Printer-Friendly
Email this Story
Post a Comment (0)
A tale of two governors: Warner vs. Gilmore
It should have been an epic political saga: Two former governors, the biggest names in Virginia politics, one a fiercely conservative Republican, the other a moderate Democrat, battling it out for a seat being vacated by an icon of the Senate.
Instead, what voters got is a race that is so lopsided, it has garnered little attention, even in the last month before Election Day.
When Virginia's senior senator, Republican John Warner, announced he was stepping down, former governors Jim Gilmore (R) and Mark Warner (D) both stepped up to vie for his seat.
Gilmore had won the Governor's Mansion in 1998, primarily due to his wildly popular pledge to phase out the car tax.
He kept his word, beginning the phase-out and also increasing spending for education and other programs.
But then the economy tanked, and when Mark Warner succeeded him as governor in 2002, he inherited a massive hole in the state budget.
Before then, the Democrat had never held elected office. The multimillionaire cellphone tycoon had challenged John Warner (no relation) for his Senate seat in 1996, narrowly losing to the incumbent Republican.
During his gubernatorial campaign in 2001, Warner had promised not to increase taxes. It was a promise he broke when he took office amid a bleak economy and an impending budget crisis.
Warner says he engaged in “tax reform.” Gilmore says Warner engaged in “the largest tax increase in our history.”
And though it may be ancient history, that old battle of the budgets has been the central issue in this year's Senate campaign.
“The person who was dishonest about Virginia's budget was Jim Gilmore,” Warner charged during a recent debate. “His own party said that.”
That much is true. Moderate Republicans in the General Assembly balked at then-governor Gilmore's insistence on continuing the car tax phase-out, alleging that Gilmore was intentionally underestimating the cost to the state.
Gilmore got his way and the phase-out continued but the resulting bad blood between conservatives and moderates split the state's Republican party. That division helped pave the way for Warner to sweep into office over his Republican challenger in the next election.
For his part, Gilmore has repeatedly insisted that Warner “broke his word. The people of Virginia want someone who can keep their word.”
That much is true, as well. Having promised while campaigning not to raise taxes, Warner, changed his mind after taking office.
So the issue isn't who is telling the truth; it's which truth is most important.
Gilmore maintains that the most telling distinction between the two candidates is that he stood by his pledge to cut taxes while Warner broke his promise not to raise them.
“We need to be honest here,” Gilmore said. “Mark Warner raised taxes $1.4 billion, and when he did that, not one dime went to transportation in Northern Virginia or anywhere else.”
But for Warner, the difference is Gilmore's insistence on cutting taxes at any cost, even though it meant leaving the state budget in shambles for his successor.
“My view of a fiscal conservative is someone who pays your bills on time and meets your obligations,” Warner said. “You don’t punt that to the next guy.”
Both candidates have insisted that the election should be about the future, not about the past. And yet at every turn, both revert back to the he-said/he-said battle of the budgets.
During the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce debate in September, Gilmore and Warner agreed on most of the national issues presented. Both want more banking regulations, better relations with potential allies in Iraq, offshore drilling and alternative energy plans.
In one of the few areas of contention, Gilmore supports drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, while Warner opposes it.
Gilmore especially has been trying to focus on energy, pushing for more drilling and trying to paint Warner as a multimillionaire unconcerned about soaring gas prices.
But it's not working. From Day 1 of his campaign, Gilmore has been unable to gain traction and polls have consistently shown him to be 20-30 points down, indicating that voters favor Warner by a 2-1 margin.
The Republican's campaign is also next to broke. Despite Gilmore's credentials (former state attorney general, former governor, former chairman of a congressional task force on homeland security and president of a nonprofit homeland security think tank), he hasn't been pulling donations.
During the Fairfax debate, media panelist Jeff Shapiro asked Gilmore if his fundraising problems are due to “preconceptions about the race, distaste for your policies and record and perhaps a dislike for you personally?”
A cheap shot, perhaps, but not far off the mark. Gilmore's been unable to garner much enthusiasm from the state's Republican party. He barely beat back a convention challenge from Western Prince William Delegate Bob Marshall (R-13th), who came within 1 percentage point of winning the GOP nomination, despite being underfunded and less well-known.
And Gilmore has taken body blows as prominent moderate Republicans have endorsed Warner, lending credence to the Democrats bipartisan credentials.
Nevertheless, Gilmore, who is billing himself as the underdog, has remained optimistic that he can win.
“People are calling out for help, and we’re going to help,” he said.
You must be logged in to post a comment.