|
Lt.
Gov. Timothy Kaine, the Virginia Democrats’ likely
gubernatorial nominee in 2005, spoke to a political
science class at the University of Virginia
recently. If Times-Dispatch reporter Tyler
Whitley got it right in his April 5, 2005, article,
Kaine’s remarks reveal much about his campaign and
himself.
At
one point, Kaine told the class that suburban sprawl
is largely the consequence of large lot sizes and
that localities often enact zoning regulations
requiring large lots to keep poor people from living
in their respective jurisdictions. Later, he
responded to a student’s question about corruption
on Richmond City Council, on which he once served,
by saying that it was chiefly caused by the refusal
of people in the city’s big law firms and major
companies to run for City Council.
The
two comments reflect quite different personalities.
The large-lot statement springs from Kaine’s
populist persona. The corruption statement is that
of an elitist.
Which
is the real Tim Kaine? The populist? Or the elitist?
Is it possible that he’s both — a schizoid
politician with opposing personalities constantly
warring against each other?
I
detest psychobabble, so I won’t pursue those
questions. But these two statements warrant close
examination on their own merit or lack of merit.
Kaine’s
claims that localities often use large lot sizes to
exclude poor people is an explosive political
statement. Kaine should identify the localities that
have engaged in this unlawful exclusionary zoning
practice. He shouldn’t level such a charge without
naming names and providing supporting proof.
Many
Virginians dream of owning a piece of real estate
far away from crime-ridden urban centers (Richmond,
for example) even if that means commuting great
distances. They don’t want the government telling
them how much land they can buy and where to live.
Kaine’s position on sprawl might alienate these
voters.
His
claim that corruption on Richmond City Council can
be traced to the refusal of the city’s elite to
run for Council offends both the elite and the
people who have supported those candidates who have
chosen to run for City Council in recent years,
whether successful or not. Indeed, it would be hard
to find anyone who couldn’t take offense.
Kaine’s
remarks may have been courageous, but they certainly
weren’t politically shrewd. Perhaps, he should
reconsider his call for monthly debates. More
unscripted comments like those at the University of
Virginia will undermine his campaign.
Kilgore
supporters are waiting to see whether Kilgore can
capitalize on Kaine’s missteps. Kilgore has
exhibited the same kind of split personality as a
candidate, particularly on state finances. This may
explain why he hasn’t taken advantage of several
recent actions and statements by Kaine that would
demonstrate clear policy differences between them.
Neither
candidate seems to be comfortable with whom they are
and what they stand for. Kaine says faith guides his
actions, but he went out of his way to help defeat
legislation barring the very kind of government
funding of abortions that he claims to oppose.
Kilgore claims to be a fiscal conservative, but
seems uncomfortable explaining what he himself would
do to restrain state spending, choosing instead to
propose constitutional amendments that leave the
tough decisions to state legislators, local
governing bodies and the voters.
Every
candidate’s campaign is ultimately a reflection of
the candidate’s personality and values. If the
candidates have unresolved conflicts, the campaign
won’t be focused. If the candidate is pushing an
agenda that he doesn’t believe in, no amount of
spin or hype will hide the duplicity.
--
April 11,
2005
|
