L.A. TIMES made another endorsement Saturday and this one is for the MAYOR- pure half assed L.A. TIMES style they have adopted of late. The to-the-point title is all it means: "Reelect Villaraigosa, The mayor deserves a second term. But we hope he'll keep his focus on L.A., not Sacramento" http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-mayor21-2009feb21,0,2274323.story The basis for this is a self-delusional view of things in Los Angeles, more like comments that a Villaraigosa employee would say about his boss than an objective evaluation.
All the bad things listed and the more villainous things- power broker and such- are what they HIGHLIGHT as positives, ignoring that as the "red flag" warning for seeing his personal exploitation of the office. A truly puzzling approach and miserable assembly of a conclusion when you think of making a current crisis even worse by a re-election of Tony.
The L.A. TIMES editorial person has listed numerous errors of the Mayor, but did not think they were errors, like being out of the city so often and rarely being found in his office where you might think he would be. The L.A. TIMES says that’s a good thing. So many reverse things in this assessment of the Mayor’s first term in office. The “power” of the Mayor is another item that wins over the L.A. TIMES. So, getting the people to vote a monstrous amount that will tax them for decade before they ever see it, it it’s done at all is supposed to be a “good” thing, according to the editorial.
And the editorial says, in effect, “Well, we endorse him and he should stay a full term if he’s re-elected to finish what he started.” Well, L.A. TIMES, you must be living in a parallel universe and see too much backwards.
NOT ONE mention of Tony's obsession for climbing the political ladder and TONY’S fresh announcement that CANNOT promise to serve a full term if elected as mayor since he’s considering running for Governor. “Considering?” That has been in his plans for years- who is he kidding? L.A. TIMES, what about that?
Purely a job of wishful thinking by the L.A. TIMES, as it did with WENDY GRUEL’s rap-sheet list of problems, including being so very close to the Mayor and his views, then giving her the endorsement for the office of “City Controller.” What?
Why endorse her at all or Tony? There's more there past what meets the eye and it can’t be good.
The LA TIMES also badly misinterpreted as more "positives" all the self-promotion and manipulations by Tony to get what they call his "achievements." Are they traveling out of town with him and miss seeing what’s going on in L.A. or what?
For one example: It's so clear; he's effed up people with his accelerated trash fees from the gradual step-increases planned to spread over years to 2011. He “asked” city council to move it all up as an urgent need, to begin in September 2008, the to be able to claim that 1000-officer boost to the LAPD. $11 a month is now about $36 a month, billed with your so high DWP bill every 2 months, so about $72 now is there per bill for each home. Ouch. On top of that, the money was not all spent for hiring the cops as “promised” and MORE money was still needed. It never ends.
So what if TONY’s career boost has jammed everyone's personal budget, and creates more financial distress for people already stretched thin on money? The IMPORTANT thing is that Tony gets another paragraph of “achievement” to add to his campaign brochure for the next office, and who knows how much of our money he will spend to get himself there if re-elected.
Tony's whole show is all about that and the L.A. TIMES missed it completely- no credibility there at all. They might as well have just printed TONY’s campaign mailer if they don’t want to waste time with examining REAL facts. It must be that parallel universe explanation. Anything else would be a crime.
Posts
