Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, February 1, 1995 TAG: 9502010030
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: PETER T. FLAHERTY
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Who can forget Warner's opening shot on North when Warner asserted, ``No one in the history of the United States Senate - since 1789 - has ever sat in this chamber convicted of a felony. Although there was a technical reversal, that is on his record.''
North's three convictions resulting from Iran-Contra were indeed overturned on appeal. In this country, when convictions are overturned, it is the same as if they never happened. The failure of a citizen to receive a fair trial is not a ``technicality.'' There are plenty of people who don't like what Ollie North did, and will never forgive him. But the distinction between an actual criminal record and one's personal ``record'' is not inconsequential. Warner understood it and manipulated the difference to intentionally deceive.
Warner could maintain that he used the word ``record'' in reference to North's personal history. But by employing the term in the same sentence with ``felony'' and ``technical reversal,'' Warner cleverly left voters with the false belief that North had a criminal record. While most citizens are understandably hazy on the nuances of Iran-Contra, many do know from high school civics class that felons do not vote or hold office.
It is curious that Warner made no criticism of North's actions when they came to light in 1987. Equally revealing is Warner's fervent defense of the moral climate of the Senate. In 1994 Warner was still referring to each of the Keating Five as ``my distinguished colleague.''
To be sure, Ollie North was not the perfect Senate candidate. Warner could have voiced his disagreements with North, but instead he resorted to McCarthyism. In by doing so, he told us more about John Warner than Ollie North. Unfortunately, it was only one in a series of below-the-belt hits that have marred Warner's career.
The most infamous occurred in 1987. Warner voted against the confirmation of Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court, probably calculating that it would earn him praise from liberal African-American activists. Warner had run ahead of other Republicans among black voters in 1984.
Warner's vote was a betrayal of his purported ``conservatism,'' as well as of Ronald Reagan, but it was not a total surprise. The real shock came in the formulation of his announcement. When the nomination was already dead, when Bork's harshest opponents had already ended the personal attacks, Warner told the Senate that he ``could not find the necessary compassion'' in Bork.
Bork described a 10-minute meeting he had with Warner just before the vote: ``I said I hoped he would vote for me and he simply did not answer. Nor did he look me in the eye. Our entire conversation was brief, devoid of content, and wholly unsatisfactory ... The absence of any real discussion made me think that Warner had merely wanted to be able to say he talked to me. After reading the account of his misrepresentations in the newspaper, I am convinced of it.'' Warner later wrote a constituent that he looked Bork ``right in the eye'' and told him he would not vote for him, and he told the media that he ``did not get satisfactory answers'' from Bork.
If Warner claimed a commitment to civil rights in 1987, he passed up a chance to demonstrate it in 1993 when the Mike Farris, the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, was attacked for his religious beliefs. Although Warner had disappointed Virginia Republicans by refusing to support Farris, it was generally assumed his differences with Farris were political. Warner's passivity in the face of ugly and unambiguous religious bigotry suggests Warner's objections to Farris may have been quite different.
Since Warner raised the issue of North's ``record,'' perhaps it is time to take a look at his own. John Warner is a multimillionaire, but he is hardly a self-made man. He reportedly received a $7-million divorce settlement from Catherine Mellon, his first wife, one of the richest women in the world. He married and divorced another of the world's richest women, Liz Taylor.
Warner's political career has advanced in a similar fashion. He is an accidental senator, becoming the GOP nominee in 1978 only after original nominee Richard Obenshain was killed in a plane crash.
One may like or dislike the politics of Ollie North, Mike Farris or Robert Bork. But we all must concede the personal energy, commitment and accomplishment of each. All three have demonstrated that money, luck and privilege are not prerequisites to doing something significant with one's life.
In his assault on North, Warner correctly said of Virginia, ``This is the state that prides itself on being the mother of presidents, the home of many of the founding fathers ...'' Like the founders, Warner is a member of Virginia's landed gentry, but the similarity ends there. Washington, Jefferson and Mason were, above all, egalitarians. John Warner cannot stand the egalitarianism of modern-day American society, and his response has been the character assassination of decent men.
The announcements that neither North nor Farris will challenge Warner in 1996 does not mean an attractive candidate will not emerge. My personal favorite is Kay James, who serves ably as Gov. George Allen's secretary of health and human resources. James is an African-American woman, and her candidacy would certainly shake up John Warner's Republican Party.
Peter T. Flaherty is chairman of the Conservative Campaign Fund in Vienna.
by CNB