Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, December 1, 1994 TAG: 9412010070
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A19 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
That brings us to Sen. John W. Warner, who took a great risk by opposing nominees of his party in successive elections. But Warner won. Or, at least, the men he refused to support, Michael Farris and Oliver North, lost. Now the question: Must Warner stand down or risk being turned out?
The senator has repeatedly said he will seek the GOP nomination for a fourth term in a primary and welcome all challengers. Such an event is 18 months away. But Republican leaders have far less time to decide whether they will contest Warner's claim to a primary under state law. And those who might challenge him for the nomination will have to begin getting their ducks in a row early next year.
In 1990, Warner persuaded a reluctant GOP state central committee to grant him a primary. That was a clever move. A convention might have tempted a troublesome opponent that the cost and difficulty of a primary would forestall. As it happened, no one filed against him and Warner was declared the winner without a ballot being cast. But the senator was obviously thinking ahead. A little-known provision of state law gave a federal officeholder once nominated by primary an unqualified right to be nominated by primary in the next election.
Patrick McSweeney, a prominent lawyer and chairman of the state Republican Party, thinks the law is unconstitutional and would be thrown out if challenged in court. I suppose he's hanging his hat on the historic posture of the courts that the internal affairs of a political party are its own business.
This is now probably academic. Warner haters among state Republicans are reconciling themselves to a primary; in fact, seeing advantages in it. As Doug Domenech, director of the Madison Project, a political committee formed by Farris, put it, "The political reality is that the only way to take John Warner is through a primary. If the party chose a convention, he would bolt." By bolting, he meant that denied a primary, Warner would run as an independent. But according to state law, once a candidate's name is placed on the ballot in a primary, it can't be listed on the ballot in the general election.
John Warner entered the Virginia political scene late in the presidential election of 1976 after resigning as director of the federal agency created by President Richard Nixon to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Soon after that, his marriage to mega-star Elizabeth Taylor made him an instant celebrity. On the strength of his first wife's money and his second wife's fame, he sought the Republican nomination for U.S. senator from Virginia in 1978.
With four candidates in the race, there was a real struggle, and the enormous GOP convention in Richmond required four ballots to work its will. At the end, Warner was narrowly defeated by Richard Obenshain. But he made a generous contribution to the winner and pledged his best effort. When Obenshain died in a plane crash, a doubting party central committee gave the nomination to Warner, which was the obvious and proper thing to do.
In a fairly good year for Republicans, Warner barely defeated a two-term attorney general. It was always my belief that the political event he feared most was a Democratic Party united behind a mainstream candidate. If so, Warner found ample confirmation in the awful fate of Republican statewide candidates in the elections of 1981 and 1985. Was that fear the genesis of his vote against Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court that upset so many Republicans? If so, it worked. No less a Democrat than then-Gov. Douglas Wilder urged his party to field no candidate against Warner in 1990 unless it could find a strong one. None was forthcoming.
Was Warner's success in avoiding a strong Democratic challenge the reason he refused to support Farris for lieutenant governor in 1993, or North for Senate in 1994? That is, by dissenting from his party's choice of champions of the religious right, did he hope to rally the moderate middle that generally decides an election?
Now that Republicans have regained control of the Senate, Warner has every incentive to stay put. So, it's likely he will get both a primary and a strong challenge from within his own party. But from whom? Until North's defeat, it was assumed to be Farris, who made no secret of his intentions. But enter Jim Miller, the distinguished academic economist and high official of the Reagan administration who lost the nomination to North last June but urged the party to unite behind its candidate. Miller apparently was offered the key post of director of the Congressional Budget Office, but declined, indicating he was considering another run for the Senate in 1996.
A three-way contest between Miller, Warner and Farris probably would have favored Warner, with the twin advantages of high name recognition and lots of money. Apparently, Farris came to the same conclusion, and has withdrawn from consideration. That move was foreshadowed by a Farris spokesman last week, who said, "A lot of people are prepared to sacrifice to make sure John Warner is defeated." Farris' willingness to think of the long-term interests of the party might cause some Republicans to look on him with more favor.
The one thing neither Warner nor the GOP can count on in '96 is the Democrats rolling over and playing dead. A divided party, as state Republicans now are, generally brings out the best in the opposing party, and Democrats have several good prospects.
Whether Warner wins or loses a GOP primary, Democrats will have a good chance of capitalizing on the outcome. Maybe it is time for King John to take that "honorable course" into retirement.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB