THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, November 2, 1994 TAG: 9411020403
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A8 EDITION: FINAL
COLUMN: OTHER VOICES
SOURCE: Compiled by staff writer Keith Monroe with assistance from staff
researcher Peggy Earle.
LENGTH: Long : 165 lines
The amount of money being spent on campaigning by some candidates - particularly Oliver North in Virginia and Michael Huffington in California - was enough to provoke an editorial outburst in USA Today (Oct. 24). The paper came out against such ``campaign gluttony'' and in favor of public funding of campaigns.
Of course, the paper's opinion may mean little. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post (Oct. 21) notes the decline of the influence of the press. ``Negative publicity has not stopped Oliver North, Marion Barry or Rep. Michael Huffington.'' They and other challengers ``have been virtually impervious to the kind of press assaults that once would have left a politician bruised and battered.''
Why? Kurtz writes that with confidence in the news media at an all-time low, ``candidates with a passionate core constituency are increasingly circumventing the press, or flat-out running against the press, with surprising ease.''
North's media consultant, Michael Murphy, doesn't disagree. Kurtz quotes him as saying, ``It helps when your base coalition hates the press.''
Tabitha Soren, the John McLaughlin of MTV, warns young voters to look beyond the local horse race. ``It's important to keep in mind we don't vote in a vacuum. . . . If you're a 22-year-old Virginian sick of Chuck Robb, you're not just voting for Republican challenger Oliver North, you're also voting in Sen. Dole as majority leader.
``For that matter, as Newsweek editor Jonathan Alter puts it, `In the Senate, it can take only three years to win a subcommittee chairmanship. That means that Oliver North, if elected, could soon chair, say, the subcommittee on terrorism, narcotics and international operations.' ''
The Virginia Senate race has continued to attract attention from overseas. The Agence France-Presse recently reported on the contest, for example. But it is the British who have been all over it. Perhaps because it reminds them of the royal family.
Ed Vulliamy in the Guardian (Oct. 23) decided that ``North is an anti-hero turned hero and such politicians are currently very much in vogue in America.'' He thinks that ``America, God, Guns and Guts strikes an enormous chord in the silent suburbs of Virginia.'' And Vulliamy quotes the Rev. Jerry Falwell on North's chances: ``I think that if he doesn't shoot his wife or do some other dumb thing between now and November, he's in.''
Rupert Cornwell, writing for London's The Independent (Oct. 21), has a trenchant take on the also-ran in this race. ``The worthy but uninspiring independent candidate, Marshall Coleman, runs a distant and largely ignored third with 16 percent - proof of how in politics, too, the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity at all.''
Maurice Weaver of the Daily Telegraph (Oct. 20) is even more blunt. ``Mr. North is labeled a near-traitorous liar for the 1987 testimony he gave to Congress. Mr. Robb is vilified as a tax-and-spend Lefty and as a party-going . state attorney general, is derided as a bothersome nonentity. The airwaves are blue, the platforms blood-red and it is Mr. North, self-cast as patriot, martyr and political outsider, who is increasingly favored to win.''
Weaver decides the race is a cliffhanger ``in which a single ill-considered word or thoughtless act could cost victory, and Mr. North is doing his best to dodge the media with its awkward questions.'' He also notes that North, after nine months of campaigning, ``is looking as boyish and relaxed as ever.'' Whereas, Robb ``has the tired aura of a loser `just going through the motions.' ''
Kate Muir of The Times of London (Oct. 22) delivers another British take on the race with no punches pulled.
She describes the ``Olliemobile'' entering Charlottesville where locals ``are called to the town square to meet one of the more impressive political shysters of our time.'' Muir decides that ``it has quite slipped folks' minds that in the long-gone days of the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal, North admitted lying to Congress, expropriated money, shredded documents and helped Terry Waite become a hostage. . . . Besides, the Nuremberg defense still plays down South.''
Muir says Virginians don't see North's flaws but rather ``a patriot, a family man. . . . That image of soldierly dignity, all crisply creased uniform and Vietnam combat ribbons, has remained while the facts have withered away. North has become their prodigal son.''
Muir is also bemused by the embrace of North by a party whose members once dismissed him as ``a fanatic,'' ``a nut'' and ``a man of dubious ethics.'' ``North suddenly became a party mascot, the man to be seen with.''
In fact, ``these days, the arms-for-hostages scandal is but a stone that has rolled away. Lt. Col. North, a born-again Christian, has engineered his own resurrection, and his followers have come to worship.''
She is less than flattering about North's constituency. ``His visit certainly brings curious specimens out of the Blue Ridge Mountains. As North ignores a couple of hecklers, a shout comes from the crowd: `Go Ollie! McCarthy didn't go far enough!' ''
Muir also dissects North's positions on the issues. ``Put simply, Oliver North is running on the Happy Families platform. His manifesto is modest: anti-government, anti-tax, anti-red tape and pro-family. He is Ross Perot without the statistics, coupled with the moral righteousness of evangelist Pat Robertson.''
Muir offers the observation that to North's supporters ```family' is code for all that they hold dear apart from guns: the crusade against Social Security, unmarried mothers, abortion, sex education, political correctness and homosexuality.''
But she does not take North too seriously as a political thinker. ``In the end it does not matter why North became famous. What matters is fame itself. Once an American becomes a celebrity, he is a celebrity for life. Some suggest Virginians will vote for North for amusement's sake, out of a desire to liven up politics, in the way that a town in California recently elected a dog as mayor.''
But Muir thinks there is slightly more to it than that. ``With the Oprahfication of America, the daily fare of juicy confession and public redemption on all the chat shows, it should come as no surprise that 50 percent of Virginians consider North to be `a genuine American hero.' ''
The amount of money being spent on campaigning by some candidates - particularly Oliver North in Virginia and Michael Huffington in California - was enough to provoke an editorial outburst in USA Today (Oct. 24). The paper came out against such ``campaign gluttony'' and in favor of public funding of campaigns.
Of course, the paper's opinion may mean little. Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post (Oct. 21) notes the decline of the influence of the press. ``Negative publicity has not stopped Oliver North, Marion Barry or Rep. Michael Huffington.'' They and other challengers ``have been virtually impervious to the kind of press assaults that once would have left a politician bruised and battered.''
Why? Kurtz writes that with confidence in the news media at an all-time low, ``candidates with a passionate core constituency are increasingly circumventing the press, or flat-out running against the press, with surprising ease.''
North's media consultant, Michael Murphy, doesn't disagree. Kurtz quotes him as saying, ``It helps when your base coalition hates the press.''
Tabitha Soren, the John McLaughlin of MTV, warns young voters to look beyond the local horse race. ``It's important to keep in mind we don't vote in a vacuum. . . . If you're a 22-year-old Virginian sick of Chuck Robb, you're not just voting for Republican challenger Oliver North, you're also voting in Sen. Dole as majority leader.
``For that matter, as Newsweek editor Jonathan Alter puts it, `In the Senate, it can take only three years to win a subcommittee chairmanship. That means that Oliver North, if elected, could soon chair, say, the subcommittee on terrorism, narcotics and international operations.' ''
The Virginia Senate race has continued to attract attention from overseas. The Agence France-Presse recently reported on the contest, for example. But it is the British who have been all over it. Perhaps because it reminds them of the royal family.
Ed Vulliamy in the Guardian (Oct. 23) decided that ``North is an anti-hero turned hero and such politicians are currently very much in vogue in America.''
He thinks that ``America, God, Guns and Guts strikes an enormous chord in the silent suburbs of Virginia.'' And Vulliamy quotes the Rev. Jerry Falwell on North's chances: ``I think that if he doesn't shoot his wife or do some other dumb thing between now and November, he's in.''
Rupert Cornwell, writing for London's The Independent (Oct. 21), has a trenchant take on the also-ran in this race. ``The worthy but uninspiring independent candidate, Marshall Coleman, runs a distant and largely ignored third with 16 percent - proof of how in politics, too, the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity at all.'' ILLUSTRATION: Photo
Newsweek magazine features a campaigning Oliver North on its cover
this week for a special report on an election year it describes as
``coast-to-coast nasty.'' North, the magazine says, is on a ``search
and destroy mission for Chuck Robb's Senate seat'' in a race that
typifies national politics at a time when ``voters, sullen and
distraught, don't like incumbents but don't trust the
challengers.''
KEYWORDS: U.S. SENATE RACE VIRGINIA CANDIDATES by CNB