THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, November 1, 1994 TAG: 9411010013
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Long : 117 lines
Editorial endorsements are often a case of choosing between the lesser of two evils. Rare is the candidate who fulfills an editorial board's dreams. In the case of the Virginia Senate race, the decision has been especially difficult. We have been reluctantly forced to conclude, unfortunately, that we cannot in good faith offer our endorsement to any of the candidates.
From a political perspective, retired Lt. Col. Oliver North, the Republican candidate, comes closest to our philosophy of government. He favors lower taxes, less government spending, improved national defense and an assertive American foreign policy. North supports term limits and such worthwhile congressional reforms as outlawing any repetition of President Clinton's retroactive tax increase, adjusting tax rates for inflation and requiring a congressional super-majority to raise taxes.
That is not to say we agree with all his issue positions. On trade, an issue crucially important to a seaport such as Hampton Roads, Mr. North takes the ``free but fair trade'' position. Since any trade that satisfies both parties is by definition fair, ``fair trade'' is simply a code word for trade policies that will micromanage American business, e.g., what kind of microchips we will use in computers, etc. It's hard to tell where Mr. North stands on the future of Social Security, since he has both said it shouldn't be touched and that it should be made voluntary.
Mr. North is the candidate for angry voters who wish to stick a finger in the eye of the ``establishment,'' a sentiment we can certainly understand. Those who scratch their heads in amazement at the popularity of a man who admits he misled Congress don't understand that many Americans believe Congress overstepped its bounds too.
Oliver North remains a deeply flawed candidate, however. His truthfulness, not merely in the Iran-Contra affair, but in matters large and small before and since, is a major issue. He exaggerated his closeness to President Reagan and the intimacy of his involvement with many White House decisions. One need not be a North critic to be troubled by this tendency.
Mr. North's judgment in the Iran-Contra affair is open to serious question, though not for the reasons usually advanced by his critics. Arming the Nicaraguan Contras in the way North went about it was probably a marginally justifiable act, given the circumstances. The Reagan administration, however, deserves scorn for refusing to confront Congress on the issue and acquiescing in the infamous Boland Amendment, which North was caught circumventing, in the first place.
What was impossible to understand about the whole affair was the idea that there were ``moderates'' in the Iranian regime whose position could be enhanced by the sale of American arms. That hostages continued to be taken to replace the hostages released after arms had been delivered should have signaled that the United States was being taken for a ride. What was a nonsensical idea then appears positively ludicrous in hindsight. That is one of the most glaring reasons for questioning Oliver North's judgment.
Incumbent Democratic Sen. Charles S. Robb has performed creditably in many ways. He defied the Senate Democratic leadership in 1991 and voted in favor of using force to liberate Kuwait. The same year, he also voted to confirm Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. He has taken a seat on the Armed Services Committee in an effort to better protect Virginia's defense interests.
For one who came to the Senate with such fanfare and promise, however, Sen. Robb has compiled a remarkably thin and unimpressive record. He speaks of his desire to get government spending under control, including that of entitlement programs (witness his famous ``tak(ing) food from the mouths of widows and orphans to balance the budget'' remark).
He voted, however, for both President Bush's tax-raising 1990 budget and President Clinton's tax-raising 1993 budget. Under questioning, he refuses to rule out future tax increases. Sen. Robb seems not to recognize that his willingness to raise tax rates robs his colleagues in the House and Senate of any incentive to make the budget cuts Sen. Robb says he favors. A few more doses of Sen. Robb's brand of fiscal conservatism and both Virginians and America at large will be sending most of their incomes to Washington.
Since helping found the moderate-conservative Democratic Leadership Council in the mid-1980s, Sen. Robb has moved toward a more liberal public posture. His stand in favor of homosexuals in the military, Medicaid funding of abortion, and his refusal to take a stand on the striker-replacement issue are among the reasons that make it impossible for us to endorse him.
Sen. Robb's judgment is also open to question. During his governorship, he fell in with an unsavory Virginia Beach crowd where drugs and sex were common currency. His consorting with Tai Collins in a hotel room was simply sordid. Virginians expect better from a man who was the state's chief law-enforcement officer.
What about J. Marshall Coleman? True, the former attorney general presents a creditable record and we find little to argue with in his campaign platform. Leaving aside the issue of his electability for a moment, his past behavior, however, undermines the voters' faith that he can be relied upon to implement it.
In his 1989 race for governor, he abandoned his previous pro-choice position on abortion to adopt a hard-line pro-life stand, only to revert to something resembling his earlier position later in the campaign. Politicians are entitled to change their minds on issues, of course, but when they do it in the heat of a campaign, voters are entitled to wonder how closely officeholders will stick to their positions under fire.
Coleman argues that if voters believed he had a chance of winning, they would choose him. But he is scarcely an unknown quantity in Virginia politics. This is his fourth statewide race in 17 years. Voters have not elected to flock to his banner. And if J. Marshall Coleman wanted to be a U.S. senator, he should have run with everyone else, instead of carving out for himself a spoiler's role.
So there we leave it, unfortunately. We cannot wholeheartedly endorse any of the contenders. Voters must decided on the basis of who offends them the least. ILLUSTRATION: Photos
J. MARSHALL COLEMAN
OLIVER L. NORTH
CHARLES S. ROBB
KEYWORDS: CANDIDATE U.S. SENATE RACE POLITICAL ENDORSEMENT
by CNB