Local Elections : Cantos Draws a Blank as TV Forum Is Taped

Republican Assembly candidate Earl Cantos Jr. confronted every political candidate’s nightmare Friday--messing up, and messing up badly, when the television cameras are rolling.

For Cantos, who is running against Assemblywoman Lucy Killea (D-San Diego) in the 78th District, the glimpse of political purgatory occurred during the opening moments of the taping of a candidates’ forum at KPBS-TV (Channel 15) when his mind simply went blank while he was answering a question. For about five seconds--an excruciatingly long time when the camera is on you and nothing is coming out of your mouth--Cantos squirmed on the set amid a thundering silence.

Realizing that Cantos was in trouble, moderator Bill Ritter finally interrupted the dead air time and tried to help the candidate get through the question. However, Cantos, still shaken, told Ritter to “go to the next candidate.”

Cantos recovered from his shaky start and handled himself well during the remainder of the 30-minute program, to be broadcast at 6 p.m. Sunday. And, after the taping, Cantos expressed the hope that his initial stumble will not overshadow the rest of his performance in the minds of voters who watch the program.

“I’m obviously disappointed that it happened, but it’s on tape,” said Cantos, laughing loudly with a campaign aide over the incident. “I would have preferred a cleaner start. But I think that the rest of the interview went well, and I hope that people can really see me in a good light.”

Cantos’ miscue occurred as he attempted to answer a question dealing with what action, if any, the state could take to deal with the liability insurance problem.

Appearing in his first televised forum, Cantos was visibly nervous as he began his answer, verbally stumbling several times and seemingly losing his train of thought.

Finally, Cantos said, “We need reform both, I think, in the insurance industry as far as”--and then he simply stopped talking.

After about five seconds of silence, Ritter, recognizing Cantos’ discomfort, tried to prompt an answer from the candidate, saying, “Do you feel . . . insurance companies should open up their books? Is that one of the possible reforms here?”

“Yeah, I--just go to the next candidate,” Cantos replied.

“I knew if I didn’t say ‘go on,’ I would have just mumbled,” Cantos said later. “And I would rather have had no time than mumble.”

Though not wanting to publicly gloat over their opponent’s misfortune, Killea and a campaign aide were clearly pleased as they left the KPBS studio.

“This isn’t going to be edited, right?” the Killea aide asked a KPBS official. The station official assured him that the program--five-second gap and all--would be broadcast exactly as it had occurred.

Aside from that incident, the televised forum proceeded along fairly routine lines, with Killea and Cantos expressing similar positions on many issues, albeit with several notable exceptions. For example, Killea opposes and Cantos supports Proposition 63, which would designate English as the state’s official language. The two major candidates also revealed differences on Proposition 65, which would ban the discharge of toxics into drinking water, with Killea supporting the measure and Cantos opposing it.

Cantos explained that he believes that the so-called “English-only” initiative would not damage “the multicultural . . . identity” of California. Killea, however, expressed concern over whether the measure could prevent local or state government from providing services such as courtroom interpreters for individuals who do not speak English.

“The interpretation of this is going to be something that is in the future and we can’t anticipate,” Killea said. “English is a world language. Why are we worrying about this? . . . This is not a necessary proposition, and I think it could do some damage.”

Cantos said that he opposes Proposition 65, the toxic-control initiative, because it exempts local and state governmental agencies, too vaguely defines terms such as “carcinogens” and “would be a major cost for small business” and would be “disastrous” for farmers.

Killea described Proposition 65 as “not a perfect initiative,” but said she supports it because “it turns around who has to prove what.”

“Instead of government saying to industry, ‘You have to . . . be below a certain standard of pollution, of toxicity which you’re putting into the water,’ they turn around and say to the industry, ‘You prove to us that it’s safe,’ ” Killea said. That approach, Killea added, will encourage industries to expedite the search for alternatives to toxic materials.

On the insurance question that Cantos fumbled, Killea said that Proposition 51, the statewide initiative approved in June that limits public entities’ liability in lawsuits, was “just a small step” toward eliminating problems in the insurance industry. Tort reforms that would limit lawsuit awards and better monitoring of the insurance industry are needed, she said.

Both major candidates said that they oppose the retention of state Supreme Court Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird and also oppose Proposition 61, which would limit public officials’ salaries. Asked what they see as the state’s most pressing issue, Killea cited the toxic-waste issue and related environmental problems, while Cantos said it is of “utmost importance that we really clean up our streets and make it safe for the people.”

Two minor candidates in the 78th District race, Libertarian Joseph Shea and American Independent Party candidate Charles Ulmschneider, also appeared in the televised forum, occasionally spicing up the program with offbeat answers. The 78th District stretches along the coast from Ocean Beach to Pacific Beach, extending inland to the Miramar Naval Air Station in the north, south to downtown San Diego and east to East San Diego.

Asked for his position on Proposition 65, often referred to as the “safe drinking-water initiative,” Shea indirectly alluded to the Libertarians’ guiding tenet that there should be less government interference in individuals’ business and personal lives.

“I think one of the big problems . . . is drinking water is such a government-controlled thing,” said Shea, a beer delivery man. “You never see anything for safe Kool-Aid initiatives or anything like that.”

Ulmschneider was the only one of the four candidates to support Proposition 64, the LaRouche-inspired initiative that could lead to the quarantining of AIDS patients.

“I think it strengthens a lot of the existing health codes,” Ulmschneider said. “Since diseases like gonorrhea and syphilis must be reported, and traced, I don’t see any reason why a deadly disease like AIDS (should be) . . . treated as a civil rights issue. I think our families, our children and the people at large need to be protected from this plague.”