Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, July 15, 1993 TAG: 9309030399
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A15 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Ray L. Garland
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
For all their virtues as experienced and competent politicians, Allen and Terry simply don't fit the grand tradition of recent struggles for the governorship. Still, a few themes and differences emerged that will form the basis of much swordplay in the fall campaign.
While Terry isn't picking out new drapes for the executive mansion just yet, she clearly sees herself occupying the catbird's seat. Believing she has the smart-money boys in her hip pocket and most of the Democratic base more or less reconciled to her, Terry sees three issues working for her in suburbia: abortion, gun control and fealty to public education under the stewardship of the teacher's union.
On the first, Terry has endorsed legislation now going through Congress that would nearly finish any assertion of state control over abortion. On the second, she has called for a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun. And she plans to exploit the fears that advocates of public schools have of losing their virtual monopoly by making frequent reference to Michael Farris, Allen's running-mate, who has been prominent in the home-schooling movement.
All three lend themselves to exploitation in 30-second TV commercials. If they're not already in the can, prepared for an autumnal airing, we can expect they soon will be. In fact, this will be less a contest between candidates and parties than a battle between competing media wizards.
Allen had obviously given a lot of thought as to how he would respond to these thrusts and he parried them effectively. In what is now a standard response on abortion, he said, ``I have a position of reasonable moderation.'' He then ticked off his three key points: parental notification in the case of minors; ``informed consent'' prior to an abortion being performed; and opposition to public funding for ``abortions of convenience.''
The Republican candidate is probably correct when he says that most people accept these as reasonable and proper stipulations, a comfortable halfway house between an outright ban and the abortion-on-demand stance now favored by Terry. Allen summed up by facing the Democratic candidate directly and saying, ``Mary Sue, you're out of touch with the vast majority of Virginians.'' That can be made to stick, but his media wizards had better have a super infomercial ready to air if Terry's managers sense the need to deploy the issue in an attack ad.
On the subject of gun control, where Terry has taken one of her most out-of-character positions, Allen made a salient retort when he charged that it came straight off the polling data and not from her past political convictions. But few voters will see anything wrong in a politician coming late to an issue if they like what he or she is saying.
As with abortion, Allen was careful to avoid a last-ditch defense. He was at pains to point out that when the bill requiring the state police to run instant computer checks on those purchasing handguns was before the House of Delegates, he offered an amendment making it also apply to rifles.
While polls undoubtedly will show a strong majority favoring restrictions of various kinds on gun sales, what they can't measure is the extent to which a candidate's position will solely determine how a voter casts his ballot. If Terry unleashes this issue in her paid advertising, Allen will just have to ride it out, knowing that it may gain him as many if not more votes than it looses him. One thing he knows for certain, the National Rifle Association will be working its apparatus full speed in his behalf.
The trouble with politics has always been that issues generating the most heat seldom produce the most light. The country already has decided on abortion and there will be no real turning back. All we're doing now is arguing over the final details of the settlement. And while a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun might save a few lives, it will hardly keep many pistols out of the wrong hands.
In reality, neither minor restrictions on abortions nor the purchase of handguns have much to do with the real business of the governorship, which is to provide efficient leadership for an enterprise spending $16 billion a year and employing more than 100,000 people. On that subject, perhaps the most interesting difference of opinion came when Terry said she would direct state employees to study operations of state government with an eye toward saving $250 million a year. Allen emphasized his commitment to having such an audit done by outside experts and achieving much larger savings.
Who won? Both were good; neither was great. What you must do is project beyond the small audience actually present and ask how it would have gone down had it been watched by a half-million Virginians on television. In that format, I believe Allen would have held the edge among those wavering voters who usually decide the outcome, by reason of good humor and a generally steady and reassuring presence. TV isn't kind to the intense, and Terry is nothing if not that.
The race is still Terry's to lose, but in the month since the GOP convention, Allen has shown he's not cowed by the enormity of the task before him and is determined to make a fight of it. Candidates who smugly nurse a perceived early lead often end in difficulty. Terry's challenge is to avoid the trap of overconfidence.
\ Ray L. Garland, a former Republican state legislator, is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB