Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, October 2, 1994 TAG: 9410040011
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: G3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: GLENN K. DAVIDSON
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Some wanted us to go on for one purpose, the defeat of Charles Robb. Among those most aggressively pushing this view were some ``wise and objective observers'' of this race, but more about this later. But as Wilder and I often said, this campaign was never about defeating someone; it was about giving the voters a choice - someone they could vote for, not against.
What his withdrawal should demonstrate, once and for all, is that Wilder has never had a vendetta against or any animus toward Robb, for surely Wilder's continued presence in the race would have spelled defeat for Robb in November.
As recent polls have demonstrated, this election is less about issues than it is about character. And one's character, as Wilder so aptly explained, is best defined by one's entire record. Throughout the campaign, Wilder stressed his record of ``proven, principled leadership'' for the commonwealth during 25 years of public service.
It was he who cajoled the other candidates during debates into telling the voters what they had actually done to solve particular public problems, and not just tell people what they wanted to hear.
It was Wilder who scolded the moderator and hosts of the Virginia Bar Association debate at the Homestead for not getting to the issues that really mattered to Virginians - crime and drugs. And it was Wilder who raised these issues at the televised Hampden-Sydney College debate.
Wrongly assuming that most if not all of Wilder's support was in the African-American community, which traditionally votes Democratic, Robb and his staff assumed their campaign would benefit from his withdrawal. But they have found they were wrong: Recent polls support what we knew all along - Wilder's appeal transcends party and racial lines.
His record as a fiscal conservative won him many converts from the ranks of independents and Republicans. After all, he was the only governor who chose to cut government spending to balance the budget during a recession rather than raise taxes. Robb expected a big bump from Wilder's withdrawal, he had to be extremely disappointed by what recent polls have shown: Robb and North would evenly split votes thought to be Wilder's. Wilder has a very loyal following. As some press reports indicated, some Democratic Party officials were actually willing to give up their office to work for him. And many of these have no interest in returning to the fold, let alone helping the nominee, as they were put off by the high-handed, hardball tactics of their brethren (some of whom had secretly professed their devotion to Wilder) who forced their resignations or kicked them from their posts. And these were among the Party's best workers.
Without Wilder in the race, African-American voter turnout may be less. Although Robb is taking his campaign to that community, so now is Oliver North. And there is some credence to North's assertion that a strong residue of resentment still exists toward Robb among African-Americans over efforts to discredit or cause unwarranted problems for Wilder. Many hold Robb responsible for the spread of unsubstantiated rumors about Wilder's social life, the perpetuation of the myth that somehow Robb's political problems were caused by Wilder, or the taping of a private phone conversation. Wilder has strong support in the state's Hispanic community, a vital and growing community virtually forgotten by the other candidates. Many independents took great pride in Wilder's decision to break from the Democratic Party and run as an independent. High-ranking representatives of United We Stand America-Virginia, the Libertarians, and the Patriot Party organizations called regularly to express support for Wilder's candidacy.
What all of these people may be looking for is a sign from Wilder. And no sign could be as important and effective as a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to any of the candidates.
While some have suggested that Wilder's ``on-again, off-again'' candidacy hurt his reputation, I disagree. For two very different reasons, I believe his candidacy helped it.
Wilder gave people a choice.
He offered hope to voters dissatisfied with the two parties' nominees. Those of us collecting signatures outside the Richmond Coliseum at the close of the Republican convention could see the disgust on the faces of Jim Miller delegates as they left the hall. They walked in droves to our tables to sign the Wilder petitions that would allow him on the November general-election ballot. And the numbers of Democrats who showed up at Wilder's announcement, many of whom had been actively involved in the campaigns of Robb's primary opponents, was indicative of Democratic dissatisfaction with their nominee. I should note that representatives of the fledgling Virginia Independent Party approached our campaign about accepting its nomination. We declined, however, as Wilder's candidacy would not be tied to any party affiliation. So, Despite suggestions to the contrary, Wilder's candidacy was not about ego; it was about giving people a positive alternative.
Wilder's record as a superb governor was firmly established during this campaign.
As governor, Wilder was under intense and continual scrutiny by the press. To borrow a line from a song by the Police, ``Every move he made, every breath he took, they were watching him.'' Press reports and editorials concerned his individual actions, never his overall record.
To compound the problem, Wilder, as a hard-working, conscientious public servant, never had the luxury of time to take his story directly to the people. But this past August, he finally did. Armed with materials telling of his accomplishments, Wilder crosscrossed the state to meet and speak with people. Today, no one questions or doubts that Wilder was a great governor.
Finally, let me say a few words about some of our so-called ``objective'' political consultants, pundits, prognosticators and reporters. The next time you read or hear one of our so-called ``objective'' political consultants, pundits, prognosticators and reporters say Wilder made a mistake in withdrawing from the Senate race, consider their underlying interests.
You see, some of these people's overriding concern is self-promotion. Without a ``win,'' a political consultant is nothing. Without an accurate prediction, a political prognosticator is a nobody. And without a provocative and sometimes messy race, a political reporter is unread.
There are those whose entire careers experienced a rocketlike boost with Wilder. As the first-ever African-American to run for governor, the eyes of the nation were on his 1989 race.
Suddenly, the faces of people previously unheard-of were on national television; reporters' articles were played on the front pages of their newspapers; and political consultants were in demand. Lest their visibility and income decline, they rode Wilder's coattails throughout his terms as lieutenant governor and governor, as a candidate for president, and during his public dalliances with a Senate run. No wonder they sought his entry into this race.
Add to this mix the fact that some would relish the defeat of Robb because of what they think he and his staff did to them and their careers - spreading salacious rumors about their personal lives, quashing newspaper stories, threatening retaliation - and what have you got? Trouble., for even a moment, to suggest that should Why is that he and she might know of what these people speak and treat it appropriately.
Glenn K. Davidson, chief of staff and communications director in Gov. Douglas Wilder's administration, managed Wilder's U.S. Senate campaign.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB