Advertisement

Opinion: True, we did say that.

Share

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

In the course of endorsing District Attorney Steve Cooley for re-election in the June 3 primary, The Times editorial board reminded voters that Cooley promised to serve only two terms (this would be his third). We also expressed alarm at his plan to anoint a successor. If he had kept his promise, we noted, there would be other qualified candidates running to succeed him instead of the two we believed would be worse than Cooley. Here’s a link to the full editorial. Here’s a brief selection:

As for Dist. Atty. Cooley, it is noteworthy that he criticized predecessor Gil Garcetti in 2000 for seeking a third term and promised that he would serve only two. This year, he is seeking his third. It’s not the first time a politician has broken a promise, but we recall his rationale -- the office benefits from ‘fresh eyes’ on old problems. It held true then, and it holds true today. Under Cooley, the district attorney’s office has done a competent job of handling felony prosecutions, and Cooley deserves credit for his principled stand on third strikes -- agreeing to prosecute them as strikes only when they are violent felonies. But if he stepped down now, as he had promised, other lawyers would be stepping up as candidates to reinvigorate the office. We’re especially concerned about Cooley’s stated plan to stick around until he has groomed and selected a successor. That’s a power that belongs to voters, not to him.

Advertisement

So it’s with chagrin and a hint of admiration for his chutzpah that I take note of this Cooley mailer that quotes from the editorial in the lower right-hand corner and puts ‘Los Angeles Times’ in huge letters to show we’re on his team. ‘We go with Cooley.’ Well, we did say that.

Advertisement