The inside the beltway crowd had an opportunity to see the often used dividing line today on their trip to Tysons for the Senate debate between former Senator George Allen and former Governor Tim Kaine. Capital One’s auditorium is about as close as one can get to the beltway without being stuck in traffic on it. It appears someone from the Kaine campaign woke up extra early this morning to let everyone know that Tysons is a central battle region for the democrats. The sign postage was borderline grotesque, though the positioning on the hill along side Mitre’s campus actually was aesthetically pleasing (like some sort of disgusting political flower bed of volunteer powered efficiency).
The debate itself had almost nothing to do with the setting they found themselves in, which we think was an opportunity lost. The topics revolved around large scale federal issues and even international issues of which a senator, outside of voting towards waging war, has very little control over. The moderator David Gregory missed a chance to discuss regional infrastructure projects and the unique relationship of Northern Virginia to the federal government; topics which could have provided insight on how each candidate views their obligations to Virginia.
One topic that has been on the minds of Northern Virginia residents is sequestration. Debate host, Fairfax’s Chamber of Commerce, has been adamant in voicing the concerns of the business community about the ominous impacts to the regional economy. Both candidates reiterated that sequestration must not occur. Before you begin believing a compromise deal is near; both stood in stark contrast on how to achieve the needed deficit reductions in order to avoid the automatic cuts. We’ll save you from repeating what you have likely heard everywhere these past 3 months. Both candidates stood with their overall party platform.
Kaine may have stepped slightly outside of the current Democratic party’s stance on sequestration by saying that some “aggregate” solution is needed, indicating that compromise on tax cuts and defense spending could be possible.
Instead of discussing the very serious issues of transit, rail connections along the east coast, and the lack of gas tax increases over the past 2 decades (leading to massive funding gaps for infrastructure in the US and Virginia) the debate had 5 minutes devoted to the Allen campaigns previous death nail, a racial slur towards a south asian reporter 6 years ago. Of course, this question did highlight past grievances against Allen’s openness and treatment of diversity, but it was an unsubstantial question which received the automated response of “I already said…” In this short duration format we found it wasteful and unnecessary.
In general the session was what one would expect from an introductory debate, large scale and vague in nature. We doubt anyone will change their mind on either candidate based on the answers provided. The problem with the format was its focus on grand issues central to the two party platforms. Instead of focusing on how they will represent Virginia in the senate, they faced off in a war of attrition for their parties in a race to see who will have majority control.
The Virginian identity is what we are losing when Jim Webb retires, a senator who carried the unique identity of Virginia with him through his term in office. Several times Webb’s platform differed from the overall party, and foremost was Webb’s background as a Virginian and his obligations to the Commonwealth. Without a unique voice for Virginia in the senate we lose out on our ability to be a compromising and rational figure in congress, and sadly the slide towards party extremism will continue untethered.