This post has been corrected. See note below.

Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich officially announced his candidacy for county district attorney  Thursday. That took a good deal of chutzpah because during his 2008 campaign, he signed a pledge to seek a second term as city attorney and to forgo running for any other office, including district attorney. If he violated his promise, Trutanich said four years ago, he would donate $100,000 to an after-school program and take out full-page newspaper ads declaring "I am a liar." As far as we can tell, The Times has yet to receive an ad request from his campaign -- and Trutanich hasn't addressed his seeming hypocrisy. Below, editorial writers Jon Healey and Dan Turner debate the issue. 

Healey: When running to succeed City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo, Trutanich argued that Delgadillo's outsized political ambitions made him a distracted and ineffective leader of the city's law office. His target wasn't just Delgadillo; it was also then-City Councilman Jack Weiss, the front-runner in the race for city attorney who was also viewed as a political climber. Trutanich hammered home this point in late 2008 by publicly swearing to serve two full terms if he were elected and reelected. He also challenged the other candidates to join him in signing a pledge to "not seek any other elected position including Mayor, U.S. Congress, Attorney General or Los Angeles County District Attorney while serving as Los Angeles City Attorney."

By his own standards, Trutanich is a liar. And considering his willingness to lie to voters, I don't expect him to keep his pledge to the local print media or to the L.A.'s Best After School Program either.

Turner: There are certain words and phrases that, when emitted from politicians' mouths, have ceased to have much meaning. When I hear them being uttered, I tend to substitute them in my head with those muted horns used on the old "Charlie Brown" specials whenever an adult was talking. (In Charles Schulz's world, the words of adults were so superfluous that they could be reduced to background noise.) So, for example, when Mitt Romney pledges not to "go negative" against his fellow candidates, what I hear him saying is "Wah wohh, wah woh, wah wa wa wa." Another good phrase worthy of a mental horn section: "If elected, I will not use this position as a springboard to higher office."

Well, of course you will. Politicians routinely lie about this for the same reason most job seekers lie about the same thing: If I'm applying for a lousy job at a banana stand because I need to beef up my resume so I can apply for a commissioned job selling used cars, I'm not going to admit that to my prospective employer -- and woe to the banana-stand owner who’s naive enough to believe me when I claim that it is my greatest ambition in life to spend my career selling chocolate-covered bananas. In 2003, a former Assemblyman named Antonio Villaraigosa claimed he was solely interested in serving on the City Council and wouldn't interrupt his term to run for mayor; two years later, I doubt he stopped to think twice about whether to jump into the mayor's race. When Jerry Brown was running for California attorney general, he told The Times' editorial board that he had no interest in higher office -- he was too old and tired to consider running for governor, he said. We all know how that ended.

Obviously, just because it's common doesn't make it right. And Trutanich's promises were so emphatic that he now finds himself in an unwinnable position: If he honors his promise he has to admit to being a liar, while if he fails to honor his promise he is implicitly a liar. But another problem with this kind of about-face is that neither Trutanich -- nor Brown, Villaraigosa or any other politician guilty of such a flip-flop -- was necessarily lying at the time they made the promise. Many of them might genuinely have thought they were telling the truth. But circumstances change; an office that seemed unattainable might suddenly open up because an unbeatable incumbent chooses not to run, for example. There's nothing wrong with adapting to changing circumstances. You just have to explain your reasons to voters, which is a case we have yet to see Trutanich make.

Healey: I'll concede that the job of city attorney is a political one, so it's not necessarily bad for voters if the person holding that office sets his or her eyes on higher office. After all, term limits force those who win the job to think prematurely about where they'll go next.

The problem with Trutanich is that the centerpiece of his sales pitch to voters was that he wouldn't do that. The office had been so neglected by Delgadillo, he argued, that its main client -- the City Council -- refused to rely on its advice. The lawyers there needed a committed manager who could turn them into the city's best law firm. So, three years into the job, Trutanich finds out that the office doesn't really need a full-time, hands-on manager?

I don't think that's what Dan means by "circumstances change." Trutanich didn't have a revelation about the city attorney not really needing to focus on, you know, his job. He had a revelation that Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley wasn't going to run for a fourth term after all. Trutanich also evidently learned that he liked being an elected official and figured he'd enjoy it more in a more powerful seat.

Humble, deferential people do not win a lot of elections. Ambitious ones do. Yet there's a difference between pols facing term limits who cast about for the next place to land and those whose eyes have been on a different prize all along. Now that Trutanich has made it clear that the city attorney's job was just a stepping stone, he's put himself into the latter category. And that makes me wonder whether he's really interested in being district attorney, or is that just a rung on the ladder too?

Turner: Your point about Trutanich making his pledge a centerpiece of his campaign is a good one. Now, it's up to voters to decide whether they can forgive him for that. Trutanich surely knows that he's got some explaining to do, but I'm not sure that we should fault him for not yet coming to the plate -- he just announced his candidacy today, after all. He's got plenty of time to lay out his rationale for changing his mind.

Personally, I'm not sure why it matters whether or not Trutanich considers the district attorney job to be just another rung on the career ladder (Next stop: state attorney general?) If he is a successful DA, he might deserve to be elected attorney general; if he isn't, he won't win. Don't we want successful politicians to bring that success to higher offices? When managers succeed in the private sector, they get promoted, which is good for the company, and the same principle can and should apply to government. But I take your main point: The real question is whether Trutanich can be trusted. If he's lying about his future ambitions in order to get elected, what else is he lying about? I just think that in politics, there are forgivable lies and unforgivable ones. "I did not sleep with that woman" seems a forgivable lie because it's one that powerful married men conducting affairs can be expected to tell, and it doesn’t really impact a politician's job performance. "I am not a crook" -- when you've been caught eavesdropping on political opponents and performing an array of other dirty tricks -- seems like an unforgivable one.

On this scale, I tend to put "I promise not to seek higher office" on the forgivable side. But I'll be more or less convinced about that depending on Trutanich's skill in justifying his actions.

[For the record, 6:09 p.m. Feb. 9: Good grief! The original version of this post misspelled Charles Schulz's name. Rats.]

ALSO:

Daum: Tiger Moms vs. 'Bébé' moms

McManus: Those mudslinging Republicans

Does the Miramonte case argue for cameras in the classroom?

Photo: L.A. City Atty. Carmen Trutanich. Credit: Anne Cusack / Los Angeles Times

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure folks are terrific at publicity. Most of the time, anyway. They have bathed the fight against breast cancer in a pink glow, bringing in loads of positive press for their runs for the cure and other fundraisers. What could possibly be said negative about an organization that backs cancer research and pays for breast screenings for women who otherwise couldn't afford them?

Now that the Komen pink has been bathed in the red-hot anger of Americans who support abortion rights for its shortsighted and short-lived decision to sever ties with Planned Parenthood over a politically motivated investigation of the latter, its longtime critics, little heard from before, are out in force. Of course there's the question about whether Komen will continue to provide grants to Planned Parenthood to fund medical examinations and referrals for mammograms. Leaders only said they were reversing the cockeyed policy that they will not be affiliated with any organization that is under government investigation for any reason; they never said they would continue to work with Planned Parenthood.

But now, it turns out, there are people who revile Komen for its very success, or at least the way the foundation reached it.

The Feminist Peace Network complains:

After several days of unrelenting fury (much of it from longtime loyal supporters) that has severely damaged their credibility as our boobs' best friend, Komen for the Cure has reconsidered its decision regarding funding Planned Parenthood (albeit with a statement that definitely leaves significant wiggle room). In the wake of what may well be the worst case of accidental re-branding ever by the organization that pinkified the world and took cause branding to epic proportions, we need to take a hard look at Komen's very unhealthy advocacy and re-examine what if any role they should play in supporting women's health. ...

Over the years, Komen has accepted massive support from corporations that make all manner of products that have been linked to cancer and hawked all manner of pink stuff with cancer-related ingredients. They have hammered about the need to be aware and get annual mammograms even while study after study has questioned this recommendation (and oh yeah, they have accepted contributions from the companies that make mammography equipment).

Komen has told us that being aware and early detection are the key, even though in many cases, this simply makes no difference in outcome.  They have hawked (and even trademarked) "for the cure" (a trademark they have spent millions of the dollars we have raced to raise defending), the shockingly expensive drugs that treat this awful disease, while taking large contributions from drug makers.

Recent studies have indeed cast doubt on how effective mammograms are -- though the network doesn't bother pointing out that Planned Parenthood is referring for these tests as well, and teaches women to do breast self-examination, which studies have also found to be less than effective. You'd think from reading this that Komen is way out there in medical space, providing kooky treatments to women because of its ties with corporations. Truth is, though this might change over time, regular mammograms are still the accepted standard of care by many women and their doctors.

Others have dredged up the nastiness last year, though it never came close to the attention paid to the Planned Parenthood moves, when Komen went after smaller cancer charities in trademark complaints over use of the phrase "for the cure," which was seen as distinctly uncharitable. Others complain that Komen is a purveyor of unnecessary kitschy pink junk.

Speaking of which, a gun maker put out a press release Friday announcing that it had "teamed" with Komen to produce a pink-trimmed handgun, with that ever-vague wording about a portion of the proceeds going to Komen. Turns out, Business Insider reports, that the company misrepresented it and there's no relationship.

This could be the week when Komen wished no one had ever heard of it.

ALSO:

The pink ribbon's ugly new image

Will PETA stop Kansas 'and your little dog too'?

Super Bowl: The right way to combat big-game pirates

--Karin Klein

Photo: Nancy Brinker, founder and CEO of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is seen speaking at the National Press Club in Washington in 2009. Credit: Haraz N. Ghanbari / AP Photo

Debate coaches advise against making personal -- ad hominem -- attacks. But there are two kinds of personal attacks, and Rick Santorum engaged in both of them in attacking Newt Gingrich at Thursday's debate slugfest. 

One kind of ad hominem attack focuses on the target's moral uprightness (or lack thereof) or his personality. Albeit obliquely, Santorum suggested that voters should pay attention to the complaint by Gingrich's ex-wife that he had once asked her for an open marriage.  Note especially the implication that it isn't enough that Gingrich got religion and asked God for forgiveness: 

 "I've answered this question repeatedly throughout the course of this campaign. I am a Christian too. And I thank God for forgiveness. But, you know, these -- these are issues of our lives and what we did in our lives. They are issues of character for people to consider. But the bottom line is those are -- those are things for everyone in this audience to look at. And they're going to look at me, look at what I've done in my private life and personal life, unfortunately." He obviously didn't mean "unfortunately." 

Less sensationally, but still in the realm of  the first sort of ad hominem attack, Santorum  accused Gingrich of grandiosity and hinted that the former speaker of the House was erratic if not actually unstable: "I don't want a nominee that I have to worry about [my]  going out and looking at the paper the next day and figuring out what is he -- worrying about what he's going to say next." Oh, that Newt! 

Sticklers for debate decorum would consider these attacks out of bounds. Maybe so. But Santorum also engaged in a different sort of ad hominem attack on Gingrich that was perfectly proper: a critique of his leadership skills: 

"Four years into his speakership, he was thrown out by the conservatives. It was a coup against him in three. I served with him. I was there. I knew what the problems were going on in the House of Representatives when Newt Gingrich was leading this -- leading there. It was an idea a minute, no discipline, no ability to be able to pull things together." 

The focus here is not on the issues, which are supposed to dominate debates.  Echoing Michael Dukakis, of all people, Santorum was emphasizing the importance of competence. It's ad hominem, but it's not a cheap shot. 

RELATED:

GOP debate: CNN? More like WWF

Will Romney feel the pressure tonight?

Gingrich: School prayer would have prevented Columbine

--  Michael McGough

Photo: Rick Santorum participates in a Republican presidential candidate debate at the North Charleston Coliseum in S.C. on Jan. 19. Credit: David Goldman / AP Photo

We've said it before -- more than a dozen times. A child, even a bad one, should not be sent to prison for life without any chance at parole. It's a mark of societal fear and a lust for revenge. Some younger criminals may indeed be so incorrigible that they should never go free, but after he or she has been behind bars for a quarter of a century, a judge, and a parole board, should be able to consider release.

On Tuesday, the state Assembly is reconsidering SB 9, a bill to put California among the ranks of civilized societies by ending juvenile life without parole sentences. Finally, Assembly, put this matter to rest, pass the bill and send it to the governor.

Or, as we have said previously:

Jan. 16, 2008:

But of all the inequities of a dysfunctional penal system and harsh state laws, few can touch our predilection for discarding the lives of children who commit crimes before they're old enough to fully understand the consequences of their actions.

April 30, 2009:

Knowing they will live and die in prison, people who acted in the rashness of youth have no hope of returning to society, and therefore no reason to learn, or grow, or mature, or reform. But surely their example will dissuade other youth from crime? Nonsense. Kids who can't imagine next year can't imagine life in prison and can't be expected to make decisions based on something as obscure to them as parole.

Nov. 7, 2009:

Society can and should countenance a hopeless existence in prison for adult perpetrators. But not for juveniles. The U.S. is, for now, the only nation that has not banned life in prison without parole for juvenile offenders, and more than 2,000 are serving such terms behind bars.

Jan. 14, 2010:

The Times recognizes that some people who commit crimes before they have developed a resistance to peer pressure and an adult's brainpower, judgment and moral capacity may remain dangerous even after years of punishment and repentance. [State Sen. Leland] Yee's bill does not compel judges to grant parole when it's inappropriate. But it demonstrates California's faith that not every person whose life got off to a destructive start remains irredeemable. It offers a window of hope to imprisoned teenage offenders and gives them an incentive to learn, reform and aspire to a productive life.

May 18, 2010:

Thirty-seven states allow for such sentences, but [U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M.] Kennedy persuasively argued that a better indication of whether they are cruel or unusual — and thus a violation of the 8th Amendment — was the infrequency with which they are imposed. According to the court, only 129 prisoners are serving life without parole for non-homicide offenses committed as juveniles. (The number in California is two.) Kennedy also noted that "the United States is the only nation that imposes life without parole sentences on juvenile non-homicide offenders."

Aug. 19, 2010:

All this bill offers juveniles is the possibility of a future, a chance at a chance. An offender who has served 10 years could ask a judge to reexamine his case. Even if a judge does resentence the offender, he must serve 25 years total before he is eligible for a parole board hearing. And parole need not be granted.

Sept. 1, 2010:

By a 38-36 vote Monday night, the Assembly killed the Fair Sentencing for Youth Act authored by state Sen. Leland Yee (D- San Francisco), refusing to lead California out of the Dark Ages by banning sentences of life without the possibility of parole for juveniles. No other country sentences children to prison in this manner, and it is appalling, but not unexpected, that the Assembly could not muster enough political will to enact a law that in every way is beneficial to the public.

Dec. 8, 2010:

Not all juvenile criminals should receive parole, but if they turn themselves around as Kruzan did, they should be given the opportunity to put their cases before a court or parole board. That's why the Legislature should pass a bill that was reintroduced this week by state Sen. Leland Yee (D- San Francisco) after being rejected in August. The modest legislation would allow courts to review the cases of juveniles who were sentenced to life without parole after 10 years, possibly reducing their sentences to 25 years to life.

Aug. 11, 2011:

Assembly Democrats who have voted against earlier versions of this bill for fear of being labeled soft on crime should look at the facts. SB 9 would not automatically open prison doors for violent criminals. It would not eliminate life-without-parole sentences for any offender, adult or juvenile. It would merely give inmates serving life terms for crimes they committed before they turned 18 a limited opportunity to seek a 25-years-to-life sentence — and for the first time, a slim chance of parole before they die.

Nov. 9, 2011:

In fact, we in supposedly enlightened California come close to first place for cruel treatment of youth offenders. Year after year, California Democrats who live in fear of the county prosecutors' and victims' families' lobbies have voted down attempts to eliminate sentences of life in prison without parole for juveniles.

--Robert Greene

Photo: Juvenile offenders being moved at the California Youth Authority prison in Chino. Credit: Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times.

Yesterday's Opinion L.A. Coffeebreak Quiz asked you to find street banners hung from public light poles on the public right-of-way along public streets in Los Angeles that advertise a commercial television program.

The answer: The Golden Globes, or rather, the TV broadcast of the Golden Globes on NBC on Sunday.

A spokeswoman for L.A.'s Board of Public Works explained that the banners don't really promote a TV show ("LIVE SUNDAY JAN 15." And a very familiar-looking peacock. Please). No, see, they promote the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, the sponsor of the Golden Globes, and, see, the association is a nonprofit, so it's OK.

By the way, although the banners appear courtesy of the public streets and lightpoles of Los Angeles, the Golden Globes are being presented in another city -- Beverly Hills -- which will reap whatever tax benefits are to be had from the event. NBC is located in another city -- Burbank. But at least the Hollywood Foreign Press Association is located in -- no, wait. Not Los Angeles. West Hollywood.

But people in Los Angeles get to watch.

The banners strike the Opinion L.A. team as the most blatant re-commercialization of the city's non-commercial street banner program since a TV network battle turned into Bannergate in 1999. That's when CBS complained that ABC had hung bright yellow banners advertising shows for that year's the fall season. City rules barred commercial companies from using the streets as part of their promotional programs, although nonprofits were OK. The flap moved the City Council to fine-tune its rules. See way-back-when stories from the Times, (and here), the Los Angeles Business Journal, and the LA Weekly.

But commercial advertising on street banners, if you can get away with it, is cheap (compared with billboards) and effective, so for-profit ventures are seeking and barreling through anything that looks like a loophole. City officials seem to be OK with it.

So if Los Angeles is going to turn its light poles into commercial billboards anyway, shouldn't City Hall just throw in the towel, allow advertising of any product or service and get some real money instead of the paltry $25 to $100 per-pole the city charges (plus $100 to $150 per banner to the maker)?

We editorialized on that question recently: No. But it may be time for a follow-up.

RELATED:

Shrek and the City

Leave L.A.'s lampposts alone

--Robert Greene

Photo: A banner on Lankershim in Studio City advertising the Golden Globes show Sunday night. Credit: Robert Greene / Los Angeles Times

It's bad enough that an Orange County judge was fixing tickets for friends and family -- he's been ordered to resign -- but perhaps the most interesting part of the whole story is that one of the beneficiaries of his misdeeds was his pastor.

According to a state panel, Richard W. Stanford Jr. diverted at least nine traffic cases to his court in order to help people he knew avoid fines. Stanford fully deserves to lose his job, and authorities also should be looking into filing charges. But now that everyone at his church will know about this, it's also hard not to wonder whether they will view their spiritual leader as someone who can lead them away from temptation -- or model taking responsibility for one's actions.

But then, the flock could decide this is the perfect chance to show that it knows how to forgive.

ALSO:

Who deserves a second chance -- celebrity edition

Prop. 13 and the issue of Amador Valley [The reply]

California can't afford the bullet train [Most commented]

--Karin Klein

The Los Angeles Police Protective League put big bucks behind Joe Buscaino in the Nov. 8 City Council primary, but in the runoff it's got company: The union leaders of rank-and-file Department of Water and Power employees are behind an organization that has spent $44,987 on mailers and polling to elect Buscaino, according to numbers filed with the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission. The grass-roots candidate, the neighborhood cop, is now the DWP union's guy.

Say it ain't so, Joe!

By rights, though, Joe should be completely unable to say whether it's so. A donor to a City Council candidate may give only $500 per election, but the league and DWP union payments all come in the form of independent expenditures. There is no limit on IEs, as they are known, as long as the spending isn't coordinated with the candidate's campaign.

That means the candidate and his representatives are not supposed to be able to incorporate the IE into their own fundraising and spending decision-making. For example, the candidate is not allowed to contact the independent group and say, "You know, I've got the door-to-door thing nailed down, but I don't want to spend unnecessary time on the phone raising money for mailers. So it would really help me out if you guys took care of the mail campaign for me." That's coordination. It nullifies the "independent" part of the independent expenditure. Except for the first $500 worth, it would be illegal.

So how do observers tell if there is coordination? Let's be honest: They don't. There's no way to know whether a union guy working on an IE says, over a beer with a guy from the candidate's campaign, "If I were you, I'd spend money on cable ads because just between you and me, you can assume that the mail will be taken care of." There is no public record of the Ethics Commission charging a candidate, committee or independent expenditure group with improperly coordinating.

The arrangement keeps individual campaign donation limits in place, so that supposedly no single contributor can buy a candidate; but it still allows wealthy groups and individuals to exercise their 1st Amendment rights to speak out, with money, in support of the candidate they like. Then, if they later demand favors in return for their largesse, an elected official would in theory still be able to say, "I never knew you."

But that doesn't really mean the independent group gets nothing for its money but the satisfaction of electing a good person.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 18 -– the DWP union -– no doubt saw the Police Protective League's independent expenditure in the first round. IBEW leaders got into the game with the Local 18 Water and Power Defense League Committee, which in turn is providing the bulk of funding to Working Californians to Support Buscaino for City Council 2012. Working Californians also includes funding from United Firefighters of Los Angeles City.

The DWP union leaders and the firefighters union went to bat for the firefighters' former president, Pat McOsker, in the primary. He came in fourth.

DWP workers may have worried that if elected, Buscaino would reserve all his council clout to satisfy the league's demands for better police pay at budget and union contract time, leaving little left for DWP raises. With the IE, the electrical workers and firefighters could say (without actually saying it), "Hey, Joe. Remember that you're up for reelection in only 18 months. Remember what we did for you, and think about what we could do for you again. Or what we could instead do for an opponent, if you don't see the world our way."

Of course, the cops' union (and a business group that's spent $16,098.34 on phone-banking, a mailer and a print ad to elect Buscaino) might be saying the same kind of thing. For the runoff, the league has put in another $89,118 -– for cable ads and a mailer -– to help elect Buscaino. That's on top of the $72,285 the league spent during the primary to get Buscaino into the final round. One private person's measly $500 contribution counts for little when measured against that kind of clout, unless the successful candidate has some integrity and backbone.

The Times' editorial page is counting on that integrity and backbone in Buscaino. We endorsed him over state Assemblyman Warren Furutani. And we meant it. And all we offered him is the same thing we offer everyone else who comes to see us -– a glass of water or a cup of coffee, and half an hour to an hour of our undivided attention. And maybe a cookie.

Although apparently we're doing more. We didn't intend to, but it goes with the endorsement territory: Working Californians (that's the electricians' and firefighters' union committee) printed portions of our endorsement in its latest mailer, even though in backing Buscaino we were straightforward about our reservations. See it here. Talk about uncoordinated; we didn't know about this until we saw it Tuesday on the Ethics Commission's website.

The business group backing Buscaino is BizFed PAC, A Project of Los Angeles County Business Federation; it is funded by chambers of commerce.

The numbers are still rolling in. The filing deadline for the period beginning Dec. 3 is Thursday.

Furutani's campaign got $6,202 in independent support in the primary from a group called Golden State Leadership Fund, which sent out four mailers referencing themes of special interest to Asian Americans, including the World War II-era forced internment of Japanese Americans. See one of the mailers here. Another mailer reads, "There is no one on the L.A. City Council who looks like us."

Although Golden State is independent, its strategy of targeting Asian American voters is very much in line with the Furutani campaign's approach, as discussed in this earlier post.

An independent group called the Korean American Democratic Committee also produced communications to elect Furutani but has not yet reported how much it spent.

Furutani has been backed by independent expenditures from the Los Angeles County Democratic Party: $4,704 for the primary and $10,000 so far for the runoff. The party has also spent $31,917 to communicate with its members in support of Furutani. The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor has spent $24,540 to urge its members to support Furutani.

To see all the spending reports and to view all the mailers, go here and click on the dollar amounts.

MORE FROM THIS SERIES:

Who's donating to Buscaino, Furutani?

The Capitol contingent

Buscaino and the council cop bloc

--Robert Greene

Photos: Three bastions, three labor contracts, three ways to say "thank you": the Department of Water and Power, City Hall and LAPD headquarters. Credit: Robert Greene / Los Angeles Times

Funny that Fred Karger, gay rights advocate, founded the group Californians Against Hate, since his most recent campaign seems to be about spreading bigotry. For those who haven't heard of Karger -- and that's a lot of people -- he's a Republican candidate for president, listed on the ballot of the New Hampshire primary, who took on a more active political identity after California voters passed Proposition 8 in 2008. Karger is an openly gay candidate who was angered and dismayed by the role that the Mormon Church and its followers took in getting the ban on same-sex marriage passed. 

Negative campaigns and ugly smears might be the stuff of politics these days, but within this category, Karger gets a special space all his own after launching an attack website against Mormonism that purportedly reveals the 10 "craziest beliefs" of Mormons, lest voters consider voting for Mormon candidate Mitt Romney. The site doesn't actually have such a list; it's more a place where anyone can anonymously post any sort of canard about Mormonism. Perhaps rational people could also try inserting some truths, if those are actually allowed.

On the site, Karger writes:

We simply want to help understand Mormons and their beliefs, and have created this web site and blog to help enlighten you and us on the Mormon faith and it many ceremonies and rituals.

This web site is by no means meant to harm anyone or any faith.

Sure it isn't. That's why its title is so balanced.

Karger has his reasons for being at odds with Mormons and their religion; he also has reasons to seek out publicity at any cost, even the cost of religious bigotry.

But during the Proposition 8 campaign, he saw and heard plenty of hateful and false garbage spewed by some of the ban's supporters about and against gays and lesbians, their relationships and their children. Obviously, the lesson he drew from that wasn't what people thought when he founded Californians Against Hate, a phrase that apparently means something different to Karger than to most of the rest of us.

ALSO:

Ron Paul's naive promises

How the GOP can score with Latino voters

GOP candidates: Bashing judges, threatening democracy

--Karin Klein

Photo: Fred Karger, photographed in 2006. Credit: Don Kelsen / Los Angeles Times

City Council members must balance the work and the advocacy they do for their districts and constituents against the attention they give to citywide matters -- and the top citywide matter for now and the foreseeable future is the budget. Los Angeles government doesn't have enough money to do everything residents have come to expect it to do. So at very least we have to cut some services and/or raise some revenue. A leader with vision, though, could help Angelenos redefine what it is that a city government should be expected to do, and that will help us to decide what services to cut, whether to raise taxes, or even how to get other governments or the private sector to serve us better.

So when a candidate is running for office, it's fair to expect that person to have given this most important issue some thought. It would not be out of line to expect a five-point plan, or a white paper, or at least some well-thought-out priorities and an agenda for achieving them. That's part of what we look for at The Times editorial board when assessing candidates: Do they have a plan? Is it something the city could and should embrace? Is it achievable? Are they the proper people to lead us toward that achievement?

The two runoff candidates in Council District 15 to succeed Janice Hahn should be expected to master that most basic part of running for office. We have a budget crisis. What would you do about it?

It was an exercise in frustration, then, speaking on Dec. 12 to Assemblyman Warren Furutani and Joe Buscaino. Neither would commit to anything. Perhaps that goes too far -- Buscaino committed to not cutting the police or fire departments. But he would not commit to any particular budgetary trade-off to keep public safety services intact, just as Furutani said we couldn't do business as usual, but would not commit to any particular change in course.

To be sure, this is straight out of the candidate handbook: Express outrage at the present state of affairs, but don't say what you would do to fix it, because decisions make enemies as well as friends.

But this is ridiculous. You're running for office. You want people to vote for you. Why should they? What will you do? How will you lead?

The Times usually conducts endorsement interviews with candidates behind closed doors and off the record. This time we did it differently and will share some of the discussion with you.

Listen, for example, to this series of exchanges with Furutani. And note the growing exasperation as we try to get responses. The questions as written here are paraphrases; you can listen to our actual queries together with Furutani's answers. Questioners are editorial board members Jim Newton, Jon Healey, Nick Goldberg and me, Robert Greene.

Is there anything the city currently does that it should no longer be doing?

Furutani: "I think everything's on the table to be re-examined for government."

Warren Furutani: Everything's on the table.

What non-core functions should the city no longer try to perform?

Furutani: "[The city should continue to work on] potholes, streetlights, cleaning up alleys, getting rid of graffiti."

Warren Furutani: Potholes, streetlights.

Yes, but don't you think voters ought to know beforehand what kinds of choices you would make?

Furutani: "In terms of details, in terms of what city things, services should be provided, I'm just not sure."

Warren Furutani: I'm just not sure.

But surely the new guy, Joe Buscaino, would have a good handle on the decisions that need to be made? Maybe something somewhere has to be cut, he said, or maybe we need more revenue, but don't cut police or fire.

Buscaino: "We just cannot take a step back when it comes to [public safety] staffing."

Joe Buscaino: Don't cut public safety.

Joe Buscaino: Don't reduce police staffing.

But what trade-offs would you make to ensure that public safety staffing is not cut?

Buscaino: "For me, being that grassroots candidate, everything is on the table to address that issue."

Joe Buscaino: Everything's on the table. 

But what would you lead on?

Buscaino: "Waterfront development."

Joe Buscaino: Waterfront.

One more time: Because you acknowledge we have to cut something, is there anything the city doesn't need to do? Anything we could or should cut or leave to someone else?

Buscaino: "I leave that on the table, once again, if I get in."

Joe Buscaino: On the table.

The upshot with either candidate is that the council office becomes a kind of suggestion box, without a leader's vision, knowledge or power to mobilize; or perhaps it makes no difference what the candidate says because the ultimate marching orders on what to cut or what taxes to raise comes from those other folks -- the ones raising the campaign money. So why, again, should voters choose one candidate over the other?

More audio outtakes to come.

RELATED:

Gordon Teuber for City Council

Council District 15: About the district

Council District 15: Endorsements and the Jan. 17 runoff

--Robert Greene

Photos: Joe Buscaino, left, and Warren Furutani. Credit: Robert Greene

The infrequent flier about to get on the plane at Reno-Tahoe International Airport had sores all over him, and he looked like he was starving.

Lynn Jones didn't think he should be getting on the plane to Texas. And when she said so to her bosses, she got fired.

If that "customer" had been a neglected little kid or an elderly person, Jones would have been given a gold star in her employee file.

But because the "customer" was a hunting dog -- a pointer -- crated for a flight where Jones was working as a baggage handler, she was canned instantly by her supervisors. "You're done. Go home," Jones' boss was reported to have told her.

"Everyone who saw it, the TSA people, the airport police officers, the girls at the ticket counter, was concerned," Jones told RGJ.com.

"The dog was so weak and torn up. It didn't look like it could survive the flight." Everyone saw it, yet Jones was the one who tried to do something about it,  and she was the one who was punished for it.

The public outcry reached the president of Airport Terminal Services Inc. in St. Louis. Sally Leible offered to rehire Jones with back pay. Adam Goldfarb, the director of pet care issues at the Humane Society of the United States in Washington, told me the baggage handling company is making donations –- no dollar figure specified –- to the Nevada Humane Society.

The ruckus brought the airport police, and the Washoe County animal services stepped in and took the dog.

Now everyone wants to know, what about the dog? Is there a happy ending?

Well, no. There's no ending yet. At first, news reports said the emaciated pointer was nursed back to health in Nevada, then returned to his Texas owner. But Corpus Christi animal authorities are saying the dog is missing and are asking for the public’s help to find him.

And back in Nevada, the Reno Gazette-Journal reported that this dog is a kind of migrant-worker hunting dog, shipped hither and thither for hire to hunters.

The paper also says this case is prompting authorities to reconsider a law, only 2 months old, that makes animal abuse cases secret from the public -– perhaps unwittingly.

It's called "Cooney’s Law," after the appalling case of a dog whose owner eviscerated her with a box cutter in a bathtub at a Reno motel. Such abuse was then a misdemeanor; the legislature has made it a felony.

But the confidentiality element, say the bill's sponsors, were supposed to protect those who reported animal abuse from retaliation -– not to protect the abuser. Now the sponsor says she wants to clarify that part of the law.

I should hope so. None of that, though, does anything to help find and heal the scrawny liver-and-white male pointer Lynn Jones tried to protect.

Leible, the president of the baggage handling company, said ATS would be using this as a teachable moment to "recognize and report animal abuse of any form."

What I want to know is, why did it have to go down this way in the first place?

We're always supposed to be on the qui vive for things that don't look right -- suspicious packages, mistreated children, potential crimes from the mall to middle school. From the churches to Congress, we're told we should be part of a community, looking out for one another.

That is exactly what Jones did. She spoke up when she saw something that shouldn't have been happening. When she tried to stop it, she lost her job. Even with a potentially happy ending, it shouldn't have taken a tsunami of news coverage and public outrage to fix this -– although the outrage may help this dog, if he is ever found, and others like him.

It’s shameful that Jones was fired in the first place. And punishing people for doing the right thing only makes everyone else clam up and avert their eyes. Why should they risk their necks? Nobody's going to punish them for not speaking up, but they might get in trouble if they do.

With all the lip service that public servants and leaders pay to community spirit, this is not how to get it, and it would be to the great credit of some elected public official to make Jones an example of the right thing to do -– even on behalf of a four-legged constituent that can't vote.

RELATED:

Journey to Rwanda: Gorilla trek

Let dogs have their day in Santa Monica

Ringling Bros.: Why we're good for elephants

Controlling wolves: War on wildlife or basic necessity?

-- Patt Morrison

Photo: Lynn Jones, with her rescued pets. Credit: Marilyn Newton / Reno Gazette-Journal