Opinion: In Friday’s Letters to the editor
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Friday’s Letters to the editor offers reactions to this story about Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his allies on the City Council, Jack Weiss and Wendy Greuel. By running for City Attorney and Controller, respectively, are they trying to establish what amounts to a troika in City Hall?
Readers are wary. Writes Eduardo Subelman, of Los Angeles:
The statement from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s spokesman, Matt Szabo, that having three citywide politicians work in tandem would be ‘unequivocally positive’ belies Councilwoman Wendy Greuel’s attempt to present herself as independent of the mayor and is, furthermore, exactly the kind of statement used to justify dictatorships from all sides of the political spectrum. And Councilman Jack Weiss’ dependence on the mayor is undeniable -- Villaraigosa is chair of Weiss’ election campaign. Los Angeles needs and deserves the checks and balances that only officeholders who are not beholden to each other can provide.
And Lucie Bava, also of Los Angeles, sees parallels in the federal government:
The adage ‘be careful what you wish for’ couldn’t be more apt when electing powerful political friends who seek the most influential seats in City Hall. City attorney candidate Jack Weiss argues that Los Angeles deserves a city attorney and a mayor who keep a ‘confidential, respectful relationship,’ and promises that if he is elected, ‘there will be no competition between the mayor’s office and the city attorney’s office.’ But Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales showed us the dangers of a relationship that is governed more by personal loyalty and friendship than by the principles that are the foundation of public office. Los Angeles may be protected better by a team of rivals rather than by a circle of friends.
In other topics, Los Angeles’ David Etheridge detects more than a little irony in this editorial about the appointment of Michael Steele, the first African-American chairman of the Republican Party:
I sincerely hope that the editorial board of The Times was jesting when it wrote that one of Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele’s advantages was that ‘he might be free to criticize President Obama in ways a white party leader wouldn’t.’ This is a rather divisive statement and implies a double standard in our political dialogue. I thought that one of the tenets of Obama’s candidacy was getting beyond race. It is apparent that the board has not absorbed one aspect of the ‘change’ Obama was calling for.
War technology, unemployment claims, and rendition, too.