Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, March 9, 1995 TAG: 9503090047
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: PAUL GOLDMAN
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Last week, Richard Cranwell, Democratic majority leader of the House of Delegates, unleashed a strong attack against former Democratic Gov. Douglas Wilder. The Vinton delegate was venting a view widely shared in certain legislative and party circles. These Democrats have been angry at Wilder's early support for Gov. Allen's budget proposals, a fiscal blueprint that even former segregationist and Republican Gov. Mills Godwin had rejected.
Additionally, these Democrats were particularly critical of Wilder's recent criticisms of African-American legislators. In a nutshell, Cranwell said out loud what others had been muttering under their breath.
But why did Cranwell decide to do it? This is the same question Cranwell and others have been asking about Wilder and what they view as the former governor's pro-Allen, anti-Democratic tilt.
Let's cut to the chase: Cranwell and Wilder are both cut from the same political cloth. Each loves the chess game known as power politics. They have crossed swords before. They will again. Neither is what analysts would call an ideologically driven politician like Newt Gingrich claims to be. Each uses all the squares on the board, even moving the pieces in opposite directions at the same time.
So let's ask the question again, but in slightly different form: When they look at the chessboard, what are two of the craftiest men in Virginia's politics seeing? There are many possible answers. But each revolves around the same image: the power vacuum that exists in the Democratic Party. Both men want to fill it.
Previously, Cranwell seemed content with being speaker sometime in the future. Now, there are indications his sights are set on the office Wilder recently held. As for the former governor, his independent run for the U.S. Senate indicates that he, too, still has thoughts of high public office: perhaps the Senate next year or governor in 1997. Naturally, both men will deny such ambitions. That's the way the game is played.
But whatever the future may hold, both know the Democrats are underdogs in statewide races. Victory requires unity; Cranwell and Wilder want to show that without them, no one else can make it happen.
A unified party also will be necessary for Democrats to maintain their majority in this year's General Assembly elections. Both Cranwell and Wilder are therefore thinking ahead, as chess players must do. During the recently completed assembly session, Democrats showed a remarkable cohesion. Cranwell has received most of the credit, and deservedly so.
But as a realist, Cranwell knows the glowing reports of legislative unity hide a potential fissure. The party's African-American delegates were not happy with some of the positions taken by their Democratic colleagues. In Cranwell's view, Wilder has used his radio talk show to rub salt in these wounds. The majority leader claims the former governor has used this electronic pulpit to falsely charge African-American legislators with failing to stand up for their constituents.
Cranwell knows Wilder's charge also has another meaning; it suggests the Democratic leadership, led by the majority leader, has been passing legislation opposed to the interests of these same voters. Should this perception grow, it will hurt many legislators in their home districts and future statewide Democratic candidates such as the man from Vinton.
Cranwell and other Democratic leaders apparently believe Wilder is trying to drive this wedge as leverage over future Democratic candidates. The majority leader's broadside against the former governor no doubt won him praise from many Democrats, especially those too timid to defend themselves.
But is their assessment of Wilder correct? More important, who really wins in a Cranwell vs. Wilder fight? By his own admission, Cranwell believes attacking Wilder is good politics back in Vinton. The majority leader has dared the former governor to come to his Western Virginia district and campaign against him.
Let's assume Cranwell is right about his legislative district. Is the same true for other General Assembly candidates on the ballot this year? Many, especially the very ones Cranwell is trying to defend, live in a different political world. Wilder has strong support among the party's most loyal constituents. Indeed, a recent poll makes the former governor the front-runner should the party choose a primary to nominate a U.S. Senate candidate next year.
Cranwell's attacks on Wilder may make some Democrats feel good; it may be justified on the merits of certain issues.
But will they produce any practical results? Or are they more likely to backfire on other Democrats, assuming they have any impact at all?
This is a fair question to ask, especially when two power politicians try to mark off their turf like aging bulls in a Hemingway novel. A principled debate on fundamental differences is healthy for any political party, and any would-be leader. If this is what Cranwell has in mind, then Democrats would benefit from such an exchange.
But the public has little interest in - and even less tolerance for - power politics. Voters reward those who are seen as fighting for them. They usually punish those who are seen as fighting for themselves. Remember: In the end, the voters always have the final say.
Paul Goldman is former state Democratic Party chairman and a political adviser to former Gov. Douglas Wilder.
by CNB