Share This Page

Here come the Virginians

Will the commonwealth of Virginia take center stage in 2008?

It is not impossible that Virginia's Republican U.S. senator, George Allen, could square off against its former Democrat governor, Mark Warner, in the 2008 presidential election.

Not since 1944, when Republican Gov. Thomas Dewey of New York ran against that state's former Democrat governor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, have two men from the same state opposed each other for president.

What would a modern, information-at-the-speed-of-light presidential campaign look like, matching up two candidates of the same state• A provocative thought, but how likely is it?

"Well, I think it is a real long shot but a very interesting scenario," said Mark Rozell, a George Mason University public policy professor.

Well, class, this is politics, and on any given Tuesday, anything can happen.

Warner's and Allen's similarities are few. Both were popular governors and both were titular heads of their parties. Throw in the fact that they are of the same generation and that puts the caboose on that train of thought.

If you look at recent polling, each man is what his respective party is searching for.

Allen is conservative, confident and considered by some the second coming of Reagan.

Warner undoubtedly is what is missing most in a Democrat candidate -- a non-shrill moderate. He appeals to the party's largely ignored yet large moderate base.

Democrat strategist Steve McMahon finds the potential match-up compelling for Democrats. "Warner would win because America has a GOP hangover. ... An outsider is more appealing."

And history shows a governor is more attractive than a senator when running for president.

McMahon notes the senator's Bush quagmire. "Allen has this problem: He has a voting record with the president of over 90 percent. ... That is with a president with a 31 percent approval rating. ... Not very compelling numbers."

But don't underestimate Allen. "He is quite appealing, very charismatic, and he really does have that Reagan 'aw shucks' appeal," McMahon says.

Should each become his party's nominee, the plot thickens regarding their prospective vice-presidential choices. Two words describe that choice: regional balance. Each party would scramble to pick a non-southern, non-mid-Atlantic candidate with broad appeal within the party.

Two western border-state governors instantly would rise to the top -- New Mexico Democrat Bill Richardson and Texas Republican Rick Perry. How each has handled his state's border with Mexico makes him a persuasive candidate in this era of border security.

GOP strategist Kent Gates sees it this way: "With no clear front-runner for 2008, Sen. Allen has the resume, charisma and connections to win the nomination."

While Gates agreed with McMahon about the difficulty of making the leap from senator to presidential nominee, he added that Allen "has the background and experience as a successful governor of a state that he helped turn from blue to red."

On the other hand, Gates said, "Warner is the ultimate centrist in a party that more than leans left. He will appeal to the Reagan Democrats in states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania."

Not since the founding days of our country, with Washington and Jefferson, have we had two prime-time candidates from Virginia.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.