Seymour, Dannemeyer Clash at Convention : Republicans: The new senator supports a cut in welfare and opposes a tax increase. His rival for the GOP nomination accuses him of “advancing the cause of homosexual rights.”

As state Republicans brawled over the turbulent subject of taxes, U.S. Sen. John Seymour flatly ruled out increasing levies at the federal level and said the government should cut back on welfare payments--a move he equated with a painful decision to sell one’s boat.

“The federal government has got to do for itself what you and I have to do for ourselves. Sometimes you’d like a new car but you can’t afford the payments. Sometimes you lose your job and maybe you’ve got to sell your boat to keep the family going. Those are the kinds of decisions that government’s got to make,” Seymour said at the state Republican convention here.

Welfare reform and a proposal to cut back payments to recipients who do not find employment within a specified time were the only two suggestions Seymour offered to cut the spiraling federal deficit.

At the same time, he endorsed two tax cuts that Democrats charge would benefit the rich and limit the amount of money coming into the Treasury--a drop in the capital gains tax and a reduction or elimination of levies on savings accounts.

Asked whether he was concerned about sending a message that he favors the wealthy over the poor, Seymour said that his recommended tax cuts would help the economy. As for the wealthy, he added: “They fall on tough times, too.”

Seymour’s statements came as he and Rep. William Dannemeyer of Fullerton used the convention to escalate their early battle for the Republican nomination in 1992.

The new senator, appointed in January to fill the unexpired term of Gov. Pete Wilson, said Dannemeyer was “fixated on gay-bashing.” Dannemeyer, in turn, accused Seymour of spending his career “advancing the cause of homosexual rights.”

The exchange took place at a convention where moderates and conservatives continued their long-term tussle over issues that have defined Republicans. As in past years, taxes and abortion were among the most heatedly discussed topics.

Seemingly the most popular button on Republican lapels here was one which said simply, “no new taxes”--a direct slap at President Bush and Pete Wilson, both of whom have supported tax increases as a way of dealing with deficits.

Additionally, party regulars were expected to try to bring to the floor of the convention today a by-law change that would order all Republicans to take a no-new-taxes pledge or face the loss of party donations in seeking office.

Wilson, who has been harshly criticized by some Republicans for proposing a tax increase, said he doubted that the no-new-taxes proposal would pass at the convention. He said it was merely an expression of belief by “people who don’t like taxes any more than I do.”

He said those who seek to balance the state’s budget merely by cutting back programs were “politically wrong”--but he shied away from characterizing Seymour’s no-taxes stance at the federal level as similarly wrong.

Seymour said he “absolutely” would vote against raising taxes. “We’re in a recession,” he said, declining to criticize Wilson’s support for increasing taxes. “Now’s not the time to take money out of peoples’ pockets.”

The convention drew a conservative crowd, and the officeholders and candidates who appeared before the delegates appealed to that ideology.

The day was replete with applause for servicemen and women in the Persian Gulf, and Democrats were roundly criticized for opposing the President’s January request for authority to use force in the gulf. The use of force resolution passed in the Senate by a 52-47 vote. Seymour voted with the majority.

While delegates met Saturday in caucuses and prepared to elect officers and consider by-law changes today, much of the show revolved around the two declared Senate candidates.

Seymour and Dannemeyer illuminated several similarities--particularly on taxes--but they staked out separate territory when it came to the difficult social issues. For example, Seymour and Dannemeyer clashed on the issue of abortion with Seymour defending abortion rights and Dannemeyer opposing them.

Dannemeyer said he favored a constitutional amendment allowing voluntary prayer in the public schools and repeatedly referred to his campaign as one which would stress conservative social values and a “heterosexual ethic.”

“God’s plan for man in terms of expressions of sexuality is one man and one woman who come together in an institution called marriage,” Dannemeyer said, when asked to define his terminology.

He said he found divorce “tolerable” in cases of adultery and desertion, but listed no other acceptable grounds. He accused Seymour of “advancing the cause of homosexual rights” by lending his name to a dinner sponsored by a gay group.

Dannemeyer also said that the amount of federal money going to research a cure for AIDS is excessive, given the comparable casualties from such diseases as cancer and heart disease. The current amount, he said, was due to “the political clout of the homosexual community.”

Seymour, in remarks to reporters, replied that Dannemeyer, who has represented Orange County in Congress since 1978, was “fixated on gay-bashing.

“Now is not the time to be tearing people apart,” he said. “Now is the time to be unified.”

Seymour said members who are against abortion rights and against equal treatment for homosexuals are “a narrow and small minority of our Republican party.”