I spent a bit of time watching the video of the second Gilmore-Warner debate (see here). Given his performance, it is obvious why Mark Warner desperately wanted to avoid a debate with Jim Gilmore. Gilmore spoke calmly and defended his record. He answered the questions directly and made his position on the issues clear. He also ripped Warner’s record and positions apart.
Warner kept speaking about his plans, but, except for raising taxes on the wealthy, he avoided specifics. Instead, when he reaches the Senate, Warner wants to form a coalition of “radical centrists”. Radical centrists? Is this the latest expression for bipartisanship?
Gilmore hammered Warner for his reversal on a tax increase in the citizens of Virginia. He connected the rise in gasoline prices with the financial collapse (Deo Vindice has a good explanation of the relationship here.). He challenged Warner for his support of forced unionization, and he took a strong, sensible position on defense issues.
Are you comfortable supporting Warner? Then I strongly suggest you listen to the debate (see here). You may change your mind.
Other Views
Bear Drift (here) provides an audio download and a quick review.
SWAC Girl (here) takes up Gilmore’s repeated suggestion to Warner: “Be honest with Virginians”.
Ox Road South (here) provides a funny review. He says Warner knows capital markets. If so, this expertise was not in evidence. See the debate.
Blacknell (here) laments that both Gilmore and Warner support second amendment gun rights in DC.
Mad in the Middle (here) observes this from a Washington Post column: ”a remarkable and almost discomfiting degree of agreement between longtime adversaries Jim Gilmore and Mark Warner”.
Tom, as is his usual habit, completely misrepresents my position. My lamentation was over the willingness of both candidates to toss aside DC’s own process and right to handle the issue to score political points. The end.
MB – I linked to your post. People can read it.
Actually, given what you had to say about Gilmore, I find your compmisrepresentation ironic. Other than the fact Gilmore referred to the Virginia Supreme Court when he obviously meant the US Supreme Court, Warner and Gilmore pretty much took the same position. Since Gilmore spoke on this matter first, Warner could have observed discrepancy. He obviously thought it too petty to bother with.
Tom, I skipped this in my first comment, but – you’re an idiot. I could link you and say “Tom’s a confused pedophile”, and then say “I linked you, people can read it” if you complain about it. You’re dishonest at the most basic levels – really, there is no need to link me for your hackery. You’re free to, of course, but it seems an utter waste of time on both our parts.
WOW, MB, that’s a bit much, isn’t it? I’m not invalidating your feelings, but generally, I find Tom pretty fair. Sure he can irritate you
but we can ALL do that to one another.
kgotthardt — Thanks for the moral support.