Behind Flash of Political Ads, Issues Are Lurking : Senate races: Candidates’ positions influence voters more in primaries than general elections, analysts say.

The discriminating voter who is willing to do some digging can find them lurking behind all the U.S. Senate campaign flak and furor, the personality spats, the negative or banal television ads and the finger-pointing: The Issues .

All 10 major candidates have detailed position papers that cover everything from proliferation of nuclear weapons to preserving the gnatcatcher.

They have debated or discussed issues repeatedly before party and organizational forums and in side-by-side appearances in television studios and at party events.

Mostly, though, the average voter has had scant exposure to issues in detail. In fundamental ways, the U.S. Senate races got lost this year.

Political news was blacked out during a critical part of the campaign by the Los Angeles riots. At other times the races have been overshadowed by the presidential elections. Meanwhile, the candidates have been forced to spend hours and hours out of sight each week raising the money needed to pay for their essential television advertising.

There is no lack of a paper trail, however. All but one of the 10 major candidates have served in elected office for at least four years and have detailed voting records. The one who has not held office, conservative commentator Bruce Herschensohn of Los Angeles, has his own indelible record: scripts of 13 years of radio and television commentaries in which he did not hesitate to stake out strong and often-controversial stands.

Yet some political experts believe issues may not be the important factor for voters.

Mervin Field, the founder of the California Poll and veteran analyst of California politics, said, “The way they (the people) vote is still basically on how the candidate sizes up personally. They come away with personal judgments.”

When the candidates do address issues, Field said, the voters often are more impressed by how they talk about them than what they say.

“Do they sound convincing?” Field asked. “It’s the repertoire for a candidate. If they sound convincing about something, it’s good.”

Nevertheless, issues are important, Field said. And they tend to be more important in a primary than in the general election. In November, most Republicans and Democrats can be expected to support the Republican and Democratic nominees for the Senate because of natural inclinations to back candidates of their own parties.

In Tuesday’s primary, however, the voters must make choices from within the narrower framework of their own parties.

For Republicans, the choices in the two U.S. Senate primaries are clear-cut.

In the contest for the GOP nomination for the six-year seat being relinquished by Democrat Alan Cranston, commentator Herschensohn is the easy pick for bedrock conservatives. Some may opt for former Palm Springs Mayor Sonny Bono, who portrays himself as a sort of a handyman conservative, sometimes figuring out issues as he goes.

Rep. Tom Campbell of Stanford is the moderate on most items, and even liberal on some by the normal conservative litmus tests. But he also describes himself as a “New Conservative,” who is as fiscally Scrooge-like as Ronald Reagan. In his speeches and television ads, Campbell boasts time and again that he never voted for a tax increase.

For the two-year seat, the balance of the term that Republican Pete Wilson gave up to become governor, the conservative is Rep. William E. Dannemeyer of Fullerton. The moderate is Wilson’s hand-picked appointee, Sen. John Seymour of Anaheim.

Rarely do the two sides in either contest agree on an issue. On some, such as abortion and homosexual rights, the gulf is unbridgeable.

The situation is far different among the five major Democrats running for the two seats. By most ideological yardsticks, all five are liberals, although they usually prefer to call themselves progressives or some other term that does not carry the tax-and-spend connotation Republicans have tagged on the word liberal .

The differences tend to be subtle. In the two-year contest, former San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein proposes to scale back U.S. spending for defense abroad and to spend the five-year, $135-billion savings on an “invest in America” program of highways, housing, better schools and job creation for Californians.

Feinstein’s major opponent, state Controller Gray Davis, has a similar economic development program. But Davis makes a point of insisting that there be no cuts in defense weapons until there is a major job retraining and replacement program for the California workers who wouldlose their jobs because of weapons cancellation.

The three candidates for the Cranston seat may have even more orthodox liberal backgrounds. But Reps. Barbara Boxer of Millbrae and Mel Levine of Santa Monica and Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy all sought to break out of that mold on one or more issues that appeal to more conservative Democrats.

In spite of his anti-war background, Levine voted to support the Bush Administration’s attack on Iraq and emphasized that in his television ads. Boxer has endorsed the concept of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget, one of Reagan’s pet ideas. McCarthy has made the economic well-being of middle-class Californians the keystone of his campaign. Early on, Feinstein endorsed the presidential line-item veto, another standby of Reagan speeches from the 1980s.

Similarly, the five Democrats all are running on a strong and similar environmental program, including a ban on oil drilling off the California coast, a strong California desert protection and wilderness bill, protection of wetlands, strong air pollution controls and the like.

McCarthy noted: “The most important problem facing the environmental community in 1992 is ensuring we continue to make environmental progress in times of economic struggle.”

The conservative Republicans, including Seymour, come down on the economic side of that equation, favoring a weakening of environmental regulations that they believe hamper economic growth. The Endangered Species Act is a particular target and Herschensohn has proposed elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency if the EPA cannot demonstrate that its rules are achieving their purpose without hurting the economy.

The campaign got under way modestly a year ago with candidates and prospective candidates talking about one issue: the national recession. In the ensuing months, the economy became an even more pronounced issue as the recession deepened in California and defense budget cuts threatened to pare thousands of Californians from the job rolls.

As often happens, however, events forced other issues to come to prominence. The confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last fall pushed women’s issues such as abortion and protection against sexual harassment to the forefront. With a credible female candidate running in each Senate race, the issues gained currency even though abortion is likely to remain legal in California even if the Supreme Court overturns the Roe vs. Wade decision.

Pollster Field said, “Where you have a woman talking about gender-related issues, she’s going to look good, look convincing.”

In his campaign against Feinstein, Davis has argued that he has the best record of support in behalf of women’s issues. But Field said, “They (male candidates) can’t do that anymore.”

In recent weeks, the Los Angeles riots brought about another new focus to the campaign, resurrecting law-and-order campaign rhetoric and programs for helping the poor and the inner cities. This time, both Republicans and Democrats have talked tough about prosecuting all those who are accused of looting, setting fires and other crimes during the riots.

Most candidates of both parties have supported emergency aid for rebuilding the burned-out areas and helping victims. But, as with most economic problems in the post-Proposition 13, post-Reagan age, the talk is not so much about Great Society-style federal aid, but public-private partnerships, strong local leadership and participation, and the use of tax credits as incentives to the victims and the private sector to help themselves.

Issue highlights of the four races:

SIX-YEAR SEAT

Republicans: Economics professor Campbell has emphasized boosting the economy and cutting the federal deficit with a leveling off of the increase in the federal budget. Part of the savings would be used to reduce the personal income tax. Much of the debate was dominated by a discussion of Herschensohn’s plan to move to a single-rate, flat-rate income tax with the elimination of all exemptions and deductions. Herschensohn’s new tax would be implemented only in conjunction with a balanced budget. Campbell charged that the flat tax would be a disaster for average California families because it would eliminate the home mortgage deduction. Herschensohn has been the most outspoken candidate in opposing any defense cuts.

Democrats: Boxer and McCarthy have proposed major cutbacks in foreign military aid and defense spending with the “peace dividend” going to domestic programs and deficit reduction. Levine has cautioned that the world is still a dangerous place and the United States should maintain a position of strong international leadership. Beyond this, foreign policy and national security have largely been ignored in the two Senate races.

TWO-YEAR SEAT

Republicans: Dannemeyer has attacked Seymour repeatedly for “flip-flopping” on abortion and homosexual rights. As a state senator, Seymour had opposed both, but in recent years has generally supported a woman’s right to have an abortion and legal protection for gays against discrimination. Otherwise, they differ on a whole range of issues from gun control to financial aid for Los Angeles riot areas--with Seymour supporting both, Dannemeyer opposing. Both candidates favor a line-item veto and balanced-budget amendment.

Democrats: This contest mostly has been fought at long distance, in part because Feinstein has had a commanding lead over Davis in the opinion polls and the debate infrequently became engaged. Davis emphasized his support for women’s issues and attacked Feinstein’s record in this area, particularly on peripheral details of Roe vs. Wade and comparable pay for women. Otherwise, Davis has focused his attack on character and background, not issues.

Times staff writers Dean E. Murphy, Douglas P. Shuit and Tracy Wilkinson contributed to this story.

WHERE THEY STAND: A look at U.S. Senate candidates’ positions on issues. A26