Candidate Lungren on the Issues

I mean, the press has a responsibility here. They bitch and moan about the fact there’s no serious discussion of issues, then they don’t follow the discussion of issues.

--Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren in an interview

****

The attorney general has a point. We reporters would rather write about the horse race than some cooked-up “issue.” Too often, the so-called discussion is only a sound bite concocted by a pollster. And little of it really relates to what a candidate ever would do if elected.

Besides, let’s be honest, the horse race usually is a lot more interesting. We’re a contest-crazed society.

That said, Lungren is correct. Reporters do have a responsibility to relay a credible candidate’s views on public policy, at least until we’ve all been numbed by a zillion repetitions.

And in an interview Tuesday, I was intrigued by some of the attorney general’s opinions. They seemed sincere, rather than contrived by consultants. Hardly any were about hot-button issues likely to sway swing voters. But they did point in a direction this 50-year-old Long Beach native probably would move if he were to be elected governor.

Moreover, if you had to bet on the 1998 horse race right now, the odds would favor Lungren--simply because he has a virtual lock on the Republican nomination. Any Democrat still could perish in a primary fight, or maybe not run at all.

*

Anyway, here’s one reporter’s effort to fulfill some responsibility toward a candidate’s discussion of issues:

* Community colleges: We’ve got to stop denigrating them and calling them “high schools’ ashtrays,” Lungren says. “We tell kids, ‘You’ve got a right to go to the UC system; if you go to the local junior college you’re some kind of academic freak or a failure.’ We’ve got to lose that mind set. Community colleges have always been the best second chance for kids who screwed up in high school. I’d like to reinvigorate a commitment to kids who do well there that they’ll get a place at UC. We’ve not paid enough attention to our community colleges.”

* State education department: “I’d look at getting rid of it.” At minimum, the department should report to the governor, not an elected schools chief. Also, perhaps get rid of the state education board. “They’re redundant.” Education should be a responsibility of the governor, “who would then take the hit or get the credit.”

* Vouchers: A Catholic who attended parochial schools, Lungren strongly favors providing tax money to help parents send their children to private schools. “If you provide competition for public schools, they will perform better.”

* Water: It’s “the oil of the next century, the most important infrastructure question California faces. Pat Brown left a 30-year legacy of water. We now need to go into another 30-year cycle. Some of the hype has been wrung out of the debate. Maybe the time is ripe.” Lungren favors “elements” of a long-proposed, controversial Peripheral Canal. But he’d find another name.

* Government: “The next governor is going to have to be willing to shake things up, work with the Legislature to make California government more responsive to our needs.” One problem is there are too many local entities. With all the attention on a new century, the public may be in a mood to modernize.

* Crime: “I’d like to drive the crime rate down to where it was in 1955. We’re halfway there.” He’d keep enforcing three-strikes penalties and building more prisons; also add jails to lock up minor criminals. Is there a limit to how much we can spend? “Sure. When the crime rate goes down to what it was in 1955, then you don’t have to build more prisons. I’m serious.”

* Taxes: He’s a fiscal conservative, but not a fool. He won’t lock himself into “a commitment in blood [to] never under any circumstances, any place, any time . . .” There’ll be no reading of lips.

*

Enough. Back to the horse race. There, his views also are intriguing.

Lungren says he’ll “absolutely” refuse to run “personal attack” ads against his opponent’s “character or motivation.” That doesn’t mean he won’t attack his opponent’s public record. But he wants any attack by either of them to be leveled first during a public debate so it can be answered.

He’ll challenge his rival “to a series of debates from one end of the state to the other.” He’ll keep debating “as long as the press pays attention to us.”

He says his biggest problem will be living within Proposition 208’s new $8-million spending limit for the November election. There won’t be much money for 30-second TV spots.

Perhaps the candidates then will be forced to have a real discussion of issues before real people. Not only the reporters but the candidates and their consultants will have to be more responsible.