Debate refusal is damaging

By The Daily Progress

Published: August 30, 2008

Shame on Mark Warner.

The man who champions bipartisanship and sound government has refused to debate his opponent for the U.S. Senate.
Looks like Mr. Warner’s professions of support for good government extend only so far.

The Virginia League of Women Voters was to have sponsored the statewide televised event. Former Gov. Jim Gilmore, the GOP nominee, had accepted their invitation.
Former Gov. Mark Warner, the Democratic nominee, has just rejected it.

There will be no debate.

That decision is disappointing for several reasons.
The obvious reason is that voters will be denied the opportunity to see the two men square off against one another. They will be denied the opportunity to hear them describe their political goals and defend those goals against critique.
A televised debate, sponsored by the highly respected League of Women Voters, would have been the single most practical way for voters to become educated in this political race.
They have been cheated of that opportunity.
But the decision is disappointing — no, exasperating — for more than that.
It’s because of who Mr. Warner is — or who he claims to be — that the refusal to debate is both unexpected and inadequate.
Mr. Warner has seemed to be that rare politician who puts the public good at least on equal footing with political gain.

As Virginia governor, he navigated rough waters with political opponents in part by espousing moderate, bipartisan views.
He has just finished speaking to the national Democratic Convention about the need for bipartisanship in governance.

From that call for bipartisanship, it is not farfetched to extrapolate a broader belief in fair and effective governance. Indeed, Mr. Warner’s history suggests that he believes that what’s good for the voters is also good for the campaign, and that serving the people is also serving the party.
Refusing to debate is not in the best interests of voters. It does not serve the people.

It doesn’t even serve Mr. Warner well.
He had built a reputation for political fairness. He has now damaged that reputation by his act of political shortsightedness and failure of courage. His credibility has taken a hit.
Did he think Mr. Gilmore would gain points in a debate?
But by refusing to debate, Mr. Warner has lost points.

He’s lost points, he’s lost credibility, he’s lost a piece of his reputation.

This was more than a disappointing decision. It was a damaging one.