THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, March 11, 1995 TAG: 9503110006
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A11 EDITION: FINAL
LENGTH: Long : 264 lines
Remember the ``Secrest Memo''? It was prepared by a political polling and consulting firm, Cooper, Secrest and Associates of Alexandria, hired by the Commonwealth Victory Fund, the political arm of the House Democratic Caucus. The consultants tested public opinion and provided a ``playbook'' of tactics for Democrats to use in trying to defeat Gov. George Allen's legislative agenda and political ambitions.
The memo, by Allen Secrest, dated Feb. 7 and excerpted here, detailed some of this political advice. A copy intended for Democratic Del. Watkins Abbitt was delivered by mistake to Republican Del. John Watkins. He opened it and made the contents public on Feb. 14.
The subject has arisen occasionally since the Assembly session, and will continue to arise as we near the November election, when Democrats try to retain a slim majority in the legislature and Republicans try to seize it.
Republicans like Ken Stolle, whose remarks on the Senate floor are excerpted here, say it is sleazy, corrupt and appalling that Democrats ``earnestly claimed they had considered the governor's proposals with an open mind when, in truth, the positions and the attack lines were already spelt out in the playbook.''
Democrats like Ken Geroe, whom we asked to respond for this page, say that Republicans' ``outburst of cynical and synthetic fury'' is hypocritical and a tactic ``to divert the political dialogue'' from ``the disastrous consequences for Virginia of the Allen agenda.''
Appalling? Business-as-usual? Both? You decide. EXCERPT FROM MEMO
It appears that the Democratic line of attack has brilliantly succeeded in not just legislatively defeating but politically deflating Allen's tax-budget-spending package.
Allen seemed all governmentally tangled up and to have lost sight of his Plan's impact on real people. (See plays (NU)1 and (NU)3 from Play-book)
As The Washington Post nicely concluded in its Feb. 3 report: ``With so many far-reaching proposals to restructure taxes, welfare, and education, Allen was unable to focus his energies.'' Of course, it was the Democratic framing of Allen's program that made Allen seem so overreaching and limited his ability to focus a message.
Perhaps the most succinctly potent characterization of the Allen Plan was Delegate DeBoer's comment that it was ``brain-dead.'' In other words, the Allen Plan was not just too conservative or draconian; it also came across as just too stupid.
The key weapon for Democrats in driving this point home was the deft juxtaposition of Allen's call for massive prison bonds and big tax cuts at the same time. Under Democratic scrutiny, Allen seemed to be defying common sense by wanting the state to assume a huge debt on prison bonds while also reducing its ability to pay by cutting back on revenues.
As Democrats move forward, we must continue to reinforce this ``story'' that the Allen Plan was ``brain-dead.'' This story plays well beyond the liberal base of constituents which (rightly) saw the Allen spending cuts as too right-wing draconian.
As we have said before, the ``liberal'' story against the Allen Plan is now virtually writing itself in the press and through various group networks in the state. The Democratic message needs to go beyond our base to gather in more moderate, swing and less engaged voters.
We understand that the possibilities here must be dictated in large part by fiscal realities. And especially after Allen's embarrassing trip-and-fall routine, Democrats should not promise their own version of budgetary pie in the sky.
Whatever mixture of proposals are pursued, here's the key point: Democrats should do their best to insulate themselves (especially their most vulnerable members) from the charges that their actions prove them to be: (i) defenders of the status quo, (ii) believers in just throwing money at problems; in addition, much, if not most, of the erosion of the Democratic side occurred among lower- and middle-income white voters. Moreover, this profile of voters also matches key Democratic targets in our statewide survey. Any ideological dissonance between these voters and perceptions of Virginia Democrats here may play a major role come November. . . .
(W)e need to find some means of providing our members ideological coverage now that we have exposed ourselves over the tax issue (among others), whether that help comes in the form of welfare reform, prisons or even by revisiting the tax issue.
We are aware of the strong sentiment that Democrats cannot coun-ter with a tax-cut proposal after doing such fierce battle on the issue with Allen. And we are sympathetic, to some extent, that it would look too weak to propose simply a more modest ``Allen lite'' income-tax reduction.
Yet the political value of supporting a tax cut cannot be ignored. It is not necessarily fiscally reckless or at least not politically foolish to explore some options here as long as, 1) we don't trample the same political tripwires that upended the Allen tax plan in voters' eyes (education cuts, indebtedness, tax shifts, etc.), and, 2) we address the real problem in this state when it comes to the tax issue (i.e. property taxes). It may be too much to ask fiscally, but we can't be perceived as entirely insensitive to the tax burden voters face in this state. Possibilities might include some form of property tax homestead exemption or small-business tax credits.
We know that Democrats have gained some impressive ground in belittling the Allen cut as a mere $33 reduction (in the first year) and contrasting this minor benefit with the damage that his cuts would have wreaked on Virginia's future. But especially vulnerable incumbents in tax-sensitive districts should hammer on the notion that the Allen tax cut was an illusion or shell game.
We agree with the developing consensus that Democrats should put a slightly revised version of the already-passed Beyer (welfare-reform) plan on Allen's gubernatorial desk. (T)he revisions can be characterized as refinements reflecting Democratic willingness to respond constructively to GOP suggestions.
We can afford to let Allen pose as the punitive taskmaster if our plan comes across as tough enough and also serious about getting people into jobs. The key here, regardless whether Allen signs or vetoes it, is to demonstrate that a unified Democratic majority has pushed through real positive change in the welfare status quo.
We are aware that the dominant idea among legislators is to make education the key area for contrast with the priorities of Allen and the GOP.
First, Democrats are restoring higher education cuts and even pushing for slightly increased support.
Then at the elementary and secondary level, Democrats plan to contrast their position with the faddish experimentalism of Allen's charter-schools proposal. As we have previously suggested, the Democrats emphasis should be on ``basic reform.'' (See Play (NU)7).
It's our understanding that the big theme is to portray a renewed legislative initiative to reduce class size as the centerpiece of a ``basics reform'' package. We are not exactly clear how or whether the financing adds up without a hefty burden on the General Fund or local property tax.
But it's probably essential to stay away from financing issues as much as possible and cast the debate as one demonstrating our contrasting ``values'' with Allen and the GOP. While Allen wants to experiment with another new wave of reform school structures, Democrats simply want all Virginia children to get more personal attention in the classroom so that they can read, write, and do math better.
Democrats should continue to pin Allen down . . . by exposing the lavishness and questionable numbers in his prison-building proposal. Rather than staying simply negative on Allen's proposal, Democrats can point to more direct crime-fighting measures that are cheaper and more effective - more cops, anti-gang legislation, teen curfews, tougher juvenile laws, tougher school-violence laws, etc.
We understand that Democrats may have to accept some use of non-voter-approved prison bonds. This is admittedly awkward - but for Allen as well as Democrats. Perhaps Democrats can characterize this portion as the prison-building money that would have been routinely needed in the absence of any no-parole initiative. And this portion (more or less) is being funded in the routine manner - with bonds that do not need voter approval. But what's in question is all the extra money that Allen says he needs for the no-parole initiative.
In any event, Democrats do not have to be seen as less enthusiastic than Allen about putting criminals away. Instead they should show that they are less enthusiastic about more lavish Pentagon-like spending waste. DEMOCRATS' 'DIRTY TRICKS'\ Following are excerpts from remarks by Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle, R-Va. Beach, made on the Senate floor.
Apparently by accident, this memorandum, addressed to a group identified only as ``Democratic Planners,'' was delivered to a Republican delegate by mistake. The memorandum was pre-pared by Allen Secrest of Cooper, Secrest and Associates. You may remember the Secrest group; they're the ones whose dirty tricks brought a new low to Virginia politics in the 1993 legislative campaigns when they introduced the concept of ``sleaze polling.''
``Sleaze polling'' is when a political dirty-tricks team calls into an area and pretends to be doing a poll but really just calls to spread half-truths and lies about an opposing candidate.
For example, they called into Del. Riley Ingram's district asking voters whether they would vote for Delegate Ingram if they knew he had dozens of misdemeanor violations in the properties he rents. It was an outright lie.
It's clever. It's deceitful. And it is a very effective form of character assassination.
According to the records filed with the State Board of Elections on Dec. 4, just three days after the governor announced his tax cut proposal, the Commonwealth Victory Fund, which is the political arm of the House Democratic Caucus, paid this firm $12,250. Five days after that, it paid them another $12,250, for a total of $24,500.
What could the House Democrat Caucus possibly have wanted from these sleazy political operatives in December 1994, just a few weeks before the legislative session began? The Feb. 7 memorandum is just an update, apparently, one of many. But you can infer enough from it to expose the cynical game House Democrats played during this session. The pollster early on provided the House Democratic Caucus with a ``playbook'' - that's their term, not mine - for running down the Allen agenda.
There is a play for making a false accusation that the governor wanted to cut taxes by going into debt when, in truth, Democrats had already endorsed prison bonds and the governor's tax cut proposal was accompanied by specific spending reductions.
There is a play for ridiculing the tax cut as a paltry $33 reduction, when that was actually just a first-year's portion of a plan to reduce taxes by more than $1,000 for the typical family of four over the next five years.
There is a play for protecting the status quo on welfare reform and then claiming credit for the Democratic-sponsored changes.
There is a play for short-changing the governor's prison-building program in order to crowd out the parole abolition initiative.
On issue after issue this memorandum shows the fix has been in from the beginning.
Again and again during the last month, members stood on the floor of the House of Delegates, and sometimes in the Senate, and earnestly claimed they had considered the governor's proposals with an open mind when, in truth, the positions and the attack lines were already spelt out in the playbook.
Again and again they faulted the governor for not working with them when, in truth, they had set out from the beginning to trash this governor and his program for the people of Virginia.
They blasted the governor for not being more flexible and friendly and open to compromise.
But as you can see, the House Democrats and their pollsters would not consider any compromise with the governor on tax relief because it would make them look too weak.
During this session, for the first time ever, House Democrats have been meeting in caucuses every day, apparently to be fed the latest line of attack from their pollster's playbook. And time after time Democrats have been voting as a bloc in committee and on the floor to kill the governor's proposals.
Now, I don't know how many members of the House Caucus were aware of the sleazy band that was calling the plays. I don't know how many were shown the play-book. I don't know how many understood how the process here was being corrupted. And I don't know who was in the loop and who wasn't. I like to think that this fraud perpetrated on Virginians was limited to just a few members of the House of Delegates.
But after watching the political diatribes, the ritual killings by bloc, party-line votes and the orgy of self-congratulation over the defeat of a program of the governor offered with good reason and good faith, I must tell you that I find it appalling. 'SYNTHETIC' GOP REACTION
Following is a response we requested from Kenneth V. Geroe, vice chairman of the Virginia Democratic Party and a resident of Virginia Beach.
I am not sure whether to react with amusement or concern over the outburst of synthetic and cynical fury concerning the existence of a Democratic public-opinion poll.
With all due respect, the Republican reaction is just unbelievable. Are we to believe that the governor and the members of his party do not engage public-opinion experts and seek their guidance? During his entire legislative career, Delegate Allen evidenced no great interest in matters of crime and punishment, yet in 1993 that was the centerpiece of his remarkably on-target gubernatorial campaign. Do you think maybe somebody did some polling?
It is undisputed that the Republican National Committee did extensive polling in preparation for its infamous ``Contract on America.'' Newt Gingrich and company were guided by Arlington GOP pollster Frank Luntz's polling data in determining what fit the mood of the electorate (and thus was included in the contract) and what did not (and thus was left out). The Allenistas have yet to criticize this instance of setting policy by poll results.
It is typically cynical of the Republican Party of Virginia to raise this complaint while they are in the midst of conducting just such a poll themselves. I have been provided a copy of the questions they put to a citizen from Northern Virginia on Feb. 28, 1995.
I do not care that they are doing a poll. I am simply tired of the hypocrisy and cynicism that are the essence of the politics they practice.
Let us understand clearly what is going on in this debate. Deep down inside, the Republicans know the truth of everything I have written here. They raise this phony issue in an attempt to divert the political dialogue, both now and in the fall, from the real issues confronting Virginia.
The governor has proposed, and the General Assembly has rejected, a reckless program which would take police officers off the street, undermine our colleges and universities, underfund our schools and eliminate support for programs like Meals on Wheels. Distinguished former governors from both political parties have publicly warned against the disastrous consequences for Virginia of the Allen agenda.
Virginia's proud bipartisan heritage of prudence and fiscal responsibility is now imperiled by a politically ambitious governor and his radical friends who value ideology over solid, practical governance. That is what the focus of this space should be and precisely what the Allenistas do not want to discuss. ILLUSTRATION: Drawings
Republican Party logo
Democratic Party logo
KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY VIRGINIA SENATE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF
DELEGATES by CNB