by Paul Goldman

When I ran Doug Wilder first historic statewide campaign, we initially didn’t take the “Wilder is pro-criminal” attacks very seriously. Doug was a war veteran. A long-time, well-known state senator. He had a solid mainstream record on criminal justice issues. Calling him pro-criminal was absurd. What reasonable person could possibly believe it? I was sure the Republicans would seem desperate. Eventually, I had to change my perspective — and our strategy to combat the attacks.

Accordingly, my old campaign-manager instincts perked up when reading the recent article in Bacon‘s Rebellion by Jacob Grandstaff about Democratic Attorney General candidate Jay Jones. The article was entitled, “Jones a Woke Champion of Criminals,” with “Jones’ soft-on-crime, anti-police stances will undermine public safety in Virginia” the sub headline.

As the saying goes, the article went downhill from there. One quote should suffice: “Virginians deserve an attorney general who will prioritize public safety and uphold the rule of law—not someone who will make their state a magnet for criminals.” (Emphasis added). 

Wow. But politics is a contact sport. Played at the hardball level when you’re running statewide. Rough back in the 1980s for sure. Especially since Doug was trying to rip down the “No Blacks Need Apply” sign hanging for hundreds of years on the door to statewide office.

We can debate whether it’s rougher or less so in the MAGA age. 

The basic point being however: It will be rough enough in 2025 by any relative standard one may choose to adopt.

I have never met Jay Jones or his Republican opponent the incumbent Attorney General. Back in 1985, the Republican National Committee launched the pro-criminal attacks against Wilder. They wanted to keep our opponent’s hands “clean.“ Eventually, the Virginia Republican Party and our opponent joined the pro-criminal chorus.

Forty years later, it is not surprising the same basic pro-criminal theme is being used, albeit expressed in current political language. Mr. Grandstaff Is just the latest to employ this political attack strategy. 

Wilder back in 1985 was running for Lieutenant Governor, a job with no direct responsibility in the area of criminal justice. But given the politics of 1985, Doug had been the most politically vulnerable Democratic statewide candidate. No political party wants to have its entire statewide ticket lose. 

Historically, the generic “soft on crime” theme has worked well for Republicans in Virginia. Take the 2001 Attorney General’s race featuring Republican Jerry Kilgore and Democrat Donald McEachin.

I was the chief strategy guy — I did the final platform too — for 2001 Democratic gubernatorial Mark Warner. I told Donald some of his positions on criminal justice issues were much different than ours. By different I meant we took what would be seen as the much stronger anti-crime posture. I told him and others this could be a problem for Donald. I later heard his folks were mad at the Warner team. They felt abandoned on the issue. 

My strategy on criminal justice issues had been shaped to some degree by my experiences running the Wilder campaign in 1985 and 1989. They didn’t try to call Doug soft crime in 1989. I made certain no one called Mark soft on crime in 2001. At least in terms of ever gaining any real political traction with such silliness. In 2001 our opponent was the sitting Attorney General. So, we knew the crime stuff would likely rear its head at some point. 9/11 then came. Changing everything.

Warner won with 52.2% of the vote. McEachin lost getting only 39.9% of the vote. The worst showing of any Democratic Attorney General candidate in the modern age. 

Don was not soft on crime. But as John F. Kennedy famously said, there’s nothing fair about politics at all. Like it or not, it is every campaign’s ultimate responsibility to make sure an unfair image doesn’t stick to your candidate. 

Don, like Doug had been running running in his first Statewide general election. Mr. Jones finds himself in the same situation. So why did Don get the lowest vote in modern history while Doug Wilder won an historic victory?

There are four basic reasons in my view. 

(1) Doug was older and had won the Bronze Star for bravery in the Korean war. Back then, having served your country proved very important to swing voters. This insulated Doug to some degree from charges of being soft on anything. Donald didn’t have this credibility. 

(2) Doug was considerably older than Donald, and he was running for a job not connected to criminal justice. Even if a voter believed Wilder was soft on crime, he wasn’t running for Attorney General. Ironically, the Virginia General Is seen by voters as the top cop. In terms of actual legal responsibilities, this is not the case. However, a clever campaign by your opponent can make it seem the AG is the guardian at the gate, particularly given today’s issues. Requiring Jack Nicholson, not Tom Cruise. 

(3) Back in 1985, we had limited campaign money. The experts told us not to put Doug Wilder in a campaign commercial. The reason? He was Black. He was being attacked as pro criminal. They said we needed to hide his skin color. We should only use radio. This hopefully sounds as absurd now as it did then. In 1985 I was the chief cook and bottle washer. I not only ran the campaign and did all the press releases. I also was in charge of creating our campaign advertisements. So. I told Doug what I thought we had to do. We needed to put all our money behind one television commercial. A campaign ad highlighting our endorsement by the Fraternal Order of Police. This later became famous, featured by ABC National news and the New York Times. They were trying to explain how a Black man had won a campaign their paid experts said we could never win.

Clearly, the AD featuring the endorsement by the FOP had been the single biggest factor in our winning. In 2001, the FOP backed Don’s opponent.

(4) The other factor which enabled Wilder to win unfortunately Donald also lacked: The endorsement of an incredibly popular sitting Democratic Governor. At the time Governor Robb had an approval rating north of 80%. Back then, there were many news articles where Robb’s people and the Wilder team had been arguing. They had publicly said a Black man couldn’t win. Naturally, as the campaign manager, I had to push back on that notion.

But the Wilder team had been careful not to attack Robb directly. So, when we raised enough money for another commercials, I asked Robb to do it. To my surprise, he had been eager to do it. Indeed, he had already thought about what the ad should say. In that commercial, Robb said Doug Wilder had more experience in public office than the last five LGs combined. Robb proved a brilliant strategist. 

When McEachin ran, a Republican sat in the governor’s mansion. Moreover, McEachin could not claim to have an experience advantage on his opponent. 

Now let’s fast forward to 2025. 

The Grandstaff article is a canary in the coal mine for the Jones campaign. Fair or not Jones suffers from a lot of the relative weaknesses in the Wilder versus McEachin comparison.

Jones, like Doug and Don figures to be the prime target of Republicans this year.

We turned Doug’s weaknesses into advantage in 1985. I urged him to try to do the same thing. Gave him a strategy to do it right after the primary. His team decided to go another way.

In summary then, I believe Mr. Grandstaff’s column should be taken very seriously by the Jones campaign. I am quite sure the anti-Jones camp will find other alleged “soft on crime, anti-police” examples to fill other columns and campaign attack ads. Politics is a nasty business. 

Jones’ best asset may very well turn out to be Abigail Spanberger. History says she figures to have an easy path to a big win. She may need to do a television ad for Mr. Jones. 

But that only makes sense in late October. Which means Mr. Jones has to put himself in a position to gain from such a Spanberger campaign ad. This is very easy to do. 

Virginia history therefore says the “soft on crime” issue has been very effective when used by Republicans against certain Democratic candidates. Mr. Grandstaff therefore is merely doing what MAGA does best. Figure out an effective political attack. Then make it irrespective of whether it’s true or not. This is increasingly acceptable in today’s politics.

Mr. Grandstaff, in my view, did Jones a favor. It’s best to get your wake up call in early July not late October in a general election year. 

Paul Goldman is former Chair of the VA Democratic Party, a former candidate for mayor of the City of Richmond, and author of “Remaking Virginia Politics.”