Thursday, June 05, 2008

Party Unity

Jim Bowden has a great post on what I believe to be --- at least as to the latter --- exaggerated reports that retiring Senator John Warner and Congressman Tom Davis are withholding their support from GOP nominee for Senate Jim Gilmore. The article discussing the facts seems to me to be an exercise in making a mountain out of a molehill.

I have no trouble believing reports about John Warner's perfidy. As one WMAL host has observed in other contexts, "Frequently appalled, but never surprised."

However, I would be very surprised if Tom Davis did not endorse his Party's nominee, notwithstanding any lingering bitterness over the fact that the GOP chose to nominate through a convention, and not a primary. Tom is a big boy, and my guess is that he understands that for many members of the State Central Committee, it was --- to quote a line from "The Godfather" --- "nothing personal; just business." Many of those voting --- at least those with whom I am acquainted --- have principled reasons for supporting conventions over primaries, as do I, and hold that conventions are the first and best method of choosing Republican nominees.

I said at the time that I would have been torn had Tom Davis run against Jim Gilmore for the GOP nomination for Senate, just as I was in the race between Gilmore and Bob Marshall (I ended up casting my ballot for Bob, but I am perfectly satisfied with Gilmore as the nominee). To be sure, I have had my differences with Congressman Davis, but I have known him for nearly as long as I have known Jim Gilmore. As Chairman of the PWC YRs when he ran for Congress for the first time in 1994, I worked hard for his election over then-incumbent Leslie Byrne. We've hosted him in our home. Our conversations have always been pleasant, and substantive. I consider him a friend.

I expect Tom Davis to do the right thing, because Tom --- unlike those Jim Bowden identifies as "RINOs" --- knows how Party politics are played. And even though it seems doubtful that he will stand for elective office again, I would be among those most surprised if he cast off a history of endorsing the Party's nominees from across the entire spectrum of those who are properly considered "Republicans" in order to gain the momentary and passing satisfaction of personal revenge.

Maintaining the filibuster in the Senate in a year that looks to be a good one for Democrats, and against the evils that they could perpetrate, is just too important.

2 comments:

James Atticus Bowden said...

I didn't call anyone a RINO by name. I agree with your assessment.

James Young said...

I know that, Jim, but I appreciate you visiting to insure clarity on the subject.