ELECTIONS / U.S. SENATE : Candidates Try to Define Differences in Initial Clash

The dual sets of U.S. Senate candidates shared a common forum Monday for the first time in their unique electoral battle for California’s two seats, sharply defining their differences on the role of government in American life.

The Democratic candidates particularly emphasized their support for abortion rights.

The candidates’ consecutive 30-minute appearances before the convention of the California Broadcasters Assn. generally upheld expectations as to the sort of side-by-side Senate contests California is likely to witness during the next 16 weeks:

The biggest gulf on issues will be between liberal Democratic Rep. Barbara Boxer and conservative Republican Bruce Herschensohn, who are seeking the six-year seat being relinquished by Democratic Sen. Alan Cranston. The sharpest personal exchanges will flash between Democrat Dianne Feinstein and appointed Republican Sen. John Seymour, running for the final two years of the Senate term Gov. Pete Wilson won in 1988.

Seymour spoke first and was the most aggressive, attempting to tie Feinstein to what he described as the old “tax-and-spend way of doing things” he claims has been espoused by Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton and running mate Al Gore. “Change is the issue,” Seymour stressed.

Reading prepared comments rather than speaking extemporaneously as he usually did in the primary campaign, Seymour said the $135 billion in defense budget cuts proposed by Feinstein during a five-year period would mean “the loss of over 225,000 jobs here in California and a disaster for our economy.”

Feinstein countered with her own “invest in America” plan as a means of overcoming the “gridlock in leadership” that she argued has kept the nation’s economy from moving forward. She made it clear that she views Seymour as part of the gridlock.

Although she indicated she favors much deeper cuts in defense spending than Seymour, Feinstein appeared close to her opponent on the steps to take to stimulate the economy. Some proposals Feinstein said she supports are investment tax credits to partially cover the cost of productivity enhancing equipment, permanent research and development tax credits, and targeted repeal of capital gains.

Boxer reiterated the come-home-America program of her primary campaign, which calls for using billions in defense and foreign military aid cuts to finance a resurgence of domestic programs. She prompted the biggest laugh of the day when she told a broadcaster, who had complained of all the environmental regulations he faced on a proposed expansion project: “You should have bought another piece of land.”

She agreed that the environmental regulatory process needs streamlining, but added: “I want to be very straightforward with you. You are sending--if you send me--an environmentalist to the United States Senate. . . . Without a clean and healthy environment, we can’t have economic growth.”

Herschensohn, a Los Angeles radio and television commentator, outlined his program to cut the federal Establishment back to the role he believes was envisioned by the Founding Fathers in drafting the U.S. Constitution in 1787, using a long Bible-based homily to make the case for eliminating duplicating functions in separate levels of government.

For example, Herschensohn opposed the idea of the city of Los Angeles seeking federal aid for construction of a multibillion-dollar subway system.

“We have a relatively rich community,” Herschensohn said. “If we want it, we should do it. I don’t want some poor guy in West Virginia who works in a coal mine to chip in for a subway he’ll never see.”

In the question period, one broadcaster posed the sort of question that Herschensohn rarely faced in the primary, but is certain to confront between now and November: “In order to live up to all the principles that you espouse, it sounds to me as though you’re going to be opposed to virtually any law that comes up in the Senate.”

Herschensohn responded that he “would support those things that are interstate in nature.” He said he would not propose to eliminate the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Fresh from being front stage at the Democratic National Convention in New York City, Boxer and Feinstein emphasized their commitments on the abortion issue.

In the contest for the two-year Senate seat, Feinstein, the former San Francisco mayor, and Seymour, the Orange County state senator elevated to the Senate by Wilson 18 months ago, support a woman’s right to choose as outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision.

But Seymour opposed unrestricted abortion until 1989, as he prepared to run--unsuccessfully--for lieutenant governor. On Monday, Feinstein seemed to signal her intent to let the voters know that, and not forget it between now and Nov. 3.

“I have never changed my view on choice. I have always been 100% choice,” she said.

Seymour’s only reference to abortion during his presentation was to list the three major factors why voters should support him: “I am pro-choice, pro-family and pro-jobs.”

In her presentation, Boxer said government should not interfere with a woman’s decision whether to have an abortion.

“It’s a personal decision,” she said. “It’s crucial because if government can tell you how to think about a very personal private decision like abortion, government can tell you how to think about a whole host of issues. And that, to me, is a frightening thing.”

Herschensohn did not mention abortion in his 10-minute opening remarks but was asked about it by a broadcaster in the question period.

“I’m pro-life,” he said simply.

“Why?” the man in the audience asked.

“Because I don’t know when human life begins . . . so I veer toward the side of life. I think that’s common sense, I think that’s logical. And if the polls are correct, I’m going to lose some votes because of it.”

Speaking after him, Boxer took note of Herschensohn’s remarks. “The fact that you may not know where life begins, and you’re a politician, says to me, ‘Don’t repeal the law that gives people the choice, gives them that ability to make their decision.’ ”

Seymour, who has portrayed Feinstein as the favorite since the beginning, sought to turn the incumbency factor around and, in the role of scrappy challenger, confronted Feinstein in the hallway after his 30 minutes of remarks and again challenged her to debate.

During a brief exchange in front of reporters and aides, Feinstein indicated she would accept.