The October 12 debate between Creigh Deeds and Robert McDonnell, respectively the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor of Virginia, was televised, but not very much; I'm betting most people didn't see it. And it threw a little more light on the candidates' respective positions, but again -- not very much.
Regular readers know that, though I'm an independent and a moderate, I've leaned in recent years more toward Democratic positions (mainly because there don't seem to be any moderate Republicans any more). But I don't accept the idea that the Virginia election is a referendum on Obama. Here, it's state issues that are important, and I considered both candidates for what they say they hope to deliver: road improvements high on the list, but also the state's strong bond rating, its reputation as business-friendly, and achieving a more equitable distribution of revenue between urban and rural areas. As is often the case, both candidates seek to garner votes in populous Northern Virginia and a few other urban enclaves by claiming to support these generic goals; even a mild skeptic would have doubts about how seriously they mean it, and whether they will follow through.
The debate offered just enough impression of both candidates to decide me for Deeds, on two factors:
On the big transportation issue, McDonnell makes much of the fact he has a "plan," but most elements of his plan are not new; they've been tried before and haven't been enacted due to political resistance (more often than not, from McDonnell's own party). Deeds's "plan" consists of forming a bipartisan commission to look into the issues and make recommendations; that may sound a little loopy but to me it makes good sense. It's the only thing I can see that might work, given the logjam that's existed for decades on the nexus of road improvements and taxation. And frankly, I also like that he's been honest (sort of) in not completely ruling out tax increases for roads (presumably if his commission recommended that) -- that's a realistic position. McDonnell keeps saying "no new taxes" but his suggestions for avoiding them are weak, and failure to consider new revenue likely means stealing funds from other pots, like education, services, and business/tourism promotion.
Then there is the question of commitment, by which I mean, which candidate might actually carry out what he's promising, and if he did, what are his chances of success? The often disheveled, sometimes inarticulate Deeds is from a rural constituency and makes no bones about it; but he seems a commonsense, practical man, and I also judge that he's a moderate one, having been elected as a Democrat from such a constituency. I think that qualifies him to work with both parties to find solutions to the state's problems, and to the issues that our different regions face. By refusing to become a cardboard cutout of himself, Deeds comes across as honest. His opponent, I'm afraid, does not (to me), and despite his harping on the fact he grew up in Northern Virginia, his adult life -- and his political life -- has been spent in Richmond, the center of the socially and fiscally conservative cabal that has done nothing for its most populous and revenue-generating urban counties. I am unsure if he really means to deal with northern Virginia problems (he seems to have discovered them only when he decided to run for governor), but I am rather certain that he's not the guy who can reach across party lines to craft workable solutions to them.
I'm not under any illusions that Deeds will win the race, though. Virginia's very evenly divided red/blue electorate hasn't been fundamentally altered by a couple of Democratic wins in the Senate, or in the last two Governors' races. It's the Republicans' turn; a win by McDonnell would demonstrate little more than that. A Deeds victory on November 3, however, could indicate a degree of permanency in Virginia's gradual shift from "red" to "purple."
Comments