Villaraigosa Endorsement: L.A. Times Will Always Be The L.A. Times

Villaraigosa Endorsement: L.A. Times Will Always Be The L.A. Times

The Los Angeles Times endorsed Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for re-election today. That's really no surprise. The Times has always (at least since it became a liberal newspaper after the stewardship of the Otises) tried to ally itself with the power elites in the city. They really have never bucked them.

The Los Angeles Times endorsement editorial starts off saying that Villaraigosa beat James K. Hahn due to his "lackluster performance" but goes on to say that Villaraigosa "in some sense" is where Hahn was then. It is more than "some sense," Villaraigosa has only been an 11% mayor (from a study conducted by another newspaper).

The Times also states that Villaraigosa "squandered his goodwill with his less than straightforward handling of his extramarital affair." Well, for goodness sake, if his wife couldn't trust him, why should the voters trust him?

Villaraigosa is lauded for his skills as a "power broker" and "deal maker." I don't see any results except for tax and fee hikes and capitulations to union boss demands. Maybe that's why Villaraigosa is refusing to debate Walter Moore. He is afraid to defend his record in a debate. El Pollo Antonio (The Chicken Antonio)!

The endorsement says, "We still hold out hope that Villaraigosa can become a great mayor." In other words, we're still waiting after four years! Seems hardly a ringing endorsement (more like a back-handed slap). That is sure to instill confidence with the voters.

The Times shows its idiocy by saying (in answering the Mayor's critics), "The Times rejects the naive calls for Villaraigosa to spend more time in the city, at his desk." They appear to think it's okay for the Mayor to run around with presidential candidates and grandstanding for the press. He's never met a camera he didn't like.

If that's what the Los Angeles Times calls being a mayor deserving of re-election, I'm glad that I am supporting Walter Moore instead.

The Times blew a great opportunity to restore some (what little they had) professional credibility. Instead, they fell back to their old ways of kissing the the asses of the city's liberal power elites.