YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Wilson and Prop. 187

November 04, 1994

I am outraged at your tortuous endorsement of Gov. Pete Wilson, which seems to undermine your adjoining opposition to Prop. 187 (editorials, Oct. 30). How can you claim Wilson provides the state valuable leadership while he has cynically positioned his reelection campaign on his support for Prop. 187?

As James Flanigan reported on the same day, Wilson had supported "an unhindered flow of illegal immigrants to work in agriculture and industry" during the state's economic good times. Now, to divert attention from the state's precarious economic situation, Wilson enthusiastically announced his support for 187 (which he admits is unconstitutional) the day after your initial poll showed it has strong popular support.

This is not the leadership California needs.


Los Angeles

Oh, how I love your "Pete Wilson for Governor: On Balance the Best Choice"! It is certainly well thought out (and you gave state Treasurer Kathleen Brown some complimentary remarks). Thanks for it and your Prop. 187 comments. I am a Democrat but shall vote for Wilson.



I wish I could share The Times' sanguine view of Wilson, but all I can see is a man who has held the top job for four years and still blames everyone else for every problem. California is in trouble and will continue to be in trouble until we start planning for the future and stop looking for scapegoats, be they the federal government or the immigrants in our midst.

It would be a help to have a governor who accepts responsibility and encourages the rest of us to do so as well.



As a teacher, parent and grandparent, I must strenuously object to your unusual gubernatorial endorsement of Wilson. Your newspaper has championed the schools' cause for years, most recently in articles which show the very real trauma to students promulgated by the heinous Prop. 187. Yet you now break with your 24-year tradition to announce for the incumbent--who has not only endorsed 187 but also, as evidenced in your "Decision '94" special section (Oct. 30), can do no more than react negatively to Brown's vision of California students who are computer-literate, "job ready," disciplined and safe.

You trumpet the technocrat, but ignore the truth: that Wilson has done little more than react to our state's natural and economic disasters. Where is the leadership? California needs vision, and a leader in education. Kathleen Brown: yes!


Sherman Oaks

I was going to vote for Brown. I may still, in spite of her inane attempt to stretch Wilson's Madonna remarks into some sort of sexist/anti-Catholic spin (Oct. 26).

She is either truly "deeply offended" by his remarks and thus a truly stupid person, or, for self-serving reasons, trying to make them a gender-religious slur, and thus a truly cynical person who believes the electorate is stupid. Were it not that Wilson is the alternative, I would not vote for her.


Laguna Beach

I take issue with your reasons for endorsing our so-called "pro-environment" governor. Wilson has not been "fighting for environmental balance," but rather fighting to open a radioactive waste dump with unlined dirt trenches just 19 miles from the Colorado River and sock Californians with the multimillion-dollar cleanup bill should the site leak.

This record is not economic or environmental balance. A governor who would advocate such an irresponsible project does not merit The Times' endorsement. The Times itself has written several editorials opposing the Ward Valley radioactive waste dump.


Americans for a Safe Future

Santa Monica

Having read Frank del Olmo's diatribe against The Times' endorsement of Wilson (a politician of whom I am no fan), I was shocked by this editor's (il)logic (Commentary, Oct. 31). Regarding Latino support for Prop. 187, he writes, "But that apparent consensus breaks down when you get to specifics, like asking Latinos whether distant relatives should be able to come to this country, legally or not."

Hmmm. Isn't that like asking individuals if they'd like permission to drive in the diamond lane, despite the fact that they're alone, if they're in a hurry? Most would say yes, wouldn't they? Isn't that like asking if we'd like to eat all the cake we want, without gaining weight? I'm for it!

Mr. Del Olmo, who wouldn't want to circumvent an inconvenient law? You present your example as if adherence to the law presents an undue burden for a particular population. I have too much respect for that population to agree with you.


Los Angeles

I am a businessman who agrees with and is proud of Del Olmo in his dissent. I am also a Mexican/Latino Republican who voted for Wilson the last time around and have been disappointed in his leadership since. In spite, however, of the state of the state under his Administration, I was going to vote for him to give him a second chance.

Los Angeles Times Articles