|
|
By
now it is readily apparent that most of
Virginia’s progressive and Democratic
blogosphere – the so-called “net-roots” –
has lined up behind former Reagan Navy secretary
James Webb in the Democratic primary race to
challenge ubiquitous presidential candidate
(apparently the innocent victim of “Senate
Boredom Syndrome”) George Allen.
For
various reasons, the other guy – Fairfax’s
Harris Miller - has failed to inspire the
confidence of this vocal community despite the
reality that there is not a dime’s bit of
difference between Miller’s positions on most
issues and the beliefs of most Virginia Democrats
and Democratic bloggers. (Preemptive strike: In
the national progressive community, the jury is
still out on H1-B visas and voter-verified
initiatives).
Personality
and charisma aside, much ado has been by
anti-Miller bloggers about his previous tenure as
the head of the Information Technology Association
of America, a leading Inside-the-Beltway voice for
America’s high-tech field, and also about his
work as a corporate lobbyist before that. A friend
and ally of former Gov. Mark R. Warner, Mr. Miller
is quite wealthy, having earned a small fortune
pursuing the always-controversial K-Street
“public affairs” game, while dabbling in local
and state Democratic politics.
Apparently,
being a lobbyist makes a guy persona non grata
among the Democratic net-roots who loudly whisper
the words “Jack Abramoff” in attacks against
Republicans (and rightly so for the DeLay
situation). But, with Mr. Miller, there are no
indications that he is part of the fanciful
“culture of corruption” that D.C. is
apparently plagued by. Thus, when bloggers harshly
attack Harris Miller as a “rich, Washington
lobbyist,” the two words that come to my mind
are, “So what?”
What
strikes me as odd is how some Democratic activists
seek to use a loyal Democrat’s employment
against him in a party primary. Not too long ago,
Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, was the subject of vicious
attacks for his law firm's defense of murderers in
death penalty cases. That Hitler ad series will
live in infamy in Virginia and the nation. The
ever-popular Mark Warner struck it rich as a
venture capitalist, casting his lot with a nascent
cellular phone industry that eventually came to
dominate American business and culture. A
generation ago, those very same financiers were
sometimes regarded as ravenous corporate raiders,
“barbarians at the gate” who exploited
businesses and hurt workers. Yet, Warner has taken
little flak for his prior business dealings, and
he is even offered up as a model for
"corporate" Democrats.
In
his run for Attorney General in 2005, Sen. Creigh
Deeds was attacked by his opponent for his work as
a prosecutor whereby he negotiated plea bargains
with people convicted of sex crimes. The attacks
were gratuitous and blurred the real-life
enterprise of being a local prosecutor. In 2001,
Democrats nominated Del. Donald McEachin for
Attorney General, thus placing a personal-injury
attorney on the ballot for the top legal job in
the Commonwealth. Despite their valuable service
to the citizenry and public policy, trial lawyers
like Mr. McEachin are often attacked in all
ideological corners as “ambulance chasers” for
the large sums of money they extract from
corporate defendants and for their aggressive
tactics (John Edwards, anyone?).
These
examples are not meant to cast aspersions on
Kaine, Warner, Deeds, or McEachin. On the
contrary, they are decent and honorable men who
have been valuable public servants. On the other
hand, their professional experiences could be
construed by some opponents as just as distasteful
as Mr. Miller’s lobbying gigs. What their
electoral successes and commendable public service
records do demonstrate is that denigrating a
candidate over his or job, in the absence of real
evidence of impropriety, poor judgment, or ethical
lapses, is hypocritical, tone deaf and sets bad
precedent.
Do
Democrats really want to paint Mr. Miller with
such a broad brush that they effectively close the
door for people like him pursuing office in the
future? Do they really want to engage in attacks
against a profession whose members are absolutely
critical to the conduct of modern elections and
legislating? Will they shun Mr. Webb as he reaches
out to those same “rich, Washington lobbyists”
for financial support for his campaign?
In
the game of politics, negative campaigning is par
for the course despite Pollyannish calls to the
contrary. As such, the “net-roots” Webb
supporters are well within their rights to tear
down Mr. Miller for being a less-than-stellar
candidate. After all, if they believe in their
guy, it is a necessity. Still, it stands to reason
that the nature of those attacks should be
carefully measured for their short and long-term
effects, substantive and symbolic. At some point,
viciously cutting Miller down over his
professional experiences could come back to haunt
the Webb allies.
One
thing is certain: Should such lines of attacks
continue, it will make for great political theater
as Webb takes a sip from the wells of those same
“rich, Washington lobbyists” who are
apparently good enough to give money, but who are
apparently not worthy enough to be candidates for
office themselves.
--
April 17, 2006
|
