Debate fairly mild

Monday night’s showdown in Costa Mesa between Republican gubernatorial candidates Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner wasn’t nearly as nasty as it could have been given the escalating rhetoric of the campaigns.

Although both candidates tried to highlight differences and accused the other of distorting their opponent’s record, true red-meat moments were few and far between.

Instead, the former EBay Chief Executive Whitman and California Insurance Commissioner Poizner continued carving out their chosen niches as they compete for various segments of the Republican electorate.

They sought to crystallize the impressions they’ve been working for months to create — Whitman as an experienced and successful businesswoman who will bring an outsider perspective, and Poizner as a game-changing conservative who will bring total rather than incremental change. Poizner also highlighted his diverse experiences in both the public and private sectors.

The most heated exchange during the hourlong debate in the Samueli Theater at the Orange County Performing Arts Center was about illegal immigration and how far each candidate would go to stop it.

Whitman said she opposes a path to citizenship — a so-called amnesty — for illegal immigrants already in the country, whereas Poizner proposed to go further by denying government-funded benefits such as health care and public education to illegal immigrants and their children.

That’s when Whitman struck the first blow: “Let’s do another fact-check on Steve’s record on immigration. Today he says he wants to turn off [benefits for illegal immigrants] … but when he ran for Assembly in 2004 he was on the side of Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform, and that meant a path to legalization and citizenship for illegals who are already here. … Steve’s done a complete about-face. … We can’t change our minds depending on what office we’re running for.”

Poizner countered with: “All of her negative attacks [are] nasty, they’re wrong, you’re not getting my story straight at all … and you’re misleading people. … I was running for state Assembly against one of the most liberal people in the state of California, carrying the Republican banner and registering 10,000 new Republicans. … What were you doing in 2004? You endorsed Barbara Boxer, you campaigned for Barbara Boxer, you contributed to Barbara Boxer. If you want to talk about history, let’s talk about your history.”

When the moderator, reporter Conan Nolan of NBC4, steered the debate to a new topic, the audience responded with nervous laughter.

That was the low point — or high point, depending on one’s perspective — for attacks, and the candidates mainly stuck to explaining their own positions on the myriad issues facing the state and politely pointing out their differences.

Some key differences the candidates highlighted include:

 Tax cuts. Whitman’s plan to cut taxes revolves around targeted cuts meant to spur the economy and create jobs, and she argues the state can’t afford across-the-board tax cuts. Poizner called for an across-the-board tax cut of 10% and a 50% reduction in capital gains taxes.

  Global warming. On Assembly Bill 32 — the law requiring California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 — the candidates agreed it is causing the state to lose jobs. Poizner supports a proposition that would suspend the law until state unemployment drops to 5.5% — compared to 12.4% today — and stays there four straight quarters. But Whitman wants a one-year suspension while she studies the issue and comes up with a permanent solution.

  Experience. Whitman touted her 30 years in business and tenure as EBay’s chief executive as experience that will help her balance the state budget and lure employers back to California. Poizner argued that his mix of public and private experience as a public school teacher, tech entrepreneur, charter school innovator and insurance commissioner give him just the right amount of government experience to get things done in Sacramento.

As expected, both campaigns sent out statements immediately after the debate claiming victory. But both candidates landed some punches and scored some points, so it’s hard to see either as a runaway winner.