ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, June 6, 1996 TAG: 9606060041
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: RAY L. GARLAND
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
SEN. JOHN Warner has landed his party - and possibly himself - in a pickle. As the June 11 Republican primary to nominate a candidate for the U.S. Senate stares party regulars in the face, many will find themselves on the horns of a dilemma: Do we dare to punish Warner for his perfidy if that risks the seat falling to a Democrat?
It would be nice to know exactly what Warner had in mind when he repudiated his party's candidate for lieutenant governor in 1993. You can argue that Michael Farris wouldn't have defeated the incumbent Don Beyer, and George Allen was so far ahead in the race for governor, that Warner's October surprise changed nothing.
In fact, the vote in the contest for lieutenant governor between Beyer and Farris was close enough to convince many Republicans it did make a difference. That Beyer survived the Allen landslide to position himself to run for governor in 1997 rubs salt in the wound.
But the larger result was that Warner could exert no positive influence in persuading his party to nominate someone other than Oliver North to oppose Sen. Charles Robb in 1994. The GOP convention that year was also close enough to suggest that had Warner not been in the doghouse, the party might have gone for his candidate for senator instead of North. Ironically, that candidate was none other than James Miller, who is now Warner's primary opponent.
Had Miller been nominated two years ago, he likely would have defeated Robb. But it is by no means clear Warner wanted that. Certainly, by enticing Marshall Coleman to enter the race as an independent, he took out extra insurance on Robb's return to office.
It is by studying Warner over many years that you discern the threads of an exceedingly clever strategy. Facing a mainstream Democrat in 1978 in the person of former Attorney General Andrew Miller, Warner won by less than 5,000 votes in what was a pretty good year for Republicans.
It's understandable that Warner believed it served his purpose to keep peace with Democrats. For one thing, they have mainly controlled Congress. The way he did it was by hunkering down whenever the Senate was engaged in a partisan brawl, and by throwing liberals what few bones he could, such as his last-minute vote against Robert Bork for the Supreme Court when the nomination was already lost.
Whatever you think of such a strategy, it worked beautifully in the election of 1984, when Warner drew a very weak Democratic opponent, and 1990, when he drew none at all. The practical result speaks for itself: Warner has won more statewide races than any Republican in Virginia history.
Why, then, did Warner go to such unusual lengths to make trouble for himself in 1996? For one thing, Democrats were unlikely to give him another pass. Mark Warner and his millions were already upon the scene, and other potentially strong candidates were being mentioned.
But just as John Warner never seemed entirely comfortable with the Virginia Republican Party - which he had good reason to see in the '80s as an alliance of losers - it had never been entirely comfortable with him. As the party adhered ever more firmly to the right, there was always the possibility of an ambush.
Warner took out insurance against that in 1990 by persuading the party to grant him a primary, which he won by default. Little did the GOP state central committee realize, apparently, that under state law, he would have a perpetual right to insist upon nomination by primary.
But a primary attracting only a small turnout of true-blue Republicans also risked an ambush. To make sure that didn't happen, Warner had to make his cause the cause of independent-minded voters of all political stripes. Opposing Farris and North was the perfect device, raising as it did such issues as the religious right and Iran-Contra, upon which many people had strong opinions. Warner's declaration of independence from party orthodoxy was also guaranteed to receive a glare of publicity that would fix the episodes firmly in the minds of voters.
It was a strategy that covered all bases. If somehow forced to seek the favor of a GOP convention, Warner could always justify running as an independent. If faced by a right-wing opponent in a primary, he could make a moral appeal to those who wouldn't normally care. And if confronted by a strong Democrat in the general election, at least there would be no great passion to beat Warner.
If you absolve Warner for following a cynical strategy, you should equally absolve Miller. Unable to afford a high-dollar media campaign, Miller has been forced to mobilize as best he can those people motivated by such hot-button issues as abortion and gun rights. Failing that, he has little chance. But a bargain-basement campaign emphasizing issues known to be in disfavor with a majority of voters has given his campaign a certain unreality.
Miller, the professional economist and inexperienced politician, deserves credit for the strong showing he made against North. Had people like Warner and Allen given him more effective help, he might very well be in the Senate now. Given his distinguished academic career and service in the Reagan administration as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission and the Office of Management and Budget, there's every reason to believe Miller would be an excellent senator and powerful exponent of conservative fiscal policies.
That said, one is forced to ask the question, is it wise to cut off your nose to spite your face? In Mark Warner, Democrats are uniting behind a candidate who will almost certainly have every resource known to modern politics. Nor does the overall political climate seem entirely promising for Republican prospects.
No self-respecting party should accept the selfish and destructive course John Warner has followed. But there is reason to doubt Miller can hold the seat in the event Warner is repudiated. If that sounds mealy-mouthed, it is. The heart says one thing; the head another.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times columnist.
LENGTH: Long : 107 lines KEYWORDS: POLITICS CONGRESSby CNB