Fiedler vs. Zschau: Pair Go 2 Rounds in GOP Senate Contest

With the campaign for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination now down to the final month, Reps. Bobbi Fiedler and Ed Zschau turned on each other Monday in an edgy, two-round debate that delved into sex, drugs and the pitfalls and rewards of political consistency.

Sticking steadfastly to strategies devised in advance, Fiedler of Northridge played aggressor and Zschau of Los Altos remained aloof as these two, perhaps the most politically pragmatic of the 13 GOP candidates, faced one another on KABC radio’s “Michael Jackson Show” and again afterward in front of reporters on the blacktop of the station’s parking lot.

A caller to the talk show complained about Fiedler’s morals in having a “live-in boyfriend,” a criticism that she resolutely refused to answer, either on or off the air. Fiedler has had a longstanding romantic relationship with her former top aide and campaign manager, Paul Clarke. They recently announced their engagement.

For her part, Fiedler implied to the radio audience that Zschau’s libertarian leanings must mean that he favors legalizing drugs and prostitution. Zschau did not respond on the air but later said that he did not believe in decriminalizing drugs or prostitution.

If these exchanges raised eyebrows, however, much of the encounter was devoted to grueling critiques of each other’s patterns and motives of voting in Congress. From the intensity of the participants, an observer unfamiliar with the race might have thought that the two represented the poles of GOP thought, rather than what the pair are--independent-minded Republicans, more or less conservative on money matters and generally moderate on social issues.

The sharpest attack came, characteristically, from Fiedler, as she reviewed what she said was a long record of “flip-flops” in Zschau’s career.

“I don’t think he knows where he stands,” she said.

In particular, she complained that Zschau had voted both for and against the MX missile, had advocated but now opposes taxes to combat the federal budget deficit, had a recent change of heart on providing financial assistance to the U.S.-backed Nicaraguan rebels known as the contras and had voted against and then for a resolution condemning the killing of Armenians in Turkey during World War I.

Zschau calmly responded that both political conditions and the wording of legislation can change. On the Armenian genocide resolution, for instance, Zschau said he first voted against it at the request of the Reagan Administration, because it was written to hold the present government of Turkey, a NATO ally, responsible and that when the measure was rewritten to put the atrocities into historical context, he voted for the measure.

“Changes take place in the situation; changes take place in the legislation. When you look at consistency, it’s important you have someone who is right on the issues as opposed to consistently wrong,” he replied.

Both candidates had uncomfortable moments.

While Zschau said he believed both drugs and prostitution should remain against the law, he added that the government had no business outlawing “victimless crimes.” When asked several times, however, he could not name a single such victimless crime.

Drew Attention

Fiedler walked into a thicket when she drew attention to a quotation from political consultant Lyn Nofziger as to how “every time I am asked to cast tough votes, I vote for the President, and every time Zschau is asked to cast them, he votes against (the President).”

Zschau challenged Fiedler about how she would vote later this week when the House of Representatives considers Reagan’s proposal to sell $354 million worth of advanced missiles to Saudi Arabia. Zschau said he was siding with Reagan, while the opposition was being led by the Democrat both Zschau and Fiedler seek to oppose, incumbent California Sen. Alan Cranston.

“There’s a tough vote. . . . The issue boils down to do you support Alan Cranston or do you support President Reagan?” Zschau declared.

Unbending Vote

Fiedler, who considers herself an unbending vote on behalf of Israel, as does Cranston, said she had not made up her mind.

Asked by a reporter if she would vote for the sale if asked by the President to do so, she replied, “Not necessarily. . . . There are times when you disagree.”