|
|
|
Last
Thursday, I took my young son for lunch at the
Governor's Mansion. Thomas got a chance to see the
room where his parents, one Jewish, one Catholic,
were married by Robert Merhige, the legendary jurist
who integrated the Richmond schools under the threat
of death, with Gov. L. Douglas Wilder as best man,
and a statue of former Gov. Harry F. Byrd staring in
disbelief from across the capital grounds. My T-Man
had the usual barrage of questions, which I intended
to use as the basis for a column explaining the
historical and philosophical reasons for why a
budget veto, not higher taxes, is the right
Democratic fiscal stance.
But upon reading Melanie Scarborough's column
entitled "Gov. Warner's Peculiar
Priorities" in the Sunday Washington Post,
it seemed both necessary and proper for the chief
political campaign strategist for the 2001
Warner-for-Governor campaign to refute her point by
point, especially as the article was based not just
on factual errors and personal comments but
anonymous political attacks from unnamed Democrats.
Having been the target of personal attacks from
unnamed Democrats for many years -- as documented in
the award-winning book When Hell Froze Over by
Roanoke Times & World-News political editor
Dwayne Yancey - I know precisely how Mr. Warner is
feeling right now. In my efforts to achieve what I
had been raised to think Democrats believed in --
equal rights for African-Americans and women in the
sphere of statewide politics -- not a single person,
outside of Wilder himself, truly defended me
publicly. I had vowed many times not to let that
happen to anyone else.
So, I couldn't, in good conscience, let my friend
Mr. Warner twist slowly in the wind without publicly
defending him against Ms. Scarborough's allegations.
With
all due modesty, I bring unique credibility to the
task.
First, no one spent more time nor energy than I did
editing and re-editing the final language of
candidate Warner's 86-page "Action Plan for
Virginia," the campaign's platform. As Warner
rightly said, the Action Plan was the most
comprehensive such document in Virginia's political
history. As any experienced campaign manager will
tell you, the risk of giving your opponent an
opening with a single ill-chosen sentence far, far
outweighs the political reward. But candidate Warner
wanted to lay out his comprehensive political
agenda.
As things have now turned out 18 months later, the
candidate was right: The Action Plan totally refutes
Ms. Scarborough's literary Scud missile. When she
writes that Gov. Warner has confirmed the suspicions
of those who deemed him a "wealthy dilettante
without a cohesive political agenda," there is
no person in Virginia politics better positioned to
counter that charge then the guy who ran up a $700
cell-phone bill editing the Action Plan from dawn to
midnight even while driving back and forth from
Alexandria.
Secondly, I write this rejoinder as someone who is
not on the governor's payroll. I do not have, nor am
I seeking, the favor of the governor or the
administration for anything of monetary value,
whether a government contract, lobbying contract,
appointment, side business deal, or the like.
Thirdly, I hold no official position in the state
Democratic Party, nor am I currently seeking any.
The group presently controlling the state Central
Committee recently condoned -- again -- the use of
symbols offensive to African-Americans and failed to
issue a formal rebuke of the state senators who
subjected the first female African-American circuit
court jurist to what Congressman Bobby Scott called
a "lynch mob," and then voted her off the
bench. Having been the campaign manager for the
legendary Henry Howell, the great anti-segregation
leader who founded Virginia's modern Democratic
Party, and former Gov. Wilder, I would demean
everything they stood for were I to accept a
position with such an insensitive, tone-deaf
organization -- one I once presided over as we
elected more women and African-Americans to office,
both at the state level and the federal level, than
ever before.
And fourthly, I can respond as someone who recently
wrote a column, "Candidate
Warner vs Governor Warner," urging the
governor to follow the truth-in-budgeting blueprint we had etched
into our "Action Plan," and therefore veto
the fiscally reckless budget the GOP-controlled
General Assembly passed last month.
There is, therefore, no one in Virginia politics
with more substantive political knowledge of the
subjects raised by the Post columnist, nor
more demonstrated independence and leadership in
Democratic circles, to answer her point by point.
(1) She writes on Warner's threatened vetoes: Of
the hundreds of bills the Virginia General Assembly
passed this year, Democratic Gov. Mark R. Warner has
threatened to veto only those that would repeal the
estate tax and marginally restrict abortion. His
selection of targets confirms the suspicion of those
who deem him a wealthy dilettante without a cohesive
political agenda.
Answer: This assertion is factually untrue and
demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the
veto process. In Virginia, the governor has a
"line-item veto," a power not given to the
president of the United States. Accordingly, Gov.
Warner has already "threatened to veto" --
by using his line-item power either to amend or
totally reject individual budget actions of the
General Assembly -- any number of specific
appropriations he knows are fiscally reckless in one
way or another.
As I wrote last week, he risks making a serious
political and fiscal mistake in not threatening to
veto the whole budget bill, given that the measure
contains the kinds of accounting gimmicks, inflated
revenue estimates and phony promises that we
campaigned against in 2001. Hopefully, he will come
around to my point of view. Even if he doesn't, his
use of the line-item veto will demonstrate the
factual inaccuracy of Scarborough's assertion.
(2) She writes on the Estate Tax debate: How can
a governor who pledged to apply business principles
to state operations favor taxing the property that
people leave behind when they die? ... Moreover, the
logic of estate taxes -- that people who accumulate
a certain amount of assets must leave a portion to
the state to redistribute upon their deaths -- is
anti-capitalist. Estate taxes are bad business
because they penalize thrift. Can Warner really make
the case that the state is entitled to share in such
hard-earned savings?
Answer: Rejecting the GOP Estate Tax repeal in
today's fiscal situation is the right budget
discipline and totally consistent with previous
decisions by Democrats and Republicans. In 1990,
Governor Wilder, with Republican support, delayed
implementation of his campaign promise to remove the
tax on certain drugs and medications, a widely
popular proposal. Why? After being sworn in as
Governor, Mr. Wilder discovered that his predecessor
had failed to tell him about the record budget
deficit he had inherited.
The current fiscal crisis has likewise left Virginia
awash in red ink, expanding both the current account
deficit and what I call the structural deficit,
those twin budget problems facing Virginia and
discussed by this author on the pages of Ms.
Scarborough's Washington Post. Yet despite
all the General Assembly's calls for "shared
sacrifice" and their cutting benefits for the
poor, the Republicans passed legislation that would
give some of the wealthiest families in Virginia an
average $2.3 million tax break (assuming the
legislation had been in effect in 2002, the latest
available state data). This legislation, if enacted,
would blow a cumulative $250 million hole in future
state budgets, all to benefit 398 families (again,
assuming that 2002 state data applied).
Ms. Scarborough, let me say this: Had my friend Mark
Warner NOT agreed to at least veto this bill - I
believe he needs to do more as
indicated in a previous column -- then you
would have been correct in your assessment that he
has no political philosophy. But his commitment to
veto the bill demonstrates precisely the opposite of
what you claim.
(3) She writes on the seat-belt law debate: While
Warner opposes the repeal of the estate tax, which
would undoubtedly ease taxpayers' burden, he was all
for primary enforcement of the seat-belt law, which
would have either added to taxpayers' burden,
because more police would be needed, or reduced the
amount of time police had to devote to real crime. A
governor who throws his weight behind such
eat-your-peas proposals either shepherds a state
with no pressing problems -- hardly the case with
the commonwealth -- or lacks political vision.
Answer: For the record, I have always opposed the
seat belt law, having taken this position on my
radio show several years ago when then-Lt. Governor
John Hager, now the state's Anti-Terrorism Czar,
first promoted the proposal. My reasons were
several, from the "racial profiling"
aspect raised by Del. Kenneth R. Melvin,
D-Portsmouth, in casting his tie-breaking vote that
defeated the measure, to the "nannyism"
argument made by U.S. Sen. George Allen in an on-air
interview after he called the station to agree with
my position.
So, yes, I do disagree with the governor on this
measure. But Ms. Scarborough's attempt to draw some
philosophic straight-line between the seat belt law
and the estate tax is nonsensical. For example, I
support reducing taxes while spending more on state
police and the abolition of parole. Based on her
logic, this means I have no cohesive political
philosophy, nor do the overwhelming majority of
Virginians who agree with me. Rather, it is her
writing that lacks a cohesive argument.
(4) She writes on parental consent: Warner's
argument that adults are not entitled to make that
decision [to buckle-up] for themselves was
unsuccessful. Yet Warner argues that children are
entitled to make one of life's most momentous
decisions on their own and threatens to veto a bill
requiring teenage girls to get parental consent for
abortions. The governor apparently has no dispute
with the principle of parental sovereignty: Last
year he signed into law bills giving parents the
right to know the results of their children's drug
tests and exempting youngsters employed by their
parents from child labor laws. So if one accepts the
validity of parental consent for less consequential
activities, the only reason to oppose it for
abortion is the fear that consent might be withheld.
That indicates a graduation from pro-choice to
pro-abortion.
Answer: Ms. Scarborough's last line is extremely
offensive to me, as it is, I believe, for most
Virginians of good will. It is an Ugli - like the
fruit -- statement and demands a strong rebuttal.
Mark Warner has three daughters, so to say he is
drifting toward a pro-abortion position is really
offensive to me and most Virginians.
The specific issue of parental consent is a hotly
debated issue within the general parameters of
parental responsibility. Ms. Scarborough seems to
feel there is a single litmus test to apply in all
cases. In the "Action Plan for Virginia,"
candidate Warner spells out a very reasoned and most
cohesive position on the entire issue of women's
health, with specifics on page 68 relating to the
abortion issue. He says he supports parental
notification but vows to "fight efforts to chip
away at a woman's right to choose."
The Governor is distinctly pro-family, and can be
expected to view parental consent legislation in
that context. Ms. Scarborough's support of this
legislation is surely within the mainstream of
political thought, at least as defined by the votes
of members of the General Assembly. But that being
said, a journalist does not advance her case by
trying to twist an issue discussion so it can bend
through her peculiar prism.
(5) She writes on partial-birth abortion: Last
year Warner vetoed a bill that would have outlawed
the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion. He
threatens to repeat the veto this year, even though
it is hard to comprehend how anyone could defend
something so brutal. One does not have to oppose
abortion in general to oppose this method. Yet
Warner deems the procedure's availability so
imperative that he overruled the majority of
Virginia legislators who abhor it.
Answer: Ms. Scarborough, this is the kind of
political writing that discourages people from
running for office, or even caring about things
political as they naturally want to avoid immersing
themselves in such a sleazy, grotesque debate. The
fact is, as you would know if you bothered to do
your homework, that Gov. Warner opposes what you
describe as "partial-birth abortion."
Indeed, he supported a federal Constitutional
Amendment to outlaw the practice in 1996.
I know: I helped him draft that position. On the
same page 68 of the "Action Plan for
Virginia" gubernatorial candidate Warner says
he would ban partial-birth abortions, as long as the
legislation "protect[s] the mother's life or
health," the same basic legal position as
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the pro-choice jurist
whose is widely regarded as the swing vote on the
abortion issue and who favors a ban on partial-birth
abortions.
The Virginia GOP has consistently refused to pass a
partial-birth abortion ban that contains a
protection for the health of the mother. A similar
bill, signed by former GOP Governor Gilmore and
defended by then GOP Attorney General Earley, was
ruled unconstitutional. Admittedly, the new 2003
legislation is written differently and, as a lawyer,
I must say the author, my friend Bob Marshall, has
been most inventive.
I personally agree with former U.S. Sen. Patrick
Moynihan, the much admired scholar, that we need to
outlaw this rarely used practice in America, for it
is infanticide, and to do it quickly.
But if Gov. Warner decides to veto the Marshall
bill, I know it is not based on Ms. Scarborough's
position that he deems the procedure "so
imperative" that he is defending its
availability at all costs. Such a statement is
contemptible.
(6) She says on Democrats calling Warner ineffectual
leader: But we already know why even some
Democrats are deriding the governor as ineffectual:
Warner's continued demonstration of philosophical
incoherence. And no one wants to follow a leader who
seems unsure of where to go.
As indicated previously, I am singularly unfazed by
Ms. Scarborough's reliance on anonymous
attributions, speaking as they are from what, in a
more innocent age, was once called Buffalo Bob's
peanut gallery. Until she gets Democrats of stature
and achievement publicly on the record by name, this
is tabloid journalism.
Ms. Scarborough is of course entitled to state her
views in her own way. Moreover, I don't pretend that
all wisdom resides with me; I also should be held to
the requisite standard of proof. But in terms of
what has been accepted as informed political debate
in our Commonwealth since the days of Patrick Henry,
the analysis above conclusively rebuts,
point-by-point, the substantive basis of Ms.
Scarborough's columns to any objective reader.
--
March 3, 2003
(c) Copyright. All rights reserved. Paul Goldman.
2003.
|
