Feinstein, Van de Kamp Focus on Crime, Budget : Debate: She assails him on the death penalty. He questions her fiscal management abilities.

Scrambling to harness momentum for their down-to-the-wire campaigns, the Democratic candidates for governor zeroed in on their opponent’s perceived vulnerabilities during Sunday evening’s hourlong debate--Dianne Feinstein persistently questioning John K. Van de Kamp’s dedication to the death penalty and Van de Kamp challenging her fitness to be the state’s fiscal manager.

In the second of two hard-fought debates, probably their last before the June 5 primary, the Democrats reinforced the messages they have sought to drive home during the long months of the campaign--Van de Kamp the lawyerly, even stodgy public servant with a specific agenda; Feinstein, the personification of progressive change in her quest to become the state’s first woman governor.

“I think in this election you have a choice between a lawyer and someone who wants to be a leader,” Feinstein told questioners at KCBS-TV studios in Los Angeles and viewers throughout the state. “I want to represent women. I want to open the door. I want to see that minorities take their place in this society in a meaningful way.”

But Van de Kamp tried to underscore his contention that Feinstein is heavy on style and light on substance.

“The fact is you can’t govern California with generalities. You can’t rely on image and 30-second commercials,” he said. “What major proposal is Dianne fighting for? . . . Commissions are no substitute for commitment.”

Touting the three initiatives that he has pressed to get on the November ballot, Van de Kamp labeled Feinstein as “pretty weak” in comparison. But Feinstein tartly compared her executive experience as San Francisco’s mayor to Van de Kamp’s tenure as attorney general. “You know, John, you demean your opponent and puff yourself up,” she said. “The fact is, you’ve never really put together a budget, you’ve never really grappled with a shortfall. I have--nine years in a row. You’ve never had to put together an AIDS program. . . . Yet you’re so willing to sit back and criticize me.”

As did last week’s debate in San Francisco, the Los Angeles debate focused largely on crime and budgets, the emotional and pocketbook concerns of voters.

Van de Kamp was repeatedly called to task on the death penalty, which he personally opposes but has vowed to carry out. Criticized in recent months for maintaining a high profile as convicted murderer Robert Alton Harris neared the gas chamber, the attorney general said he opposed the televising of executions because they should not be “a public circus event.” He also said he opposes changing California law so that juveniles could be sent to the gas chamber.

But Feinstein took issue with the distinction Van de Kamp has tried to draw regarding his public and private views.

“I think this is one of those issues you’ve got to be for what you are for. . . . I know you’ve called the death penalty both barbaric and a blot,” Feinstein said. “I also know that if you had your way, the Hillside Strangler today would be on the street.”

While Los Angeles County district attorney in 1981, Van de Kamp decided against filing murder charges against Angelo Buono, one of two men convicted in the notorious series of hillside killings. The case was turned over to the attorney general’s office, which won the murder convictions.

During the debate Van de Kamp refused to say how he would handle the governor’s clemency privilege, despite suggestions by Feinstein that he would feel morally compelled to commute death sentences. And he declined to say how he would react if, during his tenure as governor, the question of the death penalty were to appear on a state ballot.

But Van de Kamp took the offensive on the issue of the state budget, announcing that he would release after the debate a comprehensive list of budget cuts and tax increases that would balance the state’s budget, which is currently running at a $3.6 billion deficit. He challenged Feinstein to follow suit.

The plan calls for $1.3 billion in budget cuts--the biggest reductions from a 5% cut in administrative costs--and $2.3 billion in tax increases. Feinstein declined to comment on the plan.

In Sunday’s debate, Van de Kamp struck at Feinstein--as he did at the first debate--for her willingness to negotiate the cost-of-living adjustments for the blind, disabled and elderly to balance the budget.

” . . . Mrs. Feinstein would put cost-of-living adjustments on the table for the needy, blind and disabled. . . . I will not,” he said.

On the touchy subject of abortion--which was raised repeatedly last Sunday and during the week because of Feinstein’s characterization of sex-selection abortions as a “misuse” of abortion rights--it was Van de Kamp who was on the hot seat Sunday.

Asked how he would counsel his daughter if she were a pregnant teen-ager, Van de Kamp underscored his personal opposition to abortion, which runs counter to his political support of abortion rights.

“I’m sure I’d have a heart-to-heart with her and talk about the future of that potential life,” he said. “I’d counsel her to carry the child and let her know that she was going to have a grandmother and a grandfather who really cared about her and make sure she grew up with a real future.”

Van de Kamp acknowledged that he would feel “less comfortable” in offering the same advice to a stranger, and he said he believes minors have the right to decide for themselves whether to have an abortion.

He did not address, despite being asked, why his office has defended in court the state law requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortions.

On the subject of malathion spraying to eradicate the Medfly, both candidates agreed they would halt--and not resume--the aerial spraying of the pesticide in urban areas. Feinstein said she would rely on a ground war, using the young people from the Conservation Corps and “the National Guard, if necessary” to strip trees and spray locally.

“You would do it by ground with the knowledge and permission of the property owner rather than through this massive invasion of spraying like ‘Apocalypse Now,’ which I think is very bothersome to people,” she said.

Van de Kamp attacked one of Feinstein’s recently proposed ideas--to inspect first-class mail for fruit that might carry the pest--calling it a “crazy” invasion of privacy.

A discussion of the state’s continuing wrestling match with the cost and availability of automobile insurance drew the first brusque retort, after Van de Kamp said Feinstein had allied herself with elements of the insurance industry.

“John, why don’t you let me tell people what I believe rather than you telling people what I believe?” Feinstein said sharply. “I think it would be far more accurate.”

Both said they favored rate rollbacks for California drivers.

On a smattering of other issues, there was occasional agreement. Both said they opposed construction of a Peripheral Canal that would bring water from Northern California to the arid south. Both used a tragedy from the past to press for strict controls on weapons--Van de Kamp the Stockton schoolyard massacre and Feinstein the assassination of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone, whose death elevated her to the mayor’s office.

“I think we have to know where the guns are,” she said.

Right off the bat, Van de Kamp continued using the debate format to put his opponent on the spot, frequently using his rebuttal period to ask questions that, because of the format, she could not answer.

Van de Kamp also seemed more able to work within the confines of the format in answering questions, timing his responses to fit nicely within the strictures. Feinstein, in contrast, regularly ran over her time limit and had to be quieted by the moderator, who said her warning light was not working properly.

Feinstein and Van de Kamp stood six feet apart at the same podiums before which they had debated in San Francisco--the props were trucked down for Sunday’s rematch. She wore a navy blue suit and white blouse, he a navy blue suit and red tie.

The debate was preceded and followed on KCBS-TV by commercials touting the man the two Democrats are fighting for the right to face in November--U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson. The Republican has no substantial opposition for his party’s nomination.

By the wishes of the candidate, there was no audience in the studio except for the moderator, KCBS anchorman Jim Lampley, and the questioners--Los Angeles Daily News reporter Rick Orlov, San Diego Union reporter Gerry Braun, KCBS reporter Terry Anzur and Frank del Olmo, deputy editor of the Los Angeles Times’ editorial pages.

Times staff writers John Balzar, Doug Shuit and George Skelton contributed to this report.

DEBATE EXCERPTS: A21