|
Virginia
Gov. Mark R. Warner announced at the end of August
that he will not challenge U.S. Sen. George Allen in
2006. I had assumed that Warner was relishing the
opportunity to take on Allen.
Warner’s
decision reveals much about this politician, who has
been the beneficiary of enormous good fortune. Even
the huge revenue shortfall he encountered as he took
office in 2002 ultimately proved to be a positive
political development. He has had kid-glove
treatment from the news media and willing allies
among moderate Republicans in the General Assembly,
without whom he would have been hard-pressed to
achieve any significant legislative success.
For
at least a year, Warner has traveled widely as
chairman of the National Governors Association and
as a fundraiser for other Democrats. He has used his
national platform to bash President George W. Bush
and tout his own brand of centrist politics as a
model for Democrats to embrace in an effort to
recapture control of the White House and Congress.
With
only a single election victory to his credit, Warner
was bold enough to hold himself out, somewhat coyly,
as a likely presidential candidate. He was getting
favorable media coverage and support from many
Democrats when he announced his decision not to run
against Allen next year. A successful challenge to
Allen, also a likely presidential contender in 2008,
would have given Warner an undeniable boost of
momentum in his presidential bid. Why would
Warner pass up that opportunity?
It
is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Warner
simply didn’t have the stomach to take on the
popular Allen, despite polls showing Warner with 47
percent support versus Allen’s 42 percent support
among Virginia voters. A Warner victory in
2006 would have been a national news event and a
double hit. It not only would have boosted
Warner’s presidential prospects, but it would have
effectively eliminated one of the bright lights in
the Republican Party.
Sure,
there were risks for Warner. A loss to Allen would
just as effectively have eliminated Warner as a
presidential candidate. Yet, the risk-reward
analysis tilted plainly in favor of a challenge to
Allen.
After
January, 2006, Warner won’t have the same platform
he now enjoys as governor. He will depend on his
activities as a Democratic fundraiser to get his
message out. A campaign against Allen in 2006 would
have provided a far more effective opportunity to
reach voters and sharpen the differences between the
Democratic and Republican visions of America’s
future.
Some
have speculated that Warner would have felt
compelled to stress his liberal credentials in a
race against Allen, thus tarnishing his image as a
moderate alternative to the more liberal Democrats
likely to seek the presidential nomination in 2008.
That hypothesis is fallacious.
If
Warner believes he can beat Allen in the 2008
presidential election, he surely must believe that
he can beat him in the 2006 Senate election.
Perhaps, Warner believed that he might be forced to
sound so conservative in 2006 that he would make
himself unacceptable to Democrats in the 2008
primaries.
Whatever
his true feelings for declining the challenge,
Warner has hurt his own prospects for future
electoral success. Other politicians who have backed
off as Warner did in August have suffered as a
result. Mary Sue Terry deferred to Doug Wilder in
1989 and lost when her turn came four years later.
Don Beyer deferred to Mary Sue Terry in 1993 and
lost when he ran in 1997.
Deferring,
calculating and rationalizing are not signs of
leadership. Warner will pay a political price for
his decision not to run in 2006.
--
September 19,
2005
|
