THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, September 27, 1996 TAG: 9609270567
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: From: Robert Little, Staff Writer
LENGTH: 59 lines
Senate candidate Mark Warner's position is clear: He opposes the late-term ``partial birth'' abortion.
So, would he have voted Thursday to override President Clinton's veto of a bill banning the procedure?
He won't say.
Warner can envision a bill he would support, one that protects the health of the mother. But on the Senate floor Thursday, there was no such bill.
The Democrat's refusal to pick a side in the abortion debate highlights one of the few advantages that challengers hold over the sworn-in politicians they hope to defeat. Senators, such as Republican opponent John Warner who voted against the president Thursday, have to vote and face the political consequences. Would-be senators don't.
From a purely political perspective, there's little point in candidates casting votes when they doesn't absolutely have to. The trade-offs of political decision-making are not always popular.
Mark Warner has used that reality to his advantage, and Republicans say he is trying to have it both ways: picking out specific votes to criticize John Warner, then refusing to go on the record himself.
For instance, Mark Warner criticizes his opponent for voting to cut the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program by $232 million - nearly half the program's budget.
The measure did more than simply cut programs. It channeled $6.7 billion to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for disaster relief - including assistance for the Oklahoma City bombing.
The 41-year-old Democrat isn't afraid to speak his mind. His objection to the Republican tax cut is clear. So is his support of abortion rights. More than most, this year's Senate campaign has featured some substantive details.
But on sticky matters that touch the core of his Democratic constituency - like abortion and labor - the as-yet-unelected Mark Warner doesn't have to cast firm votes. And at least twice, he's declined when given the chance.
His supporters say that illustrates his political strengths: caution, thoughtfulness, a commitment to compromise. This summer, John Warner tried to make it Mark Warner's political liability: evidence that he's afraid to take a stand.
At a debate in July, John Warner got Mark Warner to voice his support for Virginia's right-to-work laws, which prohibit labor unions from locking would-be workers out of a job. But would he vote for a federal law allowing employers to hire replacement workers when unions go on strike?
``I'm not going to accept . . . that there's an either/or there,'' Mark Warner responded. He would seek allowances for a cooling-off period and perhaps binding arbitration, he said.
``Mark, it's yea or nay,'' his opponent responded, offering a hypothetical vote on the Senate floor.
``When the clerk calls that vote, you can't stand up and say `Oh, well, if you change it a little bit I'm for it.' ''
``If I can't go to the United States Senate and take some of this legislation that comes from either end of the political extreme and modify it a little bit. . . . make it more palatable to all Americans . . . then I don't want the job,'' Mark Warner said.
KEYWORDS: U.S. SENATE RACE CANDIDATE ELECTION by CNB