THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, October 13, 1994 TAG: 9410130491
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A4 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: Staff writer Keith Monroe compiled this column with help from staff
researcher Peggy Earle.
LENGTH: Long : 152 lines
The Virginia Senate race continues to attract attention from around the country and, now, even from abroad. A reporter from Britain's Economist magazine (Oct. 3 issue) caught up with the campaign at the State Fair in Richmond and found a metaphor for it there - ``the pig race, in which four swine chased around a track in a demeaning but undeniably amusing frenzy.
``In the political race, the contestants are down from four to three after the withdrawal of Douglas Wilder, a Democrat who opted to run as an independent and who now knows (thanks to poll ratings of around 12 percent) just how unpopular he managed to make himself during his four years as Virginia's governor.''
The Economist concludes that ``Virginians are about to elect either an embarrassing nonentity (Robb) or a famously convicted felon. . . . An ugly pig of a race it may be, but the winner's squeaks and squeals could be heard across the nation.''
Tom Carson, writing for The Village Voice (Sept. 27 edition), watched Minority Leader Bob Dole join the North campaign. He decided Dole wasn't having much fun.
``The delighted air that most politicians can effortlessly assume while doing something in which they don't believe isn't in his repertoire. That's why it's like watching a Rube Goldberg contraption in the shape of a man clank to life when Dole undertakes a chore he finds repellent but advantageous, like campaigning in Virginia for Oliver North. . . .''
Carson argues that Dole's support of North is more significant than at first appears.
``As recently as the '92 convention, Establishment Republicans still believed that the party could survive by merely placating the Christian right, as opposed to becoming its hostage.
``Accepting Ollie - the darling, if not the flat-out creation, of Pat Robertson's Virginia-headquartered Christian Coalition - has been a Munich for the GOP's old guard. Nothing spells out its inevitability like seeing Dole cave in, because he's made of sterner stuff than Neville Chamberlain.''
Carson also explains why North gets the lion's share of the attention in campaign coverage. ``The unlovely Chuck Robb, on a good day, makes Al Gore look like a figure of Falstaffian heartiness.''
Tom Baxter, a columnist for The Atlanta Journal and Constitution (Oct. 4), found North in Martinsville and decided that ``by a host of indicators - from the enthusiasm at this rally to the money he has in the bank - this race looks like North's to lose.''
Alex Chadwick of National Public Radio's Weekend Edition (Sept. 24) came to a similar conclusion after watching North on the stump.
``He seems to like running for office and he does it with a sense of style and good humor. . . . The Republican campaign consultant Roger Ailes once said a key characteristic for success in politics is what he called `simple likability,' and a campaign analyst in Virginia, not a North supporter, said this is what liberals and academics and the media don't get about Oliver North. People know everything about him, all the bad stuff and they still like him. He is an immensely likable man.''
David Corn of The Nation magazine (Oct. 24) also trailed North around Southside Virginia and decided North will be Virginia's next junior senator. He has a different explanation for the former Marine's appeal.
``North has tapped the obvious constituencies - economic and social conservatives. But he has also attracted the fed-up vote. These people, perhaps past supporters of H. Ross Perot, are looking for someone to toss a few bombs in Washington, and who better than the ex-Marine who went mano a mano with all those damn senators and House members.''
Corn found North on the stump to be ``charismatic in both the secular and the spiritual sense.'' He thinks the North campaign, ``which fuses elements of the insurgent crusades of Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, has engulfed and devoured the country-clubbers.''
And Corn thinks North has been able to fashion this coalition because of his skill as a campaigner.
``He is smooth, masterful. He doesn't explicitly mention abortion, school prayer, guns or gays in the military. But they are all there. And the initiatives he advocates directly - lower taxes, the balanced budget amendment, the line-item veto - are bedrock GOP issues that appeal to suburban and Chamber of Commerce Republicans. North . . . has found a way to speak passionately to different sorts of Republicans - small business owners, Christian Coalition members - at the same time.''
A somewhat different explanation for the North appeal appeared in the Washington Post (Oct. 2). American University professor Michael Kazin floats the startling hypothesis that North and Marion Barry are mining the same political vein.
``They share a flamboyant, confrontational style. And they employ that style in the service of a strategy that might be called Balkanized populism. The 1960s slogan `all power to the people' has been altered by both the Barry and North campaigns to mean power to my people.''
Kazin claims that both Barry and North make a narrow populist appeal ``confined to embattled minorities . . . in fact, each candidate draws nearly all his strength from a specific, rather narrow social group - and sparks hostility form almost everyone else.''
Perhaps most amusing is Kazin's assertion that ``the North and Barry campaigns share the same constellations of enemies - though one calls it the liberal elite and the other the white power structure.''
Tom Fiedler, the political editor of the Miami Herald (Oct. 4), found something else North and Barry have in common, and Robb and Ted Kennedy as well - confession.
``One wonders if the venue where absolution is sought hasn't shifted from the confessional to the political process, with voters acting in the role of priest.
``In this case, the imperfect politician comes to the voting booth seeking forgiveness in exchange for good works and a promise of future rectitude.''
Fiedler notes that both Robb and North ``have entered the public confessional, baring their sins. For Robb, they are ones of the flesh, moments of indiscretion with a beauty queen and at parties where others used drugs. For North, who shows no remorse, they are sins against the commandments, `bearing false witness' - to the Congress, no less - to cover up his role in the Iran-Contra scandal.''
Fiedler suggests that even if candidates are willing to repent of past errors, electing them may not be wise: ``Who will trust Oliver North, should he be elected? His reputation as a pathological liar precedes him into a body that still depends on a personal word to forge deals. Robb, of course, would return to the Senate knowing that his once limitless aspirations are forever gone. He will be doomed, like Kennedy, to wander the Capitol pursued by whispers.
``Confession and absolution may be good for the soul. But it remains unclear whether it's good for politics.''
The subject of North's veracity also came up in a tough column by The Wall Street Journal's Albert Hunt (Oct.6). He listed instances of North fabricating facts and ticked off those who have said the candidate is not to be trusted. They include the Defense Department's Richard Armitage, Gen. John Singlaub, two Annapolis classmates, Marine Col. John McKay, former Navy Secretary James Webb, Robert McFarlane, Brent Scowcroft, Norman Schwarzkopf, Michael Deaver and Ronald Reagan.
He describes a onetime Jesse Helms aide, who was a gung-ho supporter of the Contras, fuming that ``North forced the Contras to buy weapons at inflated prices, many of which were defective, and that the so-called diversion from the Iranian arms sales never got to them.''
Hunt ends his piece with the following harsh words.
``The North campaign says the criticism comes from Ollie-hating liberals. But Mr. North's pattern of duplicity is too pervasive to chalk it up to political hyperbole. And interviews with a score of former colleagues, from the military and the Reagan administration, suggest instead that many who know him best are horrified that Oliver North seems headed to the U.S. Senate.
``They oppose him not because of his ideology or what he today professes to believe. They oppose him not because they see Sen. Robb or independent candidate Marshall Coleman as an attractive alternative. They oppose him because having known and worked closely with Oliver North, they believe he's a liar.''
KEYWORDS: U.S. SENATE RACE by CNB