THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc. DATE: Sunday, October 30, 1994 TAG: 9410270443 SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J1 EDITION: FINAL SOURCE: BY ROBERT LITTLE, STAFF WRITER LENGTH: Long : 110 lines
If congressional candidate George Sweet were the kind of guy who got mad at anyone, then George Meade Rose would really raise his ire.
Rose is a veteran, a retired railroad worker and a gun owner. He carries newspaper clippings in his wallet and he never misses an election.
Rose hates President Clinton: ``Anybody who gave aid and comfort to the enemy'll never get a vote from me,'' he said.
He loves Oliver L. North: ``You protect your country first, you don't worry about not telling a lie.''
And on Nov. 8, he is voting for Rep. Norman Sisisky. A Democrat and Sweet's opponent.
In a way, Rose represents the battleground for Virginia's 4th-district congressional seat. He's a conservative Democrat who will stray to the Grand Old Party because of President Clinton. And he hates it when the federal government wastes his money.
Sweet and Sisisky have staked out voters like Rose, both claiming title to the political mainstream, both promising easy victory if they can show the voters where they stand.
And both have made fiscal responsibility tenets of their campaigns. A poll of fourth-district residents shows federal spending was the most important issue of this year's elections.
The two candidates preach the same fiscal message: cut the deficit, trim waste, keep defense spending whole. But when the campaign has raged, it's been during debate over the pesky budget details.
Think of the federal budget as a crumbling, time-worn mansion, once proud and stately but now infested with termites. Sweet is ready to sell and buy a duplex.
He wants to scrap the income tax structure as we know it, and replace it with a 17 percent flat rate. Taxes on interest and capital gains would no longer be necessary, he maintains.
The new structure would mean less federal money, and fewer federal agencies to shuffle it around. More money would go back into the economy, create more jobs and more tax revenue.
Sisisky, too, thinks the federal budget is withering, but he thinks it can still be repaired - the government just has to exterminate and buy some new wood.
He voted for the 1993 budget, which is either the country's most meaningful deficit reduction package ever or the largest tax increase in history, depending on whom you ask.
The plan cut the annual deficit, but it also raised taxes. So far, economic indicators show it has not had the abysmal effect on the economy that Republicans predicted.
Sweet and Sisisky have waged a king-of-the-mountain style campaign over issues like spending. If they can't find their footing on the way to the top, knocking the other man down a step is just as good.
Sweet tries to paint Sisisky as a liberal.
``He's running from his record, running from his party and running from his president,'' Sweet said at a recent debate, using a stock line he often delivers on the stump.
``I feel like I've already won one campaign. I've defeated the Democrat. The man I'm running against is now an independent.''
Sisisky tries to make Sweet into a radical.
``He wants to cut off seniors and veterans - men and women who served our country,'' Sisisky says in a campaign radio advertisement. ``George Sweet is hoping you won't find out about his extreme positions.''
On some matters, the two candidates' opinions differ distinctly.
For instance, Sweet wants term limits while Sisisky, a congressman since 1982, does not. And Sweet, a Baptist minister, is firmly against abortions. Sisisky favors abortion rights.
But the fact is, the two men agree on many issues:
Sisisky has voted for a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget - a pillar of Sweet's fiscal message.
Both would give the president a line-item veto - the power to slash individual projects from appropriations bills.
Sisisky voted against President Clinton's 1994 crime bill because it cost too much money. Sweet would have rejected it as well.
Sweet wants to tighten restrictions on the money political candidates can collect and spend on campaigns. Sisisky, too, says he wants to reform campaign finance laws.
Both say national defense has been cut too deep, and that the country is in danger of reaching ``hollow'' force levels.
Both are against banning military-style rifles.
Neither supported a military presence in Haiti.
Neither wants to pursue a diplomatic relationship with Cuba.
In the absence of strong contrasts, the two camps largely use party lines to characterize their opponent as extremists: Sweet as a right-wing Christian, Sisisky as a left-wing liberal.
And both lay claim to what's in between.
``I'm not a fanatic, I'm running as a conservative Republican candidate with conservative values,'' Sweet is happy to say. ``And I think most people in the district will agree with me.''
Sisisky never said he was a conservative. Indeed, Sweet recorded him saying ``I never said I was a conservative'' and has used the line in campaign advertisements.
Sisisky used to use the line often, but it wasn't all he said. In an interview last month, he followed with ``I've never said I'm a liberal, either.
``Is Head Start a liberal program? Then I'm a liberal,'' Sisisky said. ``Is strong defense a conservative approach? Then I'm a conservative.''
Virginia's 4th congressional district sprawls from Chesapeake almost to Charlottesville, reaching more than 20 municipalities on the way. Both candidates are sure they'll find a middle somewhere. ILLUSTRATION: Color photos
KEYWORDS: HOUSE OF DELEGATES RACE 4TH DISTRICT CANDIDATES by CNB