Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, March 17, 1990 TAG: 9003222318
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Spannaus' candidacy, however, isn't what the Democrats should be embarrassed by. She's but a flyspeck in an ocean of ointment. What they should be embarrassed by is their own inability to come up with a genuine Democrat to oppose Warner.
During the '80s, Virginia Democrats swept three statewide elections in a row, boosted its U.S. House delegation from one to five, maintained majorities in both houses of the state legislature and picked up one U.S. Senate seat. Nobody can argue that the party is moribund.
But the Democrats' failure to field a candidate against Warner ought to give them pause, long and reflective pause.
Assuming the various fail-safe mechanisms to deny Spannaus the nomination are in working order, this will be the first time in decades that the party has failed to nominate a U.S. Senate candidate. It is not, however, the first time in decades that the party has failed to nominate a candidate for high office; in 1973, the party punted on nominating a gubernatorial candidate. But at least then, the party at least had an excuse: It was in faction-ridden disarray. Indeed, you could argue that the general election that year for governor, between Democrat-turned-Republican Mills Godwin and Democrat-turned-independent Henry Howell, was basically a Democratic primary between representatives of the party's conservative and liberal wings.
What's different this year is that the Democrats are in ascendancy in Virginia. Or are they?
Consider a few implications of the failure to challenge Warner:
The party is lacking in young talent willing to take a gamble on the race.
Yes, any attempt to unseat Warner would be an uphill battle. Yes, any Democratic candidate would be badly outspent by the other side.
But where are the Democratic up-and-comers ready to fight Goliath, ready to make Warner defend his record, ready to seize the opportunity to put their own names and ideas before the statewide electorate in hopes at least of making a good showing even if electoral victory seems out of reach?
The party is insulting the voters of Virginia by assuming the voters already have their minds set on re-electing Warner.
Granted, Warner's re-election would be very likely regardless of what the Democrats did. But probability is not certainty. Who more than four years and four months ago thought Democrat Doug Wilder would be elected lieutenant governor (and four years later would be elected governor)? Who more than four months ago thought Don Beyer would be elected lieutenant governor? Why assume Virginians are automatons who vote robot-like for all pre-election favorites?
The party is showing signs of the decadence that seems to infect all parties after they've been in power too long. Of course a central purpose of any political party, at least in the American system, is to win elections. But is that the only purpose?
Trying to win elections, and allocating your resources in a way most calculated to win them, is one thing. It's quite another to sit out an election for important office simply because winning is improbable. To do the latter is to suggest that winning has become the only thing, that a party is interested in promoting itself and its principles via a political campaign only if there's a darn good chance of an immediate payoff - victory and power - at the end.
That's an incredibly myopic approach. Over the short term, the Democrats might save some bucks by not running a candidate in a long-shot campaign against Warner. But over the long term, it's not how parties succeed.
Neither Virginia Republicans in the '70s nor Virginia Democrats in the '80s made their advances by yielding supinely when elections rolled around. Are the '90s in Virginia beginning to look like a Republican decade?
by CNB