|
Tim
Kaine enjoyed a convincing victory last Tuesday and
obviously savored the experience. As time passes, he
may question whether he paid too high a price to win
the election.
Candidly,
I liked Kaine a lot more when he was an honest
liberal. Although his political philosophy didn’t
appeal to me, his conviction and genuineness did.
That’s why it was upsetting to watch him during
the past several months as he transformed himself
from principled public servant to cynical
politician.
That’s
a harsh indictment, but his actions allow no other
conclusion. He clearly subordinated the values he
claimed to hold dear in order to garner political
support.
The
first sign for me was the part he played at the 2005
General Assembly session in defeating legislation
that would have barred government funding of
abortions, which Kaine said he supported. As
lieutenant governor and presiding officer of the
State Senate, Kaine ignored the rules and
longstanding tradition of that chamber when he ruled
that the legislation would be referred to committee
(and certain death) instead of being put to an
immediate vote of the full Senate.
As
the campaign proceeded, Kaine pointed to his
Catholic values and identified himself as a pro-life
candidate. “I have a moral conviction that life is
sacred and I oppose abortion and the death
penalty,” he told The Family Foundation forum
earlier this year. Sadly, he lacked the
courage of his conviction.
Kaine
repeatedly insisted that he would do nothing to
undermine the abortion rights rulings of the U.S.
Supreme Court. This is a far cry from the approach
taken by Robert Casey, a Democrat who served as
governor of Pennsylvania during the 1990s. Casey
proposed and won passage of legislation that
abortion rights advocates claimed was
unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade. The Supreme
Court upheld most of those Casey initiatives.
Kaine’s position is that his hands are tied by the
U.S. Supreme Court and he would not seek to overturn
existing legal precedent.
A
person with true moral conviction would feel
compelled to use all legal means to prevent the
taking of innocent life. Kaine chose to appease
abortion rights advocates by pledging never to
pursue any course that would test the constitutional
boundaries of Roe v. Wade.
He
employed the same tactic in handling the death
penalty issue. When Kilgore attacked Kaine for
opposing the death penalty in television spots that
did Kilgore more harm than good, Kaine struck back
with a spot of his own insisting that his Catholic
faith prompted his opposition to the death penalty,
but that he would abide by existing law.
That
response apparently mollified many voters who were
unaware that the Virginia Constitution gives a
governor the power to recommend whatever legislation
“he may deem expedient,” to veto legislation he
opposes and to commute any death sentence. In the
final analysis, a governor is not constrained by any
existing law regarding the death penalty as he
carries out his constitutional duties. Did Kaine
mean to suggest that he would put aside his moral
opposition to the death penalty even as he exercises
his own discretion to grant clemency?
Kaine
probably could have defeated Kilgore without
compromising his principles Kilgore’s
campaign was so clumsy, empty and negative that he
turned off voters across the political spectrum.
Eventually,
the people will come to understand that Kaine sold
out his principles to get elected. When that
happens, he will have lost any claim to moral
authority as governor.
--
November 14, 2005
|
