The Washington Post's editorial opinion on why U.S. Senate candidate Mark Warner is dodging the chance to debate with his opponent Jim Gilmore.
Here are the points the editorial makes.
Warner's dominating in the polls by around 25 points and is out-fundraising Gilmore eight to one. The Post believes his decision to dodge a TV debate is a deft political maneuver on Warner's part- designed to keep voters associating Warner and Gilmore with their former policies and actions while governors, and keeping them from learning more about their contrasting views on energy issues and tax policy.
Apparently when Warner and Gilmore debated last in July, the distinctions between their policies were pretty apparent. Gilmore supports drilling for oil along coastlines and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska; Warner is skeptical of offshore drilling still. In addition, the candidates discussed Gilmore's tax cuts while governor- Warner said that the cuts led to a statewide budget shortfall.
The Post thinks Warner is "insulting the democratic process by refusing to engage in primetime debates broadcast statewide." (There will be one debate televised Sept. 18, but only in NoVa during the middle of the day).
It's sad that Warner made this decision, but honestly, I can understand it. Warner's legacy from his time as a governor is a lot more popular than Gilmore's- people love Warner. I witnessed this myself at the JJ Fundraising Dinner in Richmond last February. A bluegrass band played songs about Warner's ability to cut taxes and save the world with innovative politicking (okay, the lyrics were way more intricate than that but I forgot what the name of the group was). Next to Hillary and Obama buttons, Warner's looked like the next most worn there.
Now admittedly, this was in a group of rabid Democrats. However, I think the point can still be made as to Warner's pull on the average Virginian. I know for a while there was a "Warner for President" campaign attempting to pull him into the '08 race- but he shook it off pretty easily. I could actually see him running for President in the future.
Anyways the point is- while Warner is so insanely popular, why on earth should he debate with Gilmore and risk making him look anything less than "awesome ex-governor"?
I do agree with the Post, this is a pretty shameful decision- but it's politics. What can you say?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment