Van de Kamp Opens Governor Bid, Takes Aim at Feinstein on Her Turf : Politics: He lashes out at his rival for the Democratic nomination, seeking to contrast their political personalities.

John Van de Kamp had wanted to reach for the stars when he officially announced his candidacy for governor of California. But as it turned out Sunday, he was forced to be more down to earth--to aim right for the throat of his invigorated and freshly threatening Democratic primary opponent.

Van de Kamp, the measured man who is California’s two-term attorney general, was uncharacteristically tough and scathing as he sought to present Democrats with a compelling contrast between himself and his flashier challenger, former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein.

“Too many times we march into the booth frustrated by a lack of real choice. Not this time. . . . It’s time to talk candidly about the campaign that lies ahead,” he told a rally of 325 supporters at Mission High School here in Feinstein’s home town.

Van de Kamp listed the differences as he sees them:

On insurance, Feinstein sided with insurance companies in the 1988 ballot proposition fight over insurance reforms. He did not.

“Dianne Feinstein stood with the greediest special interest in the state--the only prominent Democrat to put her name on the line for the insurance industry,” said Van de Kamp, who sided with the lawyers in the fight.

On the environment, he noted she does not support the so-called “Big Green” environmental ballot measure he is co-sponsoring with conservationists for the November ballot.

On financial management, Van de Kamp said he has proposed specific taxes or bonds to pay for the programs he proposes. Feinstein mostly has ducked the how-will-you-pay-for-it issue.

“She uses all the buzzwords. She’ll re-prioritize; she’ll consult the experts; she’ll take money from one pocket and put it in another; she’ll say anything but answer the question.”

Van de Kamp noted that Feinstein left the mayor’s office with a projected budget deficit of $180 million. “Dianne Feinstein’s budget mismanagement turned the City by the Bay into the city that could not pay,” he said.

That charge was supported by Feinstein’s successor, Mayor Art Agnos. He told the rally: “No mayor knows better than I do why we need John Van de Kamp to be the next governor.”

Van de Kamp also took a roundhouse swing at other aspects of her mayorality--complaining that she awarded the key to the city to the late dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos of the Philippines, and that she, as mayor, was sued for failing to resolve civil rights hiring and harassment disputes in the city Fire Department.

“Imagine a Democratic candidate who was sued by Ronald Reagan for failing to stand up for civil rights?” Van de Kamp scoffed.

On government ethics, Van de Kamp noted he is sponsoring a bitterly controversial proposal to limit the terms of state officials.

Referring to Feinstein’s pledge to release her tax returns and her failure to do so, he said: “You can’t promise to lead a reformer’s crusade for ethics and openness in government when you won’t release you own tax returns for the years you’ve held public office.”

On abortion, Van de Kamp continued to warn that the so-called “speedy trial” ballot proposition that will appear on the June ballot with Feinstein’s support unwittingly threatens abortion rights. Van de Kamp is circulating an initiative that aims to accomplish the same ends, but specifically states that abortion rights are not to be jeopardized in California.

In this effort, he was supported by Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Greenbrae) in her warm-up speech to the rally.

“As a women I am asked, there is a woman in this race, why am I supporting a man?” Boxer said. She answered: “I am supporting the best feminist in the race, absolutely.”

Perhaps the most important and difficult difference Van de Kamp sought to note was on the question of change.

Which of the two candidates is really the agent of change at the start of the 1990s? Is it Feinstein, the first woman to run seriously for governor, a one-time political maverick who has become a favorite of many insiders? Or is it Van de Kamp, the one-time Establishment favorite who has become an unexpected rebel?

“You cannot change California if your goal is to get along with the status quo, go along with the status quo and be endorsed by the status quo,” Van de Kamp said.

For politicians, these “official” declarations of candidacy are a significant ritual. They are a chance to frame a campaign, to put in words its reason and purpose.

Van de Kamp is the last of three major gubernatorial contenders to undertake the rite. Feinstein was first, followed by U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson, who is virtually assured of the Republican nomination.

The attorney general’s hope had been to undercut Feinstein and maybe drive her from the race by now. But the opposite has happened. In the last few weeks, she has shown her resolve to compete and, according to polls, has become the contender on the march. Van de Kamp has found himself laboring to keep up.

For just that reason, Van de Kamp forswore the traditional city-to-city prop-stop announcement Sunday. Instead he spent the day in Feinstein’s back yard. “Right in her face,” as one aide said gamely.

After the announcement rally, Van de Kamp took the afternoon off to spend time with his family. He returned to the high school briefly for a spaghetti feed with supporters.

Today and Tuesday, Van de Kamp will continue his announcement ritual with visits to other cities.

In addition to striking out at Feinstein, Van de Kamp sought with his opening speech to cement his candidacy and his three ballot initiatives--the environmental initiative, the ethics proposal and the anti-crime/pro-abortion measure.

So far, it is an unproved strategy that has gobbled up a considerable share of Van de Kamp’s time and resources just to gather the signatures to qualify the initiatives for a vote.

On Sunday, the campaign reported that 70% of the needed signatures had been collected for the environmental proposal, 60% for the crime measure and not quite 50% for the ethics proposition.

The vote-for-me, vote-for-my-platform strategy originally was designed to carry Van de Kamp through the general election against Wilson. But with the unexpected strength of Feinstein, her mediagenic personality and personal wealth to assist her candidacy, the initiatives have now become Van de Kamp’s hope for the upcoming primary.

“Just imagine where we’d be without them,” said one top strategist.