THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, April 16, 1995 TAG: 9504140022
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J4 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Long : 108 lines
Below are responses to last Sunday's front-page invitation to readers to comment upon the fitness of U.S. Sen. John W. Warner for renomination by the Republican Party in 1996. Additional letters on this topic appear elsewhere in this Commentary section.
It is a sorry state of affairs when we have to question the integrity of Sen. John Warner because he is a ``statesman'' first and a ``politician'' second in the way that he thinks and acts in Washington.
Senator Warner has been one of the most popular elected officials from our state. He has worked his way up to be on several very influential committees in Congress (particularly ones involving the Navy and the military which are so important to our area).
He has always worked for the good of our state. So it absolutely amazes me that the move to oust Senator Warner from the Senate is coming from his own party.
Has the leadership of the state GOP no sense? The answer seems to be No.
I have been a Republican for years. I am flabbergasted that a very good party is to be taken over by a very narrow group of thinkers.
President Bush was defeated two years ago because of several things, a couple of them being that he was attacked by his own party with Pat Buchanan and that the Christian Coalition took control of the election.
In our state last year, Republicans should have put up Jim Miller and didn't because of the control by the extreme right. Oliver North was not defeated by Senator Warner's nonsupport but because Virginians, both Republicans and Democrats, felt that North was too extreme. Jim Miller probably would have won had the Republican run him then.
Now the Republicans are trying to run Jim Miller against their own best candidate, John Warner. Why cannot the Republicans see that they should be supporting Warner? They should be very proud of him because he stands for Virginia and he stands for what the Republicans used to stand for. It is they who have changed, and not for the better.
BETSY RAWLS AGELASTO
Virginia Beach, April 9, 1995
If Senator Warner had any political savvy, he should have known in 1994 what he was doing. I have supported Warner every time he has run, but I can assure you I am one Republican who thinks the party should dump him in 1996.
People like Warner are the reason we need term limits. He doesn't need the party; the party needs him, or so he thinks. It's time for him to go.
If Warner didn't want to support Oliver North, all he had to do was stay silent and go to the polls and put his X beside Coleman's name.
DALLAS C. McWATERS
Virginia Beach, April 9, 1995
Perhaps the most serious issue adversely affecting our political system over the past 50 years has been a decline in the strength of political parties. People should support the party that most clearly reflects their views and should abandon that party only on rare instances, where extremely important issues are involved.
Modern democracies cannot function properly without strong, disciplined political parties. The reason is quite simple: Without this discipline, the citizenry has no way to determine responsibility. We need to be able to help our political friends and punish our political enemies, and we are unable to do this without strong parties. Too often today, showing responsibility consists of politicians standing around in a circle pointing fingers at one another. Democrats point at Republicans, presidents point at congresses, states point at the federal government, and each points back at the other. Some of this cannot be avoided, but much can.
This country needs more partisan politics, not less. This will clarify the issues and make us better able to choose wisely. Such partisanship, however, should not and need not be uncivil.
As to the issue of Senator Warner: He failed on two accounts. First, the issue over which he split with his party was not sufficiently extreme. Second, his attacks were personal and, therefore, uncivil. Even so from a practical point of view, i.e., continued control of the Senate, Republicans should not encourage challengers for the Republican Senate nomination next year.
DALLAS HOLSTON
Suffolk, April 10 1995
Sen. John Warner was not elected by the Republican Party but by voters of Virginia. Some of those who voted for him were registered Republicans, some were registered Democrats, some were independents. It seems logical to me, then, that Warner does not represent the Republicans only, but all the people of Virginia. In the course of his duties, he casts many votes in the Senate, nearly always in the company of a majority of his party. It is not unusual, however, for a conscientious senator to vote differently from the party leadership on some issues. In such cases, the senator is not considered to have forfeited his membership in the party or the trust and confidence of its members.
The venerated Senator Byrd seldom supported his party's candidate for the presidency. He was never vilified by the party leadership in Virginia as Senator Warner has been by some Republicans.
TOM AIKEN
Virginia Beach, April 9, 1995
Since political loyalty can be either good or bad, depending on the political goals and/or the means of achieving them, loyalty becomes a matter of conscience. If the politician invests his loyalty in the people who elected him, then party loyalty becomes secondary. If he disagrees with his party's goals or methods, he either attempts change within his party or changes his affiliation. Party loyalty is neither a virtue nor a vice, only a mechanism for strength.
RICHARD VAN BUSKIRK
Melfa, April 9, 1995 by CNB