[EDITOR'S NOTE: Red County SB declares this debate a DRAW]

Late Thursday night a forum was held for the two Republican candidates standing for the 60th Assembly District, a constituency being vacated by two-term incumbent GOPer Bob Huff. At the debate, which was sponsored by local chapters of the statewide California Republican Assembly volunteer organization of GOP activists, the two legislative hopefuls, Chino Hills Mayor Curt Hagman and Orange County Water Board member Larry Dick, squared off before a crowd of slightly less than 100 individuals. Additionally, the event was broadcast before a live cable access television audience in the city of Orange.

The 60th Assembly District covers parts of three counties, including Chino Hills in San Bernardino and part of the city of Orange in Orange County.

Aside from both candidates, there were several notable individuals spotted in attendance. Anaheim City Councilman Harry Sidhu, Diamond Bar Mayor Steve Tye, Diamond Bar Mayor Pro Tem Jack Tanaka, Orange Mayor Carolyn Cavecche, and several other elected officials. Another noteworthy guest: public affairs website Flashreport publisher Jon Fleischman.

Supporters of the candidates also came out on force; numerous partisans of Larry Dick sported "Larry Dick for Assembly" buttons, stickers and campaign signs, while prominent Hagman supporters, such as Mike Radlovic and Roman Nava, appeared in Orange County to aid their candidate's debate fortunes.

A coin toss decided order of speaking. Larry Dick spoke first and delivered a very solid opening statement in which he sounded numerous conservative themes on being a "pro-business conservative Republican" who stated he was running because "we need someone who will end Sacramento's tax-and-spend mentality."

Curt Hagman followed and provided a slightly shakier opening argument. However, the newly-minted Chino Hills mayor did express his experience in fighting for conservative Republican ideals, told the audience that as a city councilmember he has "balanced a budget every year without raising taxes, doubled law enforcement," and most recently coordinated the volunteer effort in fighting the recent spate of Southern California wildfires.

On the issues, both candidates provided nearly identical answers. Both hopefuls denounced Proposition 93, the legislative term limits modification measure supported by California's leading Democratic lawmakers. Both Dick and Hagman came out forcefully against SB 777, controversial recent legislation on textbook curriculum.

Both candidates stressed their pro-life, pro-Second Amendment and anti-tax positions to the crowd. Of course, being a forum comprising of conservative constituency organizations, Larry Dick and Curt Hagman repeatedly emphasized their own conservative credentials.

One difference may have emerged. From the audience of Republican stalwarts a question on the issue of union influence in campaigns was posed to the candidates. Larry Dick flat-out stated he supported "paycheck protection" on labor union leadership's expenditures of rank-and-file members' dues for political purposes.

Curt Hagman announced his endorsement from law enforcement associations, but, like Larry Dick, stated he was not seeking support from the politically powerful state teachers union.

Hagman did not express a position on paycheck protection, although he said he agreed with the "principle" of the issue.

Another audience question drew an unusually candid answer from one of the candidates. Larry Dick, in response to a query on his support of the Governor's agreements with several First Nations on gaming expansion, stated he thinks it's an unfair situation where "Tommy Two-Tree can open a casino and Tommy Houlihan cannot." Mr. Dick, in what could be interpreted as rhetorically questioning the legitimacy of sovereign First Nations land, wondered why a "passport" isn't necessary to visit Pechanga.

Pechanga is a reference to a an Indian mega-casino resort in Southwest Riverside County. It is unclear who "Tommy Two-Tree" and "Tommy Houlihan" are.

Curt Hagman, on the other hand, declared the act of participating in gambling to be a "personal choice" and stated he "supports Indian gaming."

In conclusion, no real fireworks were launched. Both candidates offered similar viewpoints on nearly every substantive issue presented. Any difference, therefore, would be of style.

In that category, Larry Dick did appear more polished than his opponent. Mr. Dick often appeared to have a strong command of the issues and despite his early declaration of being nervous, he appeared  quite steady in his answering of questions, the issue of Indian Gaming notwithstanding.

Curt Hagman touched on all the right conservative tones, and there is no doubt of his sincerity and commitment to conservative causes. Hagman's weakest point in his style was his repeated "I agree with Larry" as a preface to his own response. (It happened at least four times). Larry Dick on a couple of occasions appeared grating with twice-issued public calls for viewers to visit his website in which he slowly listed the URL.

As the debate concluded, both camps declared victory to reporters and bloggers, with operatives from each side declaring that the forum proved their candidate to be the most conservative. How the campaigns can make that argument when both of their candidates issued similar responses to nearly every question is a brilliant attempt at spin, but the debate revealed that the 60th Assembly District's Republican primary is shaping up to be a battle of two conservatives.

Any differences that may exist to disprove their opponent's lack of commitment to conservative Republican principles were not displayed or presented at the debate this past Thursday. However, it is a long way until June and this race shows every sign of turning into a real barn-burner.