44th Congressional District : Bates, Mitchell Trade Gibes in Lopsided Race

Candidate Bill started things off by challenging Congressman Jim to a urinalysis.

Jim one-upped Bill by revealing that he had already taken a drug test, then quipped: “Ordinarily, I’m not in favor of congressional leaks.”

“How do we know it’s his?” Bill asked, questioning the authenticity of the test. The only way to settle this thing, Bill said, was to square off before a politically neutral doctor.

Jim kept things rolling by saying that Bill was distorting things so much that maybe he ought to take a lie-detector test whenever he talked.

Fine, let’s have a debate while we’re both hooked up to a lie detector and see who’s telling the truth, Bill answered.

Well, maybe that’s not such a good idea, after all, Jim allowed. Besides, Jim added, barely able to contain a chuckle, ol’ Bill might not understand what he’s talking about well enough to even know when he’s lying.

San Diegans could be excused for thinking that the preceding is a comedy routine--sort of an ‘80s answer to Bob and Ray. In fact, it’s a summary of the highlights (or lowlights) of the 44th Congressional District race between Rep. Jim Bates (D-San Diego) and his Republican challenger, former San Diego City Councilman Bill Mitchell--a contest that, to date, has seemed more in need of a laugh track than voting booths.

“It has been kind of a joke,” admitted Bates, who is seeking his third two-year term in the heavily Democratic district. “He’s turned this thing into a circus. After some of the crazy things he’s done, it’s hard to take the rest of what he’s said very seriously.”

Always quick with a comeback, Mitchell responded: “The biggest joke in this race is his record. . . Anyway, he was the one who first suggested the lie-detector thing. If he’s going to point the finger at someone for gamesmanship, he should point it at himself.”

Although there are considerable philosophical and personal contrasts between Bates and Mitchell, those differences have been obscured by the name-calling, gimmickry and rhetorical hyperbole--most of it initiated by Mitchell--that have dominated the campaign between two of San Diego’s most colorful politicians.

Mitchell, for example, has called Bates “the enemy in the war on drugs,” “a defense rapist,” “soft on Communism,” “Banzai Bates” and “a flip-flopping chameleon” at various times during the past six months. Bates has countered by describing Mitchell as “kind of a kooky guy,” “not too tightly wound,” “a Reagan clone” and “a flat-out liar.”

That sampling of the campaign’s dialogue appears to reinforce the evaluation of one local Democratic campaign consultant, who remarked, “Lincoln-Douglas it ain’t.”

Though it may not have raised political oratory to a higher level, the 44th District race clearly has been the most interesting and closely contested of the county’s four congressional campaigns, largely because Mitchell’s high name-identification makes him a more serious challenger than those found in the other contests.

The 44th District covers downtown and southern San Diego, extending from Linda Vista south to Otay, and also includes Lemon Grove, National City and Chula Vista. Expressly carved out to be a “safe” Democratic seat by Democratic officeholders who controlled the state’s reapportionment process, the district includes heavy concentrations of blacks, Latinos and other minorities that have given the Democrats a commanding 56%-33% edge among registered voters.

A 45-year-old former San Diego city councilman and two-term San Diego County supervisor, Bates captured the district in 1982 with 65% of the vote and was reelected two years later with 70%, both times against minor opposition.

However, in Mitchell, a former two-term city councilman who narrowly lost his seat last year to Abbe Wolfsheimer, Bates faces his first “name” opponent. Bates, though, is confident that his year-round campaigning, combined with the Democrats’ lopsided registration lead, makes his position all but impregnable--to Mitchell or any Republican.

Indeed, while the Republicans talk up the prospects for an upset, Bates views Mitchell’s candidacy as essentially a GOP test run aimed at measuring just how “safe” his seat is. A 60%-plus showing on his part in the Nov. 4 election, Bates argues, should be sufficient to convince national Republicans not to waste their time or money in the district in the future, at least until the district’s boundaries are redrawn in the 1990s.

Libertarian Dennis Thompson, the head of a local computer time-sharing service, and Shirley Isaacson, a Peace and Freedom Party candidate, also will appear on next month’s ballot.

Undaunted by either Bates’ record or the district’s strong Democratic slant, the 53-year-old Mitchell has been relying on the same aggressive door-to-door style of politicking that characterized his past council campaigns in his uphill effort to unseat Bates. To date, Mitchell and his campaign workers have visited more than 58,000 homes in the district, putting him within easy reach of his original target of 62,000 by Election Day.

“Jim Bates is bad for the 44th District, he’s bad for San Diego and he’s bad for the United States,” said Mitchell, who easily won a three-candidate GOP primary last June. “But he’s done a great selling job for four years. His voting record is the best kept secret in San Diego--until we come to the door. The more people find out about Jim Bates’ record, the less they like it. We’re picking up votes one at a time, house by house.”

After his council loss in November, Mitchell moved from Rancho Bernardo to Linda Vista, even though congressmen are not legally obliged to live within the districts they represent. The rapidity with which Mitchell began stalking another political race after losing his own seat led Bates, when asked to define the major difference between the two candidates, to remark sarcastically, “He’s out of a job. If he hadn’t run here, he would have run somewhere else.”

Mitchell, however, contends that neither his own ambition nor the Republicans’ desire to “soften up” Bates influenced him to enter the race as much as Bates’ own actions--in particular, Bates’ controversial suggestion at a congressional hearing in January that the legalization of drugs should be studied, a comment that has since become a focal issue in the race.

“We have kids killing themselves with drugs and this clown wants to put ‘U.S. Choice’ on drugs,” said Mitchell, a vigorous anti-drug advocate who helped establish the city’s alcohol and drug abuse prevention task force. “For that reason alone--even though there are a lot of others--Jim Bates doesn’t belong in Congress.”

In defending himself against Mitchell’s relentless hounding on the drug issue, Bates has accused his opponent of distorting what he terms a “poorly phrased” remark in which he told the congressional panel that the decriminalization of drugs “should be looked at much closer.” His comment, Bates contends, was intended to simply raise the question of whether a program similar to England’s state-run heroin program could ultimately reduce drug use “by taking the profits out of illegal drug sales.”

Mitchell and others argue, however, that the legalization of drugs would spur an increase in drug use--a conclusion that Bates says cannot be drawn with certainty until the issue is studied.

“All I’m saying is study it before you discard it as an alternative,” Bates said.

A Mitchell campaign brochure, however, flatly states that Bates “says he wants to legalize drugs”--an erroneous claim that prompted Bates’ suggestion that Mitchell should take a lie-detector test. In turn, Mitchell, trying to keep public attention focused on an issue that he sees as one of Bates’ major liabilities, challenged Bates to the urinalysis, only to learn that the congressman already had taken one and tested negative.

In addition, Bates emphasizes that he proposed legislation last summer to create anti-drug programs in schools, and co-sponsored another $180-million drug prevention program.

Amid all the tough talk about drugs--a staple in many races across the nation this fall--both major candidates have filmed television ads in which their respective daughters laud their fathers’ record in combatting drug use. In one spot, 15-year-old Robin Mitchell calls her father “the San Diego drug fighter,” and adds, “He feels that your sons, daughters and I have the right to attend drug-free schools.”

In the other, 11-year-old Jennifer Bates says, “I think drugs are a big problem in the United States. . . Children need education to learn more about drugs.”

A maverick Republican noted for the occasionally offbeat ideas he suggested during his years on the City Council, Mitchell also has prepared other TV ads on issues such as illegal aliens, the economy and the homeless that prominently feature one recurring phrase--”Bill Mitchell has a plan.” That phrase, Mitchell says, is ideally suited to his perception of politics.

“In college, I heard (presidential candidate) Estes Kefauver speak once, and he said, ‘I’m for apple pie and this and that,’ but he never had a plan,” Mitchell recalled. “I decided that if I went into politics, I’d always say what my plans were and what I’m for.”

Never reticent about proposing solutions to any problem, Mitchell has put forth a flurry of ideas throughout the campaign, though his answers to some complex problems strike Bates and others as simplistic or impractical. For example, Mitchell, complaining that Long Beach receives 70% of ship-repair business to San Diego’s 30%, has said that, if elected, he would propose legislation calling for a 50-50 split--as if saying so could make it reality.

“It’s just not that easy,” Bates said. “That’s a pretty naive view of the process.”

On another issue, Mitchell argues that the flow of illegal aliens into this country could be reduced by allowing foreign “guest workers” to sign up for jobs that U.S. firms cannot fill with American citizens.

“That’s about as good as doing nothing,” said Bates, who supported the immigration-reform measure approved by Congress last week, which combines a guest-worker program with sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and amnesty for many of the illegal aliens already in this country. Bates also advocates increasing the number of Border Patrol officers along the U.S.-Mexican border--a plan that Mitchell, calling the incumbent “Banzai Bates,” charged would lead to militarization of the border.

Using caustic terms such as “defense rapist,” Mitchell also has accused Bates of voting for “ultra-liberal defense budgets” that could undermine the nation’s security while costing San Diego thousands of defense-related jobs. In support of that contention, Mitchell notes that Bates last year received a 10% ranking from the American Security Council--a conservative, pro-defense group--while the county’s three Republican congressmen each received 100% scores.

“If Jim Bates had had his way, San Diego could have lost 30,000 jobs,” Mitchell charged. “Fortunately, he wasn’t successful.”

Bates dismisses Mitchell’s allegation as “totally absurd,” adding, “The defense budget has been increasing for the past four years, and I don’t think San Diego’s gained 30,000 jobs from that. So there’s no way we’d lose that many, either.”

Nevertheless, Bates acknowledges that a clear distinction between himself and Mitchell can be seen on defense issues. While Mitchell is an ardent supporter of President Reagan’s military buildup plans, Bates has opposed increasing funding for weapons systems such as the B-1 bomber and Trident submarine, and argues that the Administration’s defense program is based on an “outdated and inaccurate bigger-is-better mentality.”

“Mitchell can make a legitimate argument that he’d be a stronger defense vote than I would,” Bates said. “I’m for a strong defense, but I think you have to look at defense in the context of the overall budget. The social and health programs have been cut about as much as they can be. We can’t have everything and we can’t afford to continue to have $230-billion annual deficits. It’s a matter of where you draw the line.”

From Mitchell’s perspective, Bates’ moderate-to-liberal stance on national defense further undermines his standing with local military leaders--a relationship that was strained through Bates’ leading role last year in attracting nationwide publicity over irregularities in the Navy’s parts procurement program. As a result of the ensuing investigation, two high-ranking officers at the Miramar Naval Air Station lost their jobs.

“I’m not saying there wasn’t a problem, but I think Bates was more concerned about headlines than about correcting the problem,” Mitchell charged. “Careers were destroyed by the way he went about it and a lot of military people haven’t forgiven him.”

Bates, however, professes to be unconcerned about a backlash at the polls from retired or active military voters because of the Navy procurement issue.

“It may hurt with some die-hard officers . . . with the Captain Bligh syndrome,” Bates said. “But (Mitchell) is on thin ice if he thinks this is going to do it for him. He might get a few admirals who are sore losers and probably don’t live in the district to sign up, but I think the rank-and-file supports what I’ve done. They want to get a dollar’s worth of defense for every dollar spent, just like everybody else.” Bates also cites a recent audit that revealed that more than $300 million worth of military parts were missing aboard aircraft carriers as vindication of his efforts to tighten up procurement procedures.

During his four years in Congress, Bates, noted for his aggressive, sometimes abrasive, style, has earned a reputation as a fiscal conservative who is liberal on social issues. That ideological division is clearly illustrated by the ratings that Bates has received from various Washington-based interest groups.

Last year, for example, Bates received an 80% ranking from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action and 92% from the Consumer Federation of America, while he received an unfavorable 29% ranking from the American Conservative Union. The National Taxpayers Union, a group that rates congressmen on the basis of every vote that affects federal spending, gave Bates a 55% score last year--a mark that Bates’ aides regard as evidence of his balanced, moderate economic approach. Indeed, Bates’ score from the taxpayers’ group is nine points higher than even conservative Rep. Bill Lowery (R-San Diego) and one point higher than Rep. Jack Kemp (R-New York), a prominent advocate of supply-side economics.

Several of his fellow congressmen described Bates as a hard-working, opinionated individualist who is a forceful advocate for positions that often have a pro-consumer and pro-environment slant.

“Jim definitely paddles his own canoe,” said one Midwestern congressman, noting that Bates has occasionally alienated House leaders by bucking their wishes. A congressman who serves with Bates on the House Energy and Commerce Committee said that the San Diegan “displays a sincere caring for the poor,” adding, “But he’s not always easy to type or predict. He likes to dig into issues and asks good questions.”

Like most congressional sophomores, Bates has not yet had the opportunity for major legislative achievements but can point to his key role in the securing of $20 million in federal funds for expansion of the San Diego Trolley and a $32-million defensive border sewage system (which supplanted an elaborate $1-billion plan that he strongly opposed because of its cost) as highlights of his first two terms.

Blaming Mitchell for the injection of much of the gimmickry into the campaign, Bates admits that he has not gone out of his way to agree to many debates or joint forums, though the longer-than-expected congressional session also limited the campaign by keeping the two candidates on opposite coasts throughout much of the fall.

“That’s close enough for me,” Bates joked. “He’s such a loose cannon that I didn’t necessarily want to give him a forum.”

In response, Mitchell, who has been forced to do most of his verbal sparring with Bates via the news media, characterized Bates’ legislative record as “one that I wouldn’t be thrilled about having to defend, either.”

Mitchell’s efforts to expose what he sees as the shortcomings of that record, however, have been hampered by the fact that national Republican groups have provided him with verbal encouragement but relatively little financial assistance. While Bates already has raised and expects to spend more than $200,000, Mitchell concedes that he may have difficulty reaching $150,000.

The absence of major donations from GOP groups, Bates argues, is evidence that, despite what they say publicly, even Republicans recognize the difficulty of trying to dislodge him.

“The fact that the Republicans don’t want to spend their money here tells you something,” Bates said. “After this year, they’re going to want to spend it here even less.”