ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, July 25, 1996 TAG: 9607250021
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: ray l. garland
SOURCE: RAY L. GARLAND
A DEBATE in July before 200 people, even when carried by C-Span, does not change the landscape of a race for the U.S. Senate. Unless, that is, one of the candidates badly blunders. But neither of the Warners, John or Mark, was going to give any hostages to fortune in a midsummer outing before the Virginia Bar Association at the Homestead.
Former Gov. Gerald Baliles dropped into a seat beside me and asked for a sheet of paper on which to keep score. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, he scored fellow Democrat Mark Warner as the clear winner. When it was over, I ran into the man who occupies Baliles' old perch as attorney general and hopes to succeed to his other old job as governor. James Gilmore allowed he might be prejudiced. But he thought it wasn't even close: Fellow Republican John Warner, basking in the glow of his primary triumph, won hands down.
The audience seemed to take both men to heart almost equally. My own view is each did almost exactly what he needed to do and could hardly have done it better. The incumbent was confident without a trace of arrogance while the challenger stood his ground bravely, but without malice. Of course, the real audience to be impressed was the one at home in front of the tube.
For politicians, TV is an extremely tricky medium. For one thing, they are at the mercy of the editor who boils down lots of tape to a minute or two, which may show one candidate to a particular advantage or disadvantage. But the main hazard is the way it translates a candidate's personality, favoring soft edges over hard and the gentle manner over the spirited or cross. The oratorical style that defined great leaders of the past has given way to the conversational style.
Catching a few excerpts on local TV, I thought the senior senator's short answers and affable manner showed a sure mastery of the medium that plays the largest role in reaching those undecided and generally uninformed voters that decide most elections.
Of course, free time on local news programs, while important, is by far the smaller part of television's role. In paid spots, the candidate's handlers have almost total freedom. Both Warners are in a position to command the best talent and deploy their wares lavishly. But this could be the first campaign in which John Warner is outspent by his opponent.
In all these debates now, candidates try to spring a surprise that might fluster their opponent. "I will make you a deal," Mark Warner said. "Add up all the money you've spent in the past and I won't spend more than that." It seemed to throw John Warner for a moment, who offered a "high five" to salute a good debating point rather than a handshake to signify a deal. That was an offer, perhaps, the senator should have taken. My guess is Mark Warner will spend substantially more on this campaign than John Warner has spent in all his races, back to 1978.
Mark Warner also boasted of his refusal to accept contributions from political-action committees. That was undercut to some degree by his status as the wealthiest candidate Virginia has ever seen, with a personal fortune estimated at $100 million, and by an early campaign blunder that seemed to show him speaking with forked tongue. His campaign was caught telling PACs how they could help by contributing to Democratic committees that would use the money to assist Mark Warner. The candidate, who said he had no knowledge of the ploy, promptly pledged not to solicit PAC gifts in any form.
On matters of greater substance, John Warner posed three questions and asked for a yes or no answer. On the question of a $500 credit against taxes due for each child in a family earning less than $100,000, which is a key GOP plank, Mark Warner said, "No, I think balancing the budget is a higher priority than tax cuts." Then he was asked if he supported a national right-to-work law to ban a compulsory union shop in all 50 states. "I strongly support Virginia's right-to-work law," Mark Warner replied, "but I don't think we ought to federalize it."
On another tricky labor question, Mark Warner was asked if he supports the Democratic proposal to make it against the law for employers to replace striking workers. "I won't accept that it's an either/or question," he said. "With certain qualifications, I could support it."
But Mark Warner had two questions of his own, and kept coming back to them, suggesting they will find a prominent place in attack ads later in the campaign. "Why," he asked John Warner, "did you vote to cut $270 billion from Medicare and $10 billion from the college-loan program?" But the Democrat did put himself on record favoring a balanced-budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution, opposed by most members of his party in Congress.
In the fashion of most Democrats, Mark Warner was at pains to paint himself firmly pro-choice on abortion and against vouchers that can be used by parents to send their children to private schools. John Warner defined himself as not being "firmly" placed in either the pro-life or pro-choice category. But he did offer a strong defense of his votes against using federal funds to pay for abortions. On school vouchers, recently embraced by Bob Dole, John Warner gave strong and unequivocal support.
While both candidates must be wary of defining themselves before they see which way the electoral cat jumps, they may be making a mistake by going too much for the middle. Mark Warner has doubtless been told over and over that Virginia is a conservative state and he must draw a distinction between himself and his national party. But if he is to win, he must mobilize all of those who believe the existing system is grossly unfair and should be changed. That might suggest more red meat on the table for liberals and the disaffected.
Besides, John Warner owns the middle, and his celebrated break with his party has validated that claim. But just in case Democrats really start rolling, he ought to be prepared to give a more ringing defense of conservative ideas than he did in this first debate. He hinted at such a strategy by twice asking, "Who is the real Mark Warner?" Republicans must hope he's ready to fill in that picture and title it: "Liberal at Work."
No impartial observer could fail to see Mark Warner as other than fully prepared for the task at hand, nor John Warner as other than a highly skilled politician at the top of his form. Both men can be proud of a strong beginning.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times columnist.
LENGTH: Long : 112 linesby CNB