|
 |
 |
|
|
|
||
|
Kathryn Jean Lopez: Is Vermont being "taken back"? Craig Bensen: Back in April, the conventional wisdom was that all the uproar would be over come November and we'd all realize that civil unions were not such a hot deal. In the last week or two, however, there have been more and more articles by some of our press folks who are now generally admitting that it will be a Republican house, and there is a risk that it will be a Republican senate. If they're saying it, there's some likelihood it's going to happen. My view is that, at the very least, we're going to have a Republican house and a Republican senate with slight or modest majorities for the Republicans in both Houses. This is politically important because most everybody is pretty much agreed that the house and the senate will decide who the next governor is. So, having a lot more Republicans from rural districts in the house and senate means that the Republican candidate for governor, Ruth Dwyer, has a much better chance of being elected by that body, although the mainstream press is not trying to go there yet. Lopez: To what extent do you think that the newspapers editorializing in this manner will just scare people into voting Democrat? Do you think that might work? Bensen: They think it works. Our mainstream media is a little funny. Every once in awhile, they actually act like journalists, and then the rest of the time, you just see only the liberal spin. The closer they get to losing, the more they act like journalists. But they're still wishing they could put out a big sign that says, "Warning, warning!" And they can't, because they know all they can do is report the news. So, they've actually gotten less nasty as the ground swell seems to build. That's my sense. With the exception of the Rutland Herald, which, two weeks ago, they couldn't find Bill Bennett when he came to town. Lopez: What's the support for Take it to the People been like in the last couple of weeks? Bensen: Our support's still steady, but we're not a visible participant in the electoral process. We've taken a back seat. Actually, I don't think we've done but 2 or 3 things in the last 2 months where any of the Vermont press bothered to talk to us. Most of what we've done, when talking to press, has been national press wanting to see what's going on. Because we feel like the candidates are where the action's at. And we're doing things to help the candidates, but we're not visible. We will start to be this week, because we've got direct mailings and that will be hitting. Lopez: What kind of things have you been doing? Have you seen the fruits of your work yet? Bensen: Yeah, I think so, and the fruits of a number of groups that are working our side of the issue. We're pretty much the lead force when it comes to legislative lobbying. Take Back Vermont is more grassroots, relatively unorganized; it's really a grassroots network that's been the most influential for the electoral process. The Take Back Vermont folks, their signs make the press, but nobody can find what they're doing to write stories about it. But the Take Back Vermont people are working hard. They keep raising the stink about the education and the inappropriate materials going into the schools with taxpayer dollars. And they have stepped up their tempo in the last two or three weeks and started doing public seminars, and they keep picking up press coverage on that. The press coverage has evened out. It's no longer, "Go back under your rock," it's more like "Let's shine a light on them and show something about what they're doing." Lopez: So, what will your focus be this week, through Election Day? Bensen: Because of certain IRS requirements, we focus on voter guides, just making the information widely known as to who stands where on the civil unions question. And that's information that folks are clamoring for because, as the polls continue to come out, it becomes more and more obvious that that is the top question. Even two months ago, the mainstream media polls were saying, "Oh, no, it's just one question among many." This is partly because they were asking the question the wrong way; they'd throw a bunch of issues out there, and they'd report the percentages of people who picked a particular group, instead of asking people to rank them, or give some priority to their top issues. Now, they started asking the question the right way and the last poll that came out last week said civil unions are the top issue. It coincides with the anecdotal evidence that we're getting and that the candidates are getting. When candidates knock on doors, the first thing they are asked about is civil unions. What's being reported in the press is starting to match up with what we knew was going all along. And that's affirming. So that's good. This week we will be direct mailing on a Senate district and county basis information to people who are either Republican voters or high-probable swing voters about who stands where on civil unions. The risk is that everybody is direct mailing everyone. The Post Office is really doing well right now. Everybody is doing targeted mailing. My single daughter is getting mail from the Democrats assuming that all single females might be pushing Social Security or concerned about prescription drugs, or health care costs, because that's the targeting of their mail. There was a direct mail piece on behalf of Senatorial candidates over the past week, where the Democrats were doing scare tactics about health care evaporating, the child health care evaporating if certain Republicans were elected. Even the governor and some of the Democratic leadership admitted that it was perhaps negative advertising. But since it was put out by a PAC that didn't ask for their consent of them, they didn't see that they could stop it. That's some of what's going on. And our direct mail stuff will go in that area. Various groups are putting out direct mail pieces and advertising on the radio in the area of hitting on parental notification, which is polling at 70 percent favorable among the voters, which is the first time anybody can remember a pro-life based issue that polled that well. So we're hitting hard on that. Vermont is the most abortion-safe state in the country. So, in Vermont it's polling at 70%, so we're using that as an issue for swing voters, particularly the women. Because Ruth Dwyer's problem, as a gubernatorial candidate, is, even though she's a woman, it's the men who are voting for her, and it's the women who are voting for Governor Dean. Three-quarters of the undecided voters are women. How do we get them? And the parental notification one seems to be an issue that is cutting very well with the undecided women. Lopez: How has the opposition been in the last weeks? Have they stepped up the effort? Bensen: Their presence is here, but the average person does not know. For the past month, they've done radio and a little TV. TV is tough in Vermont because the three syndicated outlets for the national networks will not run issues ads, so if you want to do something that's pro-life or pro-abortion or pro or anti-cu, you can't get video on one of the major networks, so that makes it almost not worth bothering to shoot the video. But radio has been wide open, and the same ads on the radio are in print, the strategy has been a series of things. One was a series of "well-respected Vermont icons" telling people why it was silly to be worried about civil unions, and why they are a civil right. Two former governors, Governor Phil Hoff, first Democratic elected governor in a century back in 1960-something, he weighed in and compared it to civil rights for racial reasons. And then former governor Madeline Kunin weighed in with her pitch for why it was civil rights and linking to racial minorities and women and gays and lesbians thrown all in the same pot. So they do that. They also ran an ad for a number of weeks which was quotes from four newspapers around the country, Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post and a couple of others I think, that were basically quotes, "Yea, Vermont! You did the right thing." And trying to convince us that since the rest of the nation wasn't embarrassed by us, they were actually proud. This is all part of their "Respected Voices for Civil Unions" series. And they did that both print, all the statewide dailies and all the demographically favorable radio stations. That's what they've been doing. Today, this week, they started the series that was based on telling stories. They have a 78 year-old grandmother telling a heartwarming story of her son who 25 years ago announced he was gay and how he's not different from anybody else. How it's so horrible that they have to live in the type of climate where people just cannot understand that. So they're back to what they did during the legislative session, which is push the personal stories. Although the linkage to that ad and voting was very weak, particularly since it was paid for by a PAC. So they are still working the touchy-feely, it's the right thing to do side effects. Lopez: Why are civil unions such an important issue in this election? Bensen: They are the defining issue, because, for many people, they represent the straw that broke the camel's back, social experimentation in Vermont. Why should Vermont always be on the cutting edge of the social experimentation bandwagon? For a lot of voters, it is the straw that broke the back in terms of representational government. The previous log on the camel's back was the Act 60 Property Rights, education reform, taxation bill in 1996. And that caused a huge uproar and brought 12 new Republicans into the house that year and 10 new Republicans in 1998, starting to flip the balance back around. And that was an issue also that came out of an activist court ruling, where the court said, "it's broke, fix it." So, they are very similar between the Act 60 issue and the civil unions issue as far as their origin and their effect, and the process that went through, pretty much having the court write legislation and then having it hoisted upon the Vermont people. That's the general tenor. Lopez: Strategy wise, as far as the election goes, what's the most important victory on Election Day? Bensen: The most important thing is control of the house and senate. If civil unions are to be repealed, the governor's office is important because if Gov. Dean stays in, it's an assured veto of any attempt to change, unless he gets religion or common sense, which so far he's not inclined in that direction. It is incredibly complex from her side because we really need to have a big win on all levels. It really has to be a groundswell pushing towards landslide to be able to simply go after things and change things and correct things. Even if we have a landslide, we are still boxed in terms of constitutional amendments to address the question long term because we can't do anything for two years unless we have the will to go after a constitutional convention, which is an untried beast and makes even the most radical nervous. A big win is needed. In terms of the scope of the win, obviously the head count counts. But in terms of personal satisfaction for folks who have been in this for awhile, any of the key participants in the crafting of the bill or the running through of the railroad job in the legislature — any of them that go down would be very satisfying. Peter Shumlin the Senate pro tem is in trouble in his race in Windham County, and that's satisfying. If he goes down that will be a definite signal and a victory. Some of the mainstream press have already suggested that, at the very least, all of grassroots movement and the furor that's going on is going to redirect the legislative process in the direction of the right. They are conceding that much. And I think that all it takes is 5 or 6 individuals getting punished for their role in this, and everybody will be exceptionally sensitive. If the present incumbents were to reconvene at this point and reconsider the question, we would end up with reciprocal benefits not civil unions, because that much political learning has been inflicted upon them. |
||
|
||
|
raig
Bensen is executive director of Take It to the People, a group lobbying
against civil unions in Vermont.
