CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS GOVERNOR : Feinstein Tries to Clarify Stands on Aid, Abortion as Controversy Builds

Democrat Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday tried to work her way out of a political hole about her views on abortion and aid to the needy, but stirred up such confusion along the way that she may ultimately find she dug herself in deeper.

Controversy about the two issues has built since her televised debate Sunday night with rival Democrat John K. Van de Kamp.

After first lying low for a day, Feinstein emerged Tuesday to try to put an end to the two matters, while across town Van de Kamp tried to keep the controversy alive.

On welfare, Feinstein had left observers of the debate believing that she would tackle the state’s $1-billion-plus budget deficit by putting all spending “on the table” for negotiations with legislative leaders. Van de Kamp said it was wrong to even consider negotiating away cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for the aged, blind and disabled who receive state assistance.

On Tuesday Feinstein said, yes, cost-of-living increases for the needy would be placed on the negotiating table but, no, she would not allow them to be negotiated away.

“I want to make that distinction clear. . . . It’s on the table as far as negotiation is concerned, but it’s one of the things I would utilize for negotiation on the positive end. It is one of the things I would not cut,” she told a press conference in Century City.

Repeated follow-up questions elicited the same answers: “I would put everything on the table. . . . I would protect COLAs.”

Later, in a telephone call to The Times, Feinstein added further amplification. Cost-of-living increases for the aged, blind and disabled constitute only $138 million of a projected $1-billion-plus budget deficit. “It’s on the table, but to the greatest extent possible, using a test of fairness, I will work to protect them,” she said. Further, she said, all of her budget cuts would be based on a “fairness test.”

Van de Kamp, meanwhile, showed no signs of letting up the pressure on Feinstein and warned that he would use the fuss against her in Sunday’s second televised debate if she did not reverse position entirely.

“The Democratic Party has stood like a rock, much to its credit, in defense of the poor, the blind and the disabled,” he said. “And I find it incredible that any candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for governor of California would commit herself to this heartless course of action.”

During his press conference in Santa Monica, Van de Kamp repeatedly implied that Feinstein had come out in support of freezing cost-of-living increases. She has not, but Van de Kamp’s campaign defended the characterization anyway.

“The whole issue came up when she described cutting payments to the needy as a way to generate money to balance the budget,” said Van de Kamp’s press secretary, Duane Peterson.

“She was asked how you would get to a couple billion (in cuts), and she suggested COLAs. You don’t get to a couple of billion without really cutting them back or freezing them.”

To underscore Feinstein’s reluctance to say specifically how she would make up the budget deficit, Van de Kamp added to his list of possible budget targets. He said that “literally hundreds of millions” could be saved by abolishing some of the state’s commissions and boards. He also raised the specter of a voter initiative on taxes if legislators did not go along with his suggestion of raising the income tax rate for wealthy Californians.

“The people want to see that justice is done,” Van de Kamp said. “I think they’re willing to put that burden where it belongs.”

On abortion, Feinstein acknowledged that she made a political error Sunday in saying she would consider supporting legislation to outlaw abortions for purposes of sex selection.

“I think perhaps I did give the wrong impression,” she said.

The former mayor of San Francisco proclaimed herself solidly for abortion rights and said she would “veto infringement on a woman’s right to choose in the state of California. This is still my position. It will continue to be my position. I very much regret if I indicated any other alternative.”

Feinstein went on to explain, however, that her pledge is in conflict with her personal views. “I don’t personally believe that abortion should be used for the purpose of selecting the sex of a child. I believe that is sexist and I don’t believe it is right.”

She said she should get the same consideration as Van de Kamp, who says his personal views in opposition to abortion do not conflict with his political promise to protect abortion rights.

“I draw that distinction between that belief (against sex-selection abortions)--just as the attorney general has his personal beliefs--and the signature of any legislation to limit the right to choose,” she said.

The trouble is, a cornerstone of Feinstein’s campaign is her mocking criticism of Van de Kamp for believing one thing and standing for another. “You can’t be for what you are against and against what you are for,” she frequently says.

The back-and-forth over abortion has led to an unprecedented wave of unflattering publicity for the front-running Feinstein. A sampling of newspaper headlines around the state tells the story. In San Diego: “Feinstein Abortion Stand Hit.” In San Jose: “Feinstein Backpedals on Sex Selection Abortion Issue.” In Oakland: “Feinstein Retreats From Abortion Statement.” In Sacramento: “Feinstein Changes Her Tone.”

Feinstein did receive an important endorsement from Reps. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica) and Howard Berman (D-Panorama City). The endorsement means she can expect the assistance of the Westside Waxman-Berman political organization, which is skilled at pre-election slate mailers.

Besides trading blows at their dueling press conferences, the two Democrats also took to the airwaves Tuesday with biographical ads focusing on their political achievements. Feinstein is reshowing a commercial that some Californians saw earlier in the campaign; Van de Kamp again hits the theme that “a man is known by his enemies.”

CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS: THE AD CAMPAIGN

The race: Governor. Whose ad?: Democratic candidate John K. Van de Kamp.

Van de Kamp on Tuesday launched a 30-second television advertisement in which he tries to focus voters on his record as attorney general and his promises as a gubernatorial candidate. The emphasis on Van de Kamp--and the absence of any reference to his opponent, Dianne Feinstein--is meant to address concerns that voters do not have a clear perception of him.

Elements of the Van de Kamp ad, with an analysis by Times political writer Cathleen Decker:

Ad: “The National Rifle Assn. has sent thousands of . . . letters attacking Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp because he banned assault rifles and AK-47s. The gun lobby says, ‘Now he wants to be governor and we can stop him.’ ”

Analysis: The letter referred to in the ad was sent to NRA members on behalf of the group’s “Political Victory Fund,” which collects and disperses money to defeat gun control activists and support gun control opponents. But the letter did not specifically target Van de Kamp, as his ad implies. Rather, it is an all-purpose fund-raising letter that asks NRA members to target for defeat all gun control advocates. Van de Kamp is mentioned in one paragraph in the middle of the four-page letter.

In addition, Van de Kamp himself did not ban assault rifles and AK-47s; a bill was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. George Deukmejian. Van de Kamp did make the issue a high priority and, as the ad shows, did march into the state Capitol during the debate with an AK-47.

Ad: “Oil and chemical companies want to stop him because he’s sponsoring Big Green--the environmental initiative to protect our coastline and outlaw cancer-causing pesticides.”

Analysis: Oil and chemical companies have come out against Big Green, but there is no conclusive evidence that they wish to stop Van de Kamp. Indeed, the environmental initiative will likely be on the November ballot--and depending on the outcome of the primary, Van de Kamp may not.

Ad: “And powerful politicians have endorsed his opponent because his ethics initiative targets political corruption.”

Analysis: The ad apparently refers to Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and Senate President David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), who have endorsed Feinstein. The two lawmakers were outraged by Van de Kamp’s characterization of the Legislature as a “swamp” and particularly objected to the initiative’s limits on the number of terms legislators can serve. However, Brown has been a political ally of Feinstein’s for 20 years, and Roberti’s relationship with Van de Kamp has been tense for years, according to an aide.