a four-way race with Coleman and Wilder, now filed as independents, and GOP nominee Oliver North.
But you have to linger a bit longer over the numbers, which surely offer scant comfort to a well-financed incumbent who once stood as a political colossus and whose chief opponent, state Sen. Virgil Goode, stood against most of the accepted orthodoxy of the modern Democratic Party. In the end, outside of Goode's home area, few voters cared.
In Goode's senatorial district, however, turnout was extremely heavy and he beat Robb by something like 15-to-1. It makes you wonder what might have been had Goode not been outspent statewide by 10-to-1. Running on a shoestring as a conservative Democrat, his 34 percent showing was certainly no disgrace.
This much can be said for Robb: He suffered his long ordeal with more dignity than most of us could muster. In victory, he seemed very much a man reborn, albeit as an unabashed Clintonite. Few would begrudge him that much after all he's been through. But if Clintonism can engender no more support than it did Tuesday, it may be in deeper trouble than we thought.
The sudden passing of Dorothy McDiarmid recalled a side of Virginia politics far removed from the big-money campaigns of today. She served 24 years in the House of Delegates representing Fairfax County, rising to chair the Appropriations Committee.
Though a devoted Democrat and liberal, she was one of the least partisan people with whom I ever served, reaching out with a kind word to all members, never holding a grudge, always moving on to the next item on her crowded agenda.
The Quaker faith is one I don't know much about. But if it molded Mrs. McDiarmid's character and manner, it deserves much respect. She just seemed good, clean through. In those days, female members were formally addressed as the "gentlelady from ... '' It was a term never more appropriately used than when applied to Dorothy - truly a great lady who showed us how to persevere while always preserving decency.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB