In response to Phil Croninger (a.k.a. Now at the Podium) on the Senate race

Blog etiquette normally requires that I respond to this post from Phil Croninger in his Comments section.  I really tried, but every time I started writing, I realized it was waaaaay too big for a comment and need to be its own post (I’m sorry, Phil).

Phil is trying to sort out his choice for the U.S. Senate: Jim Gilmore or Bob Marshall.  He presents his dilemma as such (emphasis in original):

Gilmore isn’t a bad guy, he simply has a lot of baggage that he carries with him due to the shape the state economy was in towards the end of his tenure as Governor . . . However, we also have to look at who Gilmore is likely to face…Mark Warner. Warner can simply pull out the “I fixed Gilmore’s economic mess” card (no matter how exactly true that is) and boom . . . there goes the independent voters.

. . .

Marshall, despite my disagreements with him on social issues (I voted against Marshall/Newman - DJ’s note: that’s the Virginia Marriage Amendment approved by the voters in 2006), there are several upsides to having him as the candidate. His biggest being that he is a tried and true fiscal conservative, and he’s fairly pragmatic about it. In the end, if you’re strong on fiscal prudence, you win with me. He’s been a voice of cost-cutting in a sea of seemingly-endless spending increases under Governors Gilmore, Warner, and Kaine.

His “no-confidence resolution” towards Republican leadership earlier this year brought him lots of attention and praise from the grassroots. He’s been an active opponent of the Abuser Fees, as well.

One must also think that, with Marshall/Newman being approved with 57% of the vote in a Democratic wave election, Marshall could get the attention of many swing voters.

I’d also imagine, however, that there might be a large turnout against Marshall from the GLBT community because of that amendment.

Now, it just so happens that I, too, voted against Marshall/Newman, but I’m not sure how much that will (or more to the point, should) play as an issue in 2008 (I say that to reassure Phil, not to dismiss him).  I took the liberty of digging up the only U.S. Senate vote cast on the Federal Marriage Amendment - a vote to invoke cloture.  First of all, the amendment could only gin up 49 supporters (50 if you count Chuck Hagel, and I think that’s a substantial “if”), and that was before four Ayes were sent packing by their respective voters (Allen, Santorum, DeWine, and Talent).  Meanwhile, John Warner was one of the Ayes (as I suspect Gilmore would be), so while Marshall might be a more vocal supporter of the amendment, he won’t add a vote that wasn’t already there.  As for LGBT turnout, we have to remember that this is a Presidential election year.  I’m guessing that turnout is going to be heavy regardless of who is the nominee.

On the other social issues that come to mind (abortion and gun control), I’m guessing Phil agrees with Marshall and me on the latter, while the former is mainly part of the overriding issue of the judiciary (so the difference between Marshall and Gilmore is somewhat diminished).  Now, Marshall is pro-life without a doubt, but pro-lifers are even weaker in the Senate than the pro-marriage amendment folks.

To sum up, on social issues, Marshall will certainly be a louder voice, but I honestly don’t see a lot of movement in the Senate from his election on these issues (as much as it disappoints me on life) vis a vis Gilmore.  Economic issues are entirely different.

Given Marshall’s history, we can expect him to be loud voice against the earmark monstrosity, and a willing recruit for the efforts of Tom Coburn et al to reduce spending and make government more transparent (I would note that when Coburn first ran for the Senate in 2004, he, too, was misperceived as a social-issue-obsessive). Gilmore’s history as Governor (lest anyone forget, spending increases were larger under Gilmore than under Mark Warner) tells us he’s more likely to go along with the “old Bulls” (McConnell et al) who as the DC Examiner put it, are “talking and voting for earmarks as if the 2006 elections never happened.”

More importantly, as much as Gilmore deserves credit for starting the 1997 tax revolt, the limited government/anti-tax coalition has moved on.  Mark Warner (who was the Democratic State Chairman from 1990-1996, and as such is far more the politician than he would have us believe) built the modern Democratic party in response to Gilmore’s success in the late 1990s.  Warner is thus perfectly positioned to take on and defeat Gilmore (as Phil himself noted).

On the 2007 tax revolt, however (the anti-HB3202 wave), Warner is exceedingly vulnerable - and it isn’t Jim Gilmore who led (and leads) that fight, it’s Bob Marshall.  Jim Gilmore isn’t trying to get the unconstitutional regional tax hikes annulled in the courts; Bob Marshall is.  Jim Gilmore hasn’t lent his voice to the outcry on abuser fees; Bob Marshall has.  As the nominee, Marshall will give angry voters in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads someone to vote for.  I, for one, am all but certain this will bring Marshall support that Gilmore simply can’t reach.

Gilmore has made much hay about his success in northern Virginia in 1997, and deservedly so, much has changed since then.  Marshall continues to rack up large victories and outperform both other Republicans and Democrats up-ballot from him, and he has done it in northern Virginia for five elections since Gilmore’s last.

So there you are, Phil - and I hope you understand why I couldn’t put all of this in a comment!