Frontrunners shun debate

Beyond the bounds of presidential politics, debates are the medium of candidates whose hopes have dwindled to faint. Like Springsteen’s “lost souls calling long-distance salvation,” office seekers left behind in the polls believe debates to be channels for miracles. While foes wax imprecatory, favorites whose fates have been mastered already wonder, why bother?
The answer would figure to have something to do with democracy, but that has little to do with political strategy. This explains why Senate candidate Mark Warner and Rep. Bob Goodlatte cling to the security of news conferences and choreographed campaign stops like first-time swimmers clinging to the wall in the shallow end of the pool. Warner and Goodlatte likely will win by 20 percentage points or more. Debates, for them, serve only to harm.
So cries of futility ring from faux challengers Jim Gilmore and Sam Rasoul. Warner last month backed out of a League of Women Voters debate that was to be the only one televised statewide this fall. The league offered eight possible dates; Warner offered pale excuses, such as references to scheduling conflicts, a palatable response, like his pledge as governor not to raise taxes.
Rasoul has beckoned Goodlatte similarly to no avail. The News Virginian also has attempted to schedule a congressional debate, but Goodlatte’s staff has resisted, echoing Warner’s reference to conflicts. The House reconvened Sunday and is scheduled to adjourn Sept. 26. But there are means of travel between here and Washington, and there are weekends, right?
For campaign strategists managing frontrunners, debates are nettlesome. Their candidates have elections to lose while their opponents have nothing. But campaigns for elected office ought to be about more than nursing a lead to victory, like a coach running out the clock. Voters ought to be given a look at the candidates that extends beyond script.
That option so far being precluded, we offer our own questions for the candidates:
Gov. Warner, you pledged in the fashion of President Bush the 41st that you would not raise taxes as governor and you subsequently passed the largest tax increase in state history. Why should voters trust your word when you make other promises?
Gov. Gilmore, under your watch, you decreased the state’s car sales tax by 70 percent while increasing the state’s operating budget by more than a third. After succeeding you, Gov. Warner cut spending by $6 billion over three years, necessary, he says, to rescue the state from the red ink into which you plunged it. How does this demonstrate the fiscal conservatism for which you say you stand?
Mr. Rasoul, you propose a “renewable revolution” that would shift us from fossil fuels to alternatives within 10 years. Renewables account for just 7 percent of the world’s energy supply. How is a revolution possible, particularly given the large land mass needed for wind and solar power to produce energy at a level equivalent to current conventional output?
Rep. Goodlatte, you spent $1.8 million of the taxpayers’ money in earmarks on such projects as the Wayne Theatre renovation. You explained that other lawmakers do the same. Isn’t this rationale part of the problem, and what do you intend to do to correct it?
Finally, for Warner and Goodlatte: When will you answer the challenges of your opponents? We anxiously await responses to these and other questions yet to come.