YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Huffington Campaign

November 17, 1994

Re "Huffington and Others Say $30 Million Was Well Spent," Nov. 13:

Glenn Bunting's analysis of the Mike Huffington campaign certainly points out the deterioration present in this most recent voting/campaigning process. When a politician, any politician--Republican or Democrat--can crassly expend his fortune to degrade the character of another in order to win, something is drastically wrong. And the speculation that $10 million more would have put Huffington on top definitely is a wake-up call for any voter who considers himself or herself an American.

This campaign was not about a Republican defeating a Democrat. Huffington didn't lose because Dianne Feinstein (supposedly) won. He lost because anyone defacing another to the tune of $30 million can't be allowed to win. As a Californian, Huffington left a shameful mark on our voting report card.

I thought there was something in this recent campaign that we should have learned in grammar school. Are we going to have to own up to the fact that we are teaching lies to our children? Or do we teach one set of values to them and live another set ourselves? What happened to good citizenship, decency and moral values?

Unsportsmanlike conduct in the face of defeat deserves 10 laps on any playing field. There is a lesson here for everyone to learn.

If Huffington needs an arena to dump his millions, I know of a lot of important projects that could use some help like: Bread and Roses Cafe, in Venice, that daily feeds the homeless; A Friendly Place, in Oakland, that assists women on the streets, and the Gathering Place, in Los Angeles, that supports those suffering from AIDS.


Los Angeles

* While watching the election returns I couldn't help but notice that Huffington's victory party was in Orange County. After reviewing the election return finals I figured out why--Santa Barbara County was one of only two Southern California counties to go for Feinstein.



* For those who hoped that the elections would have turned out differently, there is a bright ray of sunshine. The American people decided that it was time for a change of great magnitude. Yet, in their infinite wisdom the voters denied seats in the Senate to a convicted liar in Virginia and an "empty suit" in California who thought he was entitled to buy that seat.

The only shadow to those bright spots is that each received so many votes. I guess "you can fool some of the people some of the time."



* I'm trying to figure out why Huffington picked California as the state whose House--and then Senate--seat he would buy. What was wrong with Texas? (If Santa Barbara Republicans are any measure of how people react after they've gotten to know him, it's no mystery.)

Still, why didn't Huffington pick a smaller state, such as Arizona or Hawaii, where he could have paid twice as much per voter and still saved millions of dollars--is he that lousy a businessman?

After some reflection on this, I have come to the conclusion that people in smaller states would have seen through Huffington in a minute, no matter how much money he spent.


Los Angeles

* In the midst of a $$$ onslaught from a grizzillionaire opponent and a political tidal wave against her party, one candidate stood head and shoulders above all the others with class and dignity: Feinstein.

We will be served well with this real and remarkable Californian in the U.S. Senate.


Long Beach

Los Angeles Times Articles