Lungren Too Conservative to Be Elected, Critics Charge

State treasurer-nominee Daniel E. Lungren is too far to the political right and would not be elected if he ran for the office on the strength of his congressional voting record, opponents of his nomination charged Tuesday.

In the second day of Lungren’s Assembly confirmation hearings, more than two dozen critics ranging from Asian-Americans to labor leaders to environmentalists painted a consistent portrait of the Long Beach Republican--that he is man out of step not only with Democrats but also with his Republican colleagues.

“He is not the person who would be elected by a majority of Californians,” Maura Kealey, legislative director of the 250,000-member Service Employees International Union, told the 19-member select committee, which will recommend to the Assembly whether to confirm or reject Lungren.

Noting that Lungren had voted against measures such as the Clean Water Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1984, legislation to impose strong sanctions against South Africa and other bipartisan legislation, Kealey added: “He’s clearly to the right and not in the mainstream of the attitudes and beliefs of Californians.”

Republicans on the committee reacted with anger to those and similar accusations, calling the testimony “a political hatchet job” and characterizing Lungren’s voting record as largely irrelevant to the duties of state treasurer.

“We’re not nominating Mr. Lungren to be national parks director,” Republican Assemblyman William P. Baker of Danville shot back after listening to criticism of Lungren’s environmental record.

Gov. George Deukmejian, meanwhile, moved to blunt the attack on his nominee by releasing a list of 900 Lungren endorsements submitted by a recently formed Asian support group.

Referring to widespread criticism among Japanese-Americans to Lungren’s vote against paying reparations to Japanese-Americans locked up during World War II, Deukmejian said: “These individuals totally reject any suggestion that Dan is not sensitive to their concerns. His record clearly demonstrates a concern for minority communities.”

Also signing the endorsement letter was former Republican U.S. Sen. S. I. Hayakawa, who was not among those of Japanese ancestry who were interned in the camps.

During Tuesday’s hearing, which was limited to testimony from opponents of Deukmejian’s appointee, it was the Republicans’ turn to be tough.

In his appearance before the committee Monday, Lungren was bombarded with some hard and detailed questions by Democrats while Republicans lobbed softballs and spoke in his defense. On Tuesday, with Lungren absent, Republicans questioned the opponents’ motives and declared that no nominee put forward by Deukmejian would be acceptable to the Democrats.

While the Democrats attempted to keep their distance publicly from the critics, they have relied heavily on the information supplied by the groups.

To a degree, that reflects the limited effort made by Assembly Democrats to probe Lungren’s background prior to the weeklong series of hearings. By contrast, Democrats in the Senate, who have been more openly hostile to Lungren’s nomination, are preparing to dig deeply into his background in preparation for their hearings, which are expected early next month.

Research Firm Hired

Cliff Berg, executive officer of the Democratic-dominated Senate Rules Committee, confirmed that a Washington research firm, Phil Nobel and Associates, had been hired under a $15,000 contract to probe Lungren’s “voting record, analyze his stands on various issues, his committee attendance and bills that he has authored.”

In the Assembly, Democratic leaders have said their vote on Lungren’s nomination hinges largely on whether the critics are able to build a credible case against the nomination. The opponents attempted to do just that by attacking Lungren’s lack of business experience and pointing out dozens of bills where he had differed even with a majority of Republicans.

Los Angeles Assemblywoman Maxine Waters, who has emerged as the panel’s most outspoken Democratic critic of Lungren, said she has begun to sense growing unease within her party over the nominee’s record, particularly his votes on civil rights issues.

“Most of us are political enough to understand we are not going to get a Democrat appointed, but we don’t want a Bork,” Waters said, referring to the U.S. Senate’s rejection of President Reagan’s Supreme Court nominee. “Just as a coalition came together to point out who Bork was and why Bork was to the right of everybody else in the country, the same thing appears to be mounting here.”

The liveliest exchange of the day came when Republicans on the committee tried to maneuver Democrats into criticizing late Treasurer Jesse M. Unruh, a Democrat who held the office for nearly 13 years. Although Unruh greatly expanded the powers of the office, he generally avoided using these powers to push a Democratic agenda.

‘Dual Standard’

Noting that some of the witnesses and Democratic committee members had called on Lungren to do what Unruh would not, Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-La Habra) declared that the congressman’s critics were following a “dual standard” by refusing to criticize Unruh as well. “That condemns the testimony as purely a partisan attack,” Johnson said.

Waters conceded that Democrats generally avoided criticizing the former treasurer “because we were lulled by (his) awesome personality.” But she asserted, “Even if Mr. Unruh didn’t use his power in a particular area, you must understand the potential is there.”

That brought a sharp rejoinder from Republican Baker who said Waters and others are “holding Mr. Lungren up to a light and are expecting him to do things that you couldn’t even blackjack a Democrat into doing.”