Sunday, October 26, 2008
Editorial: Mark Warner for U.S. Senate
Virginia, and the nation, could use a "bipartisan radical centrist" like Warner more than an ideologue like Gilmore.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Next month, Virginia needs to replace U.S. Sen. John Warner, who is retiring, with someone who would bring to Capitol Hill his same willingness to put the common good ahead of partisanship. No one could mistake Warner for anything but a Republican, but he has been unafraid to break party ranks for what, in his judgment, was the good of the country.
In this year's Senate race between two former governors, it is the Democrat, Mark Warner, who has demonstrated the same ability to face hard facts and to work across party lines to achieve sensible solutions. No one should mistake him for anything but a Democrat, in that he thinks government can and should work for its citizens. But like the other Warner -- who is, by the way, no relation -- he wants to go to Washington as a principled, yet pragmatic, problem-solver.
We think he has the business acumen, the even-handed judgment and the resolve to succeed. We recommend Mark Warner enthusiastically for U.S. Senate.
Former Gov. Jim Gilmore, the Republican candidate, is a feisty partisan bulldog best known for his determined fight to eliminate localities' unpopular car taxes. He went far toward fulfilling that winning campaign pledge -- in the process draining almost $1 billion a year from the state's general revenues, far more than projected, and weakening the state's ability to cope with inevitable recessions.
He wanted to continue the car tax phaseout even after state revenues slowed, but legislators recognized the peril to essential services and even members of his own party balked.
Gilmore touts his single-minded pursuit of lower taxes as evidence he keeps his promises. We call it ideological blindness.
Washington needs no more senators of this ilk.
Warner tags himself a "bipartisan radical centrist" at a time when both the major parties seem to be dominated by their extremes. He did raise taxes as governor of Virginia, but modestly, with bipartisan support, and not before he cut spending and instituted government reforms that improved its efficiency.
Warner, a wealthy venture capitalist, talks not about how to dismantle government, but how to make it work for the prosperity of the many, not just the few. He ticks off a list of things the country needs to improve for what he calls a national competitiveness plan -- workforce education, scientific and technological innovation, health care, infrastructure, energy.
Some of his ideas are untested, but whether the particulars will work is not so important as the objectives he sets out to achieve. He has shown he can listen and hammer out details with others.
Of course, Warner is not without flaws. His ability to compromise can slip into wishy-washy opportunism, as it seemed when asked about union card-check legislation Democrats are championing in Congress. It would compromise workers' right to have a secret vote on unionizing. Warner said he was a strong supporter of Virginia's right-to-work law -- but, then, workers should have the right to organize if they want.
Warner and Gilmore are not Virginians' only choice, either. William Redpath, national chairman of the Libertarian Party, also will be on the ballot. He espouses a flat tax that would finance nonregulatory small government which, in turn, would pursue a noninterventionist foreign policy and allow free trade. He came across as a reasonable fellow, running more to generate discussion about the issues than to win.
Voters have an excellent alternative in Warner.
