CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS / U.S. SENATE : Debate Splits Apart Seymour, Feinstein

Democrat Dianne Feinstein and Republican John Seymour presented sharply conflicting views of government Saturday in their first debate of the campaign season, with Feinstein saying Washington should “prime the pump” of a faltering economy and Seymour declaring that government “just ought to stay out of our lives” in most money matters.

The content of the intense, hourlong clash, televised live throughout most of California, contradicted remarks by some political observers that the candidates are moderates who are relatively close to each other on many issues.

On taxes, Seymour promised to vote against any increase if he is elected to the final two years of the Senate term given up by Republican Pete Wilson when he became governor in January, 1991. Seymour has served the last 21 months as Wilson’s appointee.

Feinstein, a former San Francisco mayor, said she would support higher income taxes only on families earning $200,000 a year or more. But she called for deeper defense cuts than Seymour wants, with the savings going to neglected domestic programs such as education and transportation.

They differed sharply on a range of other issues, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (Seymour yes, Feinstein no); federal water project reform (Seymour no, Feinstein yes), and Wilson’s welfare reform initiative (Seymour yes, Feinstein no).

Each came into the debate armed with a hoped-for surprise attack to throw the other off guard. Seymour seemed to stun Feinstein with an opening statement alleging that as a member of the state’s women’s parole board from 1960 to 1966, she “put on the streets to parole over 760 felons, 21 of whom were murderers.”

“I just don’t know how you can say on the one hand you are tough on crime and want safe streets and on the other hand put 21 murderers back on the streets,” said Seymour, 54, a former Anaheim mayor and state senator. Later in the discussion, he referred to the parolees as “murders and rapists and robbers.”

Feinstein, 59, clearly caught off guard, struggled to respond during time allocated to a following question from the panel of three reporters.

“In the sentencing we did in the early 1960s, there was no increase in recidivism and we cut down jail time because we kept in prison those people who were a threat to society, and I think that made a huge difference,” said Feinstein, who served six years on California Women’s Board of Terms and Parole.

She added later that California’s sentencing system was different then and that Seymour “is essentially comparing apples and oranges.”

She went on to attack Seymour for opposing a Democratic-sponsored federal crime bill that would have pumped $1 billion into local law enforcement and increased the number of federal crimes subject to the death penalty.

“But he didn’t support it, and I think my record with respect to crime is well known,” added Feinstein, who was booed by her own party members in 1990 for supporting the death penalty.

Feinstein’s attempted zinger was to label Seymour a big spender for mailing constituents “7 million pieces of junk mail,” at a cost of more than $1 million, since joining the Senate and for having, she said, a bigger Senate staff than Wilson or Democrat Alan Cranston.

Seymour responded by boasting of winning a “bulldog” award as “one of the most tightfisted” members of the Senate on spending issues.

And when Seymour took his no-new-taxes pledge, Feinstein shot back: “It’s ironic. My opponent just voted for a tax bill that has 21 separate tax increases in it.” But Feinstein acknowledged to reporters after the debate, held in the studios of television station KOVR, that she would have voted for the bill because it contained urban aid programs inspired in part by last spring’s Los Angeles riots.

Feinstein said Seymour was being arbitrary and unrealistic in vowing to vote against any tax increase.

“You know, no matter what happens, war, famine, drought, earthquake, hurricane--no new taxes. I don’t believe that’s very credible with the American people. . . . I think what the American people want are some solutions from government, the problems that are deeply troubling, like getting this economy started and moving again,” she said.

Seymour responded: “What the American people want is for our government to get their hands out of our pockets. That’s what the American people want.”

Feinstein said people are “anxious and fearful” and said: “We must go in a new direction.”

Seymour said: “I’m of a belief that one of our problems is we’ve got too much government.”

The two candidates will meet again tonight in San Francisco in a session co-sponsored by the Commonwealth Club and the San Francisco Chronicle.