I’ve been re-reading an old Virginia political tome: “Claiming the Dream” by Margaret Edds. It wasn’t a random choice, as the book covers the 1989 Wilder-Coleman gubernatorial contest.
And the manager of Coleman’s narrowly unsuccessful campaign, Boyd Marcus, is in the news for jumping sides and endorsing Terry McAuliffe’s 2013 gubernatorial bid.
Marcus’ move has generated much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the right. But I’m left with questions. Not for Marcus, or his former clients. My questions are for Democrats and the press.
First, the background. I urge my Democratic friends to pick up the Edds book and read about the Coleman press conference held just a few days before the 1989 election. Coleman’s campaign staff dubbed it the “Showdown at the OK Corral” where “Coleman unleashed his fury.” Coleman was upset, and his staff deeply frustrated, that none of the ads and charges they had made over the course of the campaign questioning Wilder’s character and credibility had been fully covered in the press or, when the were, were excused as what Coleman called “minor foibles”:
Pressed by reporters to say why he thought Wilder was getting special treatment, Coleman replied, “I’ve said, and I will repeat it, I think that a double standard applies to Doug Wilder. If the press wants to say why that is, it’s up to the press.”
Democrats considered this as Coleman and his campaign playing the race card.
Edds addressed this performance later in her book:
…the GOP candidate knew very well that comments viewed as having racist overtones had caused problems for the Virginia Republican party in the 1981 and 1985 races for governor. With dozens of state and national news reporters focusing on the contest, any hint that race was being exploited was certain to be fully aired. Given that knowledge, and the extreme sensitivity of the Coleman camp to other racial matters, it is inconceivable that they did not foresee the consequences when late in the campaign Coleman declared that a double standard was being applied to Wilder. Had they not wanted the public and the press to focus on a racial double standard, they could easily have ascribed the difference in treatment to conservatism, abortion, or some other issue. Instead, Coleman left open the question of what was causing the double standard, ensuring that race would be raised.
The sympathetic view, advanced by Coleman’s strategists, was that exploring the double standard was legitimate. It was up to the press to examine its coverage, and maybe look in the mirror, to see why it had covered Wilder the way it had. The less charitable explanation is that Coleman’s attack was a dog whistle. Wilder, in case no one noticed, was a black man. He was getting a free pass from the press because of his race. Democrats at the time put it in stark terms:
“[Coleman] got caught in a vortex,” says Scott Reynolds of the AFL-CIO…”He had to sell out. He kept saying he was not going to inject racism, and yet at the end, he couldn’t help himself.”
This is an episode packed neatly in the bags Boyd Marcus now brings to Democrat Terry McAuliffe’s campaign, both as an endorser, and as a campaign consultant.
So here’s the question for Democrats:
How do you square the idea of having your gubernatorial candidate embrace — and hire — a consultant who Democrats still believe tossed the race card on the table during the final days of the Wilder-Coleman campaign?
And here’s the question for the press:
Will you ask Democrats — be it Terry McAuliffe or perhaps party chairman Charniele Herring — if this bothers them in the least? And if not, why not? Does the old adage “personnel is policy” no longer apply when there’s a race to be won?
They may want to ask Doug Wilder about it all, too.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for those answers. But I will have a few more questions for the Democrats and the press regarding Terry’s new hire in the days to come.
