YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Candidates for Mayor of L.A.

April 01, 2001

* The Times' dual endorsement of James Hahn and Antonio Villaraigosa in the Los Angeles mayoral election can be described as nothing more than a vote for the status quo and political correctness (editorial, March 25). To describe Villaraigosa as "charismatic" and thus qualified for the office of mayor is a bit "Clintonesque." How can a major newspaper endorse a candidate who didn't have enough common sense to shy away from the Carlos Vignali pardon?

Villaraigosa is nothing more than a throwback to a new style of back-room politics without a shred of public policy accomplishment. He is a mouthpiece for left-liberal causes such as labor and a state Democratic Party all too eager to have one of its own as the city's new chief executive.

As for Hahn, he is a lifetime elected bureaucrat who has trouble telling anyone why he should be elected mayor. Keeping schools open late is hardly a new idea that warrants serious discussion. Is this the best he can offer after two decades as a full-time elected official?




* I cannot understand how the voters of Los Angeles are considering voting for Villaraigosa for mayor. He was one of the legislators who brought us this energy fiasco. I realize they thought they were doing the right thing, but they weren't. This misjudgment was so wrongheaded that no one who voted for deregulation should be elected to any office in the future. Are politics and integrity simply not in the same dictionary?


Van Nuys

Los Angeles Times Articles