Van de Kamp Tries to Capitalize on Feinstein Comments : Debate: Attorney general stresses discussion of abortion rights and government benefits on day after little-watched televised confrontation.

John K. Van de Kamp moved quickly Monday to capitalize on what he hopes will prove to be major debate blunders by Dianne Feinstein on abortion rights and government benefits for the needy, while Feinstein attempted to reduce any potential damage to her front-running campaign for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

Ironically, many neutral campaign consultants and political scientists interviewed by The Times figured that Feinstein at least broke even with Van de Kamp in Sunday night’s little-watched televised debate, and may even have won the confrontation.

“To the extent somebody’s got to win and somebody’s got to lose, I gave it to her,” said veteran Democratic political consultant Joseph Cerrell. “That’s based on style over substance. I just think she came across better.”

Ratings for the debate were extremely low. In San Francisco, where the one-hour program originated and where it was aired on the NBC affiliate, the debate received an overnight rating of 5.4 and a 9 share--meaning about 120,000 households tuned in.

In Los Angeles, the debate was carried on public television station KCET and received a 0.4 rating and 1 share--meaning fewer than 20,000 households of nearly 5 million in the region tuned in.

Van de Kamp conceded to reporters that he had been “a little stiff . . . a bit more tense in the beginning than I would have liked.” But with only three weeks remaining before the primary election and trailing in the polls, he wasted little time reflecting on his TV presence. The state attorney general tore at a couple of wounds he figured the former San Francisco mayor had inflicted on herself in the debate.

One was Feinstein’s comment that although she believes in a woman’s right to choose whether to have an abortion, having an abortion merely for gender selection “is a misuse of the right to choose.” Later at a press conference, Feinstein said she does not consider abortion for gender selection to be “a major problem, (but) if it became a major problem, I might very well” sign legislation outlawing such abortions. On Monday, she backed away from this notion.

Another Feinstein debate gaffe, in Van de Kamp’s view, was her comment that she would place on the state budget negotiating table the automatic annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for welfare recipients and the aged, blind and disabled. “I found this to be incredible coming from a person who regards herself as a Democrat,” Van de Kamp told a press conference in Los Angeles on Monday.

Van de Kamp also said he was “astounded” at Feinstein’s position on abortion for gender selection, which he first learned about when it was reported in The Times Sunday, hours before the debate.

Noting that Feinstein repeatedly has insisted that a woman governor can best be trusted to protect abortion rights, Van de Kamp asserted that “what she would do is basically get a state police corps, an inquisitor--you name it--asking women, interviewing women to determine whether or not their reasons for abortion are proper. I think that belongs out of government. It’s a private decision.”

Van de Kamp clearly relished turning the tables on Feinstein, who for months had questioned his commitment to abortion rights because, as a Catholic, he personally opposes abortion.

On Monday, Feinstein was out of public sight. At her San Francisco home, she met at length with her campaign staff and then issued a statement trying to quell the storm that was building over her remarks on abortion and gender selection.

“I am firmly and unequivocally pro choice,” she declared. And contradicting her earlier, post-debate comment, Feinstein promised that “as governor I would veto any measure designed to whittle away at the availability of abortion or to infringe upon a woman’s right to choose.”

She said abortion “is an intensely personal decision that every woman must be allowed to make with respect to her own personal and moral beliefs. Government should not interfere.”

Abortions for gender selection, although believed to be extremely rare in California, emerged as a powerful theoretical issue in the gubernatorial race as the result of a Times survey of the three major candidates.

The Times asked all three candidates this question: “Do you see any role for government in the regulation of abortion beyond the terms of Roe vs. Wade? What about some of the ideas now being proposed by the anti-abortion movement--required counseling before abortions, new rights for fathers to contest abortions, a ban on abortions for sex selection, a ban on abortions for birth control. Could you support any of these?”

It was during this survey that Feinstein said for the first time that abortions for sex selection would be an “abuse” of abortion rights. Feinstein told The Times she believed these kinds of abortions were not prevalent in the United States, as they had been in China. But she added, if they did become numerous here, “Government could take a look at it”--meaning consider new, groundbreaking restrictions.

On Monday, Feinstein offered this explanation: “Recently, I was asked my personal opinion on whether abortion should be used for sex selection as it is in China. The U.S. is not China and I do not believe it is an issue here. I see no reason for government intervention. I regret that my opponent is once again trying to distort my position.”

Feinstein’s comments in The Times, during the debate and at the subsequent press conference, caused an uproar among abortion rights activists Monday.

“I was quite shocked,” said Robin Schneider, director of the Southern California Abortion Rights Action League, which sent Feinstein a letter urging her to reconsider her debate stance. “This position came out of nowhere. That troubles me.”

Norma Clevenger, lobbyist for Planned Parenthood of California, said “everybody abhors the thought of selecting a child based on gender. Nobody supports sex selection. But a law like that would be impossible to enforce. (Feinstein) did catch me off guard because she has been making all the right noises lately. I was startled.”

One politically neutral academician, Sherry Bebitch Jeffe of the Center for Politics and Policy at Claremont Graduate School, described the new abortion flap as “a little hairline fracture” for Feinstein. “We don’t know how severe it is yet. . . . We won’t know what impact it has until we see how the media plays it, how Van de Kamp’s campaign uses it and how she responds.”

She added that “it may be neutralized by the fact she’s a woman.”

Jeffe scored the debate overall “a draw.”

Larry L. Berg, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC, said Feinstein “won in terms of personality. . . . She didn’t come across as not knowing anything, as some people thought she would. But Van de Kamp didn’t lose badly because he wasn’t as dull as people thought he would be.”

Berg added that lawyers, such as Van de Kamp and U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson, the prospective Republican gubernatorial nominee, “do have difficulty talking in plain language. . . . Somehow when lawyers talk, very few of them are able to communicate what’s on their mind and be informative. It doesn’t add to ongoing, common-sense dialogue.”

Bruce Cain, assistant director of the Institute of Government Studies at UC Berkeley, said he “thought Van de Kamp lost some visual points by glancing down at the lectern and looking like a dog being beaten” when Feinstein addressed him. “He looked dejected, flustered or embarrassed.”

Several political consultants thought Van de Kamp opened himself to criticism as a liberal “tax-and-spender” by advocating higher taxes for high income earners. “I kept seeing Walter Mondale up there saying, ‘We’re going to raise your taxes,’ ” said Ron Smith, a Republican consultant. “My gut reaction was she came out a little ahead.”

Times political writers John Balzar and Cathleen Decker and staff writer Daniel M. Weintraub contributed to this article.

CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS: THE DEBATES

In their debate Sunday night, former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein and Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp raised questions and made points that were not fully explained. Several of these issues are discussed below, with an analysis of each by Times staff writer Daniel M. Weintraub.

Issue: Van de Kamp said Feinstein is “backed by the same legislative leaders who have blocked” ethics reform in the past and who have “put on the ballot an ethics measure that is cynically tied to a huge legislative pay increase.”

Analysis: Feinstein has been endorsed by Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and Senate Leader David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), who helped draft Proposition 112. The measure could lead to a pay raise, but does not guarantee one. Among other provisions, the proposal would create a commission to examine legislators’ $40,816 annual salary and $88-a-day tax-free living allowance and grant a raise if the panel determines it is needed. Supporters of the ethics package have suggested tying legislative salaries to the income of Superior Court judges, who earn $94,344 a year.

Issue: Feinstein said Van de Kamp “tried not to reveal” the investments of his family trust fund and, when the trust’s holdings were disclosed, they included “14 companies doing business” in the apartheid nation of South Africa.

Analysis: Van de Kamp in 1988 fought a Fair Political Practices Commission order to fully disclose the details of the trust’s investments. Van de Kamp lost that battle, and, after the investments were disclosed, he asked the trust’s administrators to divest their holdings in companies doing business in South Africa. “I did not know which ones had any business there, but I asked the investment counselor to divest of that stock within a reasonable time and . . . he has,” Van de Kamp said Monday.

Issue: Van de Kamp said that the average prison time served by female felons dropped by more than 30% during Feinstein’s four years on the Board of Women’s Terms and Paroles.

Analysis: In the 10 years before she was appointed in 1962, the average term for female felons dropped from 26 months to 20 months, according to the California Department of Corrections. While Feinstein was on the board, the average term dropped further to 17 months in 1962, 15 in 1963 and 12 in 1965. In her final year on the panel, the average term climbed back to 14 months, and it continued to climb steadily after she left the board in 1966. (In a 1964 memorandum to then-Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, a prison administrator reported that the reduction in terms between 1959 and 1963 had prevented overcrowding that would have forced the state to build a new women’s prison. The memo said the recidivism rate “had not increased” and the rate of new prison commitments had dropped during that period.)

Issue: Van de Kamp, focusing on the financial background of Feinstein’s husband, asked, “Why no taxes in ‘85?”

Analysis: Feinstein and her husband, investment banker Richard Blum, paid no taxes in 1985 because their income of $206,000 was offset by a $319,000 loss associated with Blum’s investment in the Hotel Carlton in San Francisco, according to their accountant. In addition, losses from an investment in Farrell’s Ice Cream parlors offset other income to a partnership of which Blum has a share. Although they paid no taxes in 1985, the couple paid combined state and federal taxes of $37,000 in 1986; $80,800 in 1987; $569,000 in 1988, and $2.5 million in 1989.

Issue: Feinstein accused Van de Kamp of being lax in investigating and prosecuting those who illegally haul and dump toxic waste. She said she told Van de Kamp that there were “50 drums of cyanide at loose in the state” but he “simply sent that letter to the D.A.”

Analysis: Feinstein was referring to 55-gallon drums of cyanide solution from a North Hollywood metal-plating company. The cargo was described in apparently phony shipping documents as “new products” destined for Mexicali, Mexico. But the address listed turned out to be a wheat field. Van de Kamp has referred the matter to Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner for investigation.

Issue: Van de Kamp said while Feinstein was mayor of San Francisco, the city dumped so much sewage into San Francisco Bay that he had to fine her $40,000.

Analysis: Van de Kamp’s office in 1985 negotiated a settlement between the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the city of San Francisco. The city was fined $40,000 for dumping untreated sewage into the bay. The discharges occurred while the city, at Feinstein’s urging, was building a new sewage treatment plant.