Monday, May 02, 2005

In Its Editorial On The San Diego Mayor Resigning, L.A. Times View Is A Mess

It took Michael Kinsley's editorial page at the L.A. Times six days to write an editorial on the decision of San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy to resign (although not until July 15), and then the editorial is a mess.

With more than three years left in Murphy's term, the Times can't make up its mind whether the San Diego City Council ought to try to appoint his successor or call a new election.

But in this case, a new election is a no-brainer. Not only has Murphy served only a fraction of his term, but he actually lost the election in the first place, if the write-in votes for Donna Frye had all been counted.

So why not allow the voters to do what they seem to have wanted to do in the first place, elect the write-in candidate, a woman who serves on the City Council? (The day after this blog was written, the San Diego City Council voted 8-0 to hold a new election, the position the L.A. Times should have taken as well).

Actually, the Times editorial is inconsistent from one paragraph to the next, because in one paragraph it says, "Now, there's a concept we can all endorse -- a duly elected mayor." But in the next, it takes no position on whether there ought to be an election.

It could be that Kinsley just doesn't want a woman mayor, no more than he cared to have Susan Estrich writing a column on his editorial page. Kinsley is about as pro-feminist as the Saudi Arabian government.

The San Diego editorial this morning, May 2, also alludes to the Los Angeles mayor's race, to be settled in a May 17 runoff.

That reminds us that the Times and Kinsley still are waffling on who they support in that race, more than two months after the paper endorsed one of the candidates, City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa, for a runoff position, and rejected incumbent Mayor James Hahn, the other runoff candidate, as unsuitable for reelection.

I wonder if Kinsley has ventured south from his home in Seattle enough in recent weeks to fully realize what is going on in Los Angeles. For him to continue to waffle is an embarrassment for the paper.

Just as in the presidential election last year, Kinsley either can't decide what to do, or he has been told by the Tribune owners to continue to waffle. That would not be a surprise, because the Tribune Co. knows as much about Los Angeles politics as it did about the 1948 election, which the Chicago Tribune headlined Thomas E. Dewey had won.


Blogger shelly sloan said...

WQow, Ken. That was a low blow! "Dewey Wins", one of the great journalistic blunders of all time, ahs been almost forgotten by most and unkonown by a couple of generations of younger Americans.

Only Dan Rather has exceeded it in sher stupidity.

Well, Kinsley deserves all of this, and more. I think of the irony of replacing him with Susan Estrus, but would fear the having to live with the result.

Better an absentee fool than an activist one.

5/02/2005 4:05 PM  
Blogger Republican for AV said...

Two weeks to go and still no endorsement by Los Angeles' former "Leading NEWSpaper".

Maybe it should be referred to in the future as "LA's Followig NEWSpaper".

Has Kinsley been seen in Los Angeles in the last month? Or, is he "Sleeping in Seattle"?

5/03/2005 2:36 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home