CAMPAIGN JOURNAL : Absenteeism Puts Wilson on Defensive

California, of course, is different from the other 49 states. Elsewhere, governors of states often seek to move up the political ladder by running for the U.S. Senate, but in mega-state California this year, a senator is running for governor.

And so it is that Republican Sen. Pete Wilson is being dogged by the need to campaign for every last vote in his tight contest with Democrat Dianne Feinstein while the other 99 senators have been in Washington to cast votes on the worst federal budget crisis Capitol Hill has faced in years.

Feinstein has sought to make Wilson’s absenteeism a major issue, offering to suspend her campaign if the senator would return to Washington and even claiming that Wilson should give back his Senate salary for the days he has missed.

The attack clearly is striking a nerve, for Wilson has become testy and defensive. And on Wednesday, the Wilson campaign fought back with a new television ad attacking Feinstein’s taxation record as mayor of San Francisco.

On Tuesday, Wilson bristled when asked by veteran Los Angeles television political reporter Warren Olney to list one reason for missing Senate sessions at a time when at least 30 other senators are in reelection campaigns but have managed to show up.

“I’m the only one who is running for governor of California,” Wilson shot back. “You cannot campaign for office in California if you are in Washington.”

Olney pursued, wanting to know what was so different about running for governor compared with seeking reelection to the Senate.

Wilson retorted: “Well, if you don’t understand how California is different from Rhode Island or a number of other smaller states--they are all smaller--and if you don’t understand the difference in the geographic area, then I think you should, because it’s very, very different.”

Wilson explained that this week’s budget vote merely involved a resolution to postpone the real issue until later and that he would go to Washington if and when his vote is noted.

Then, lecturing on the inner workings of the Senate, Wilson further downplayed the budget tally as a “pro forma” voice vote.

“It doesn’t say Wilson ‘Aye.’ It doesn’t say Wilson ‘No.’ It doesn’t say that about anyone else. So when you tell me that 99 senators voted, you have no idea who voted because there weren’t 99 on the floor.”

Wilson also took pains to say that he had conferred by telephone with President Bush and Senate leaders to make sure California’s specific interests are protected, such as the preservation of tax deductions for home mortgage interest as well as for state and local taxes. Those are, however, issues that would be of concern to every senator.

There is nothing new about a candidate seeking to exploit any weakness in the opposition. The Wilson campaign is particularly adept at guerrilla warfare, constantly prodding reporters to investigate and write about anything that might embarrass Feinstein.

Since Sunday’s debate, the Wilson campaign has focused on three words scrawled in blue pen on Feinstein’s hand in apparent violation of debate rules banning any sort of written material prepared beforehand. (Each candidate was provided a pen and paper at the podium for taking notes during the debate). The words “education,” “choice” and “growth” were meant to remind Feinstein about questions to ask Wilson.

Wilson has denounced this as cribbing and he repeatedly tried to call attention to it by quipping: “I think I won the debate hands down. In fact, I even won it hands up.”

Wilson says he is committed to returning to Washington when the Senate takes a conclusive vote on whatever budget reconciliation package is put together by congressional leaders by the Oct. 19 deadline, even if the session should fall on Oct. 18--the date of the second gubernatorial debate. Wilson, however, said he doesn’t expect the final budget showdown until the deadline.

And he has attempted to leave himself a way out of going East. Should budget negotiators come up with a package he opposes because, for instance, it contains unacceptable tax increases, Wilson said he might remain in California. He argues that being absent is just as effective a means of voting “no” as being on the Senate floor.

To pass a measure requires a majority of the house voting “yes” regardless of how many negative votes are cast. So technically, he is correct. Whether the voters will see it that way is unclear at this point.

Generally, Wilson is attempting to sweep aside the absenteeism attack as a desperation tactic.

“I think it betrays the total poverty in the Feinstein campaign. They are trying to harp on a phony issue,” he said.

Still, it appears to have had the desired effect of putting Wilson on the defensive.