Cunningham, Hunter Draw Fire for Attack : Politics: Two San Diego congressmen assailed after Bush takes their advice and challenges Clinton's patriotism.

By BARRY M. HORSTMAN

Oct. 14, 1992 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

Two San Diego congressmen’s central role in President Bush’s attack on Democratic rival Bill Clinton’s patriotism, a strategic gambit that has dominated the presidential race for the past week, has begun to show signs of becoming a major issue in their own reelection bids.

By having helped to orchestrate an attack that Clinton has characterized as reminiscent of McCarthyism, Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter and Randall (Duke) Cunningham may have “climbed out on a limb and sawed it off,” potentially damaging their own and their districts’ clout, should Clinton become president, Hunter opponent Janet Gastil charged.

“I’m getting calls and contributions from people outraged over this,” added Bea Herbert, Cunningham’s opponent. “One man called and said, ‘Are you the one running against that cockroach? How can I help you?’ ”

Sam Popkin, a UC San Diego political science professor and an adviser to the Clinton campaign, argued that the incident could harm San Diego’s interests in Washington by making the two congressmen “look like extremely small potatoes.”

“It’s such a clumsy, outrageous move that it makes them look like they don’t know the difference between presidential politics and congressional politics,” Popkin said. “That’s embarrassing and possibly harmful to San Diego.”

While such criticism from the congressmen’s opponents and Democrats in general is hardly surprising, even some local Republicans have faulted Cunningham and Hunter for exceeding what they view as the acceptable bounds of partisan debate by injecting questions over Clinton’s patriotism into the presidential campaign.

“I think they’ve hurt themselves and haven’t done the President any good, either,” said Republican political consultant David Lewis. “There is a limit and clearly they’ve gone over the line. Extreme statements like this are an embarrassment to the people represented by the congressmen making them, and that includes Republicans.”

During an Oval Office meeting last week, Hunter and Cunningham joined two other conservative GOP congressmen--Robert K. Dornan of Garden Grove and Sam Johnson of Texas--in encouraging Bush to hammer Clinton on his efforts to avoid the draft and his 1969 visit to Moscow when he was a 23-year-old Rhodes scholar at Oxford.

When Bush followed that advice, Clinton’s backers quickly labeled the attack a baseless partisan smear, and Clinton himself compared it to McCarthyism during Sunday night’s presidential debate.

Despite the growing controversy, neither Hunter nor Cunningham has expressed regret over his role in an episode that could prove to be not only one of the defining moments of the presidential race, but also the genesis of a character issue in his own reelection campaign.

“The purpose I served was to bring the facts to the American people and let them be the judge,” Cunningham said in an interview Tuesday. “That’s not going to hurt me or the President. Everything I said was true and documented, and all the President has done is raise some questions in areas where Bill Clinton should level with the American public. My job is done. . . . Believe me, if Bill Clinton were running on the Republican ticket, I’d be doing the same thing.”

Herbert and Gastil, however, hope to capitalize on the issue to improve their admittedly long odds of upsetting the two incumbents in the heavily Republican 51st and 52nd Congressional districts, respectively.

“Hunter has taken negative campaigning to a new low in a way that would make the infamous creators of the Willy Horton ad blush,” Gastil said, referring to a controversial TV commercial used in Bush’s 1988 race that was widely criticized as a thinly veiled racist attack on Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis.

Hunter’s “Clinton-bashing baggage,” Gastil added, could ultimately harm his constituents if a Clinton Administration becomes a reality, a concern echoed by other San Diegans uninvolved in the congressional or presidential campaign.

“This is absolutely the kind of thing political grudges are made of,” added political activist George Mitrovich, head of the San Diego City Club, a civic group, and a former aide to several U.S. senators. “My question is, if Bill Clinton becomes president and the Democrats continue to control Congress, who will Mr. Hunter or Cunningham turn to when San Diego needs help?”

Similarly, Herbert argues that Cunningham’s caustic rhetoric has “painted him in a far, far-right corner” that could undermine his effectiveness in dealing with Democratic leaders in Congress and, perhaps after next January, the White House.

For example, Cunningham has likened Clinton’s Moscow trip to Tokyo Rose’s World War II activities--a comparison that even White House Chief of Staff James Baker termed “outrageous” during a network television interview.

Then, during a recent House debate on another issue, Cunningham said that the Congress’ Democratic leadership “ought to be lined up and shot”--a remark that he claims has been taken out of context and that “no one should take literally.”

“Whatever the explanation, it’s unacceptable,” said Mitrovich, who wrote a letter of protest to Cunningham over his remarks. “A congressman simply cannot make statements like that. As far as Gov. Clinton’s draft record and trip to Russia, it’s one thing to raise questions about the apparent inconsistencies in his statements. But it’s another to impugn his patriotism. That’s what’s contemptible.”

Describing Cunningham as “impolitic in that he speaks from the heart,” Hunter argued that his colleague brings a “special passion” to questions over Clinton’s anti-war protests because of his own service in Vietnam, where he was one of the Navy’s most highly decorated combat pilots.

“When you’ve stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier and seen friends shot down by (Soviet) missiles, it’s a little difficult to . . . quietly sit back and listen to guys like Bill Clinton talk about their little trips to Russia,” Hunter said.

Regardless, Hunter, one of the top-ranking Republicans in the House, argues that his leadership position would “give me enough leverage” to weather any possible lingering post-election animosity on Clinton’s behalf. And Cunningham contends that, even if Clinton wins and the Democrats retain control of Congress on Nov. 3, his political capital will not be diminished any further than it would have been otherwise.

“If a Democrat’s in the White House, Republicans couldn’t expect many favors, anyway,” Cunningham concluded.