Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Tuesday, February 22, 2005


boxingBolstered by surging poll results and a steam of momentum, Hertzberg decided yesterday to call Hahn out on the carpet and challenged him to keep the race clean, or at least have the courage to make the attacks directly and not hide behind independent campaigns and the bulldogs of Carrick and Kawata.

From the Daily News:
"James Hahn has demonstrated a pattern and practice of going negative in each (of his) elections," Hertzberg said. "I think Los Angeles deserves better."

On the campaign trail, Hertzberg challenged the mayor to run a clean campaign in the final days before the March 8 primary, as well as to ensure that no negative attacks are made independently on his behalf.

Hertzberg vowed to vigorously respond to any negative attacks, those that are false, engage in the politics of "personal destruction" or involve innuendo.

"I won't stand on the sidelines. I'll hit back as hard as I can in response," he said during a press conference at his campaign office.

From the Times:
Attacking Villaraigosa and Hertzberg in a City Hall interview last week, Hahn appeared to indicate potential lines of attack should he run negative television ads. He renewed criticism of Hertzberg, who was speaker during the state's energy crisis, for taking campaign money from power companies.

And he pounded Villaraigosa for backing legislation that favored campaign donors whom Hahn described as "payday loan companies" that charge "450% interest over the course of the year and put poor people in terrible situations."

But, Hahn said he had no plans to run negative ads, but added, "If I'm put in a position of having to respond, we'll respond."

More from the Times:
"I will be fair and honest with the people, but I will hit back just as hard as I possibly can in response to what he seeks to do," said Hertzberg.

Hahn strategist Bill Carrick, citing a series of Hertzberg mailings attacking the mayor, called the challenge "disingenuous political doubletalk."

"As far as I'm concerned, Bob Hertzberg already started running a negative campaign, and for him to suggest now that he wants to call it off is deceitful," Carrick said.
Any guesses as to who runs the "crack-pipe" ad first?

(Also seen at LAist)


Anonymous Anonymous said:

I was beginning to like Hertzberg until my friend in the valley called me to say she rec'd a mailer from Huggy attacking Hahn. Now Huggy has told Hahn not to have a negative campaign. What a hypocrite. He's been bashing Hahn with the rest of the bullies now he's afraid the city will find out exactly what he's about. I say bring it on. Shame on you Bob.

February 22, 2005 7:38 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Tony Villar, and punk ass Ace Smith I dare both you punks to take off the gloves. Tony, you are so dirty that bleach could'nt clean you dirty closet. Finally, Tony stop playing the role of the victim and take responability for your behavior. Your lair, cheater, and sad case.

February 22, 2005 8:58 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

People are saying there's a lot more out there that Tony has done since 2001. The people are entitled to know so I hope it comes out. Huggy is a whuss. He sent out mailers slamming Hahn and now is saying "let's not make this a negative campaign." Hell no Hahn, go after his butt and Tony, Parks and Alarcon. They've been slamming Hahn for months now they all want to make nice just in case the real truth about them all comes out. Let the games begin and let the people know that they are no better and in fact worse in some cases like Tony.

February 22, 2005 9:50 AM  

Anonymous This is politics said:

Here we go again. Anyone that speaks truth to Hahn;s failed leadership is a "bully." A bully is generally someone who picks on smaller or weaker people. I'll give you this: Jim Hahn has proven he's a small and weak leader who needs to be ousted from office.

Hahn's opponents don't talk about Hahn's personal life but his inability to effectively lead this City. They talk about his poor decisions that affect the lives of millions of Los Angeles residents. They talk about higher DWP rates, the unethical use of a major PR firm, providing City contracts to supporters of his administration, lack of vision in solving traffic gridlock, and an inability to build consensus around a plan to hire more cops.

Hertzberg is preempting Hahn from going the personal attack route, for example, about his family (father and kids). If Hahn goes after him about legislation or other issues, that's fair game.

February 22, 2005 9:53 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Out of all the ads, mailers, etc thus far from the candidates, Hertzberg's is the most clever and daring, Of course, he has to be cause he is behind the pack.

I'd enjoy a one-on-one debate between these guys before the primary election. I sure as hell wouldn't want to see them get into the runoff together.

February 22, 2005 10:56 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Even when you attack Antonio's voting record he says it is taken out of context.

There is no context for a vote, you either voted for or against something.

For example, over 70% of the Northeast Districts (CD 1, 13, & 14) residents supported Measure A and Antonio doesn't respect his own constituents to give them a chance to vote for More Cops.

He should be held accountable for not supporting his districti's wishes and being an arrogant dictator versus a representative.

Local voting results for Measure A by Council District.

Council District 1 - Ed Reyes - YES vote for ballot measure


Y - 19,085 74.7%
N - 6,461 25.3%

Council District 13 - Eric Garcetti - YES vote for ballot measure


Y - 26,182 72.5%
N - 9,923 27.5%

Council District 14 - Antonio Villaraigosa - NO vote for ballot


Measure A
Y - 30,567 70.5%
N - 12,798 29.5%

February 22, 2005 11:46 AM  

Blogger J. Harriman said:

It seems to me that if you want to respect the wishes of the voters who supported Measure A, you don't immediately place it back on the ballot, in an altered form, with substantial community opposition, in an environment where it is a dead certain loser. The Times poll on the Hahn revised measure A was 48 Yes, 49 No. That's quite a leap to 2/3rd.

I mean, really, when Janice Hahn stood up in Council with her chart and told the Valley that of the new cops, only 200 were coming to the SFV, the measure was completely dead.

Hahn, by making it a political football, has shown that he will put his electoral interests ahead of the intersts of the city.

Villaraigosa, by working with other Councilmembers to find funds for more police while pledging to build a Countywide consensus to put this back on the ballot when it might have a shot at winning, is repecting the voters.

February 22, 2005 12:18 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

How many lives might be saved in the Valley by having "just 200 more officers" on the street, NOW, and similar increases around the city -- at the same time these other "someday in the future" measures are being worked out?

Countywide voters certainly spoke loud and hard against the first measure. The citywide measure at roughly 50/50 (based on a poorly worded Times poll), is probably closer to reality than another "someday," "maybe" county measure, crafted by a "possible" mayor, working with a city council where he now has very few allies.

If the city measure had been supported by more of the council to begin with, it would have stood a better chance of getting the needed votes from the public. But, if you wish to use the dated L.A. Times numbers as some sort of guideline -- consider this: at 48 percent "yes,", that measure was closer to reaching the 2/3 vote it needed to pass, than Villaraigosa himself is to reaching 51 percent in a mayoral runoff. So, his candidacy deserves the same label you placed on the city measure -- "dead certain loser."

If one side is using the measure as a political football - then the other side is risking innocent lives in the same manner. We know which is worse!

February 22, 2005 12:57 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"Pre-empting" someone from going personal, is in itself, a backhanded way of going personal yourself. It's shouting from the rooftops "don't hit me" before the other person has even stepped in your direction -- a clever, but dishonest way to say that person is a bully, and paint them "personally" as someone who doesn't deserve to be trusted, when you are the one being deceitful.

February 22, 2005 1:04 PM  

Blogger J. Harriman said:

Re Nony's comment:

"If the city measure had been supported by more of the council to begin with, it would have stood a better chance of getting the needed votes from the public."

The Council (mostly Padilla) and Baca did the bulk of the fundraising for Measure A. Antonio spent $500K to support the measure. What did Hahn do? Damn close to nothing. Now it is absolutely essential that we pass it in May. What do you think Hahn would have been able to do if this was on the ballot the same time as a Mayor's runoff? Even less than nothing.

February 22, 2005 1:44 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Everyone in CD14 is saying Attention Deficit Villaraigosa screwed up big time on this one. His district went to council pleading with him. When you have 8 homicides and FEb. isn't even over yet they wanted their voice heard and had the sales tax initiative put on the ballot. He acted arrogant and ignored some of his most vocal constituents and now those people are being vocal about canning his butt. He is suppose to be the voice of his community. Why have him if he just ignores what they have to say/ The ballot in 2006 won't pass. Board of Supervisors are sitting on $309 million and not giving most of it to Baca to stop illegal releases. They've given millions of our money to projects like Disney Hall. People won't vote for a public safety tax measure when those assholes are sitting on that much money. Only reason ADV put that money towards Measure A was because only way for him to spend it and at the same time put his face on TV. Please you insult our intelligence to say otherwise. WE all know how ghetto Tony can be.

February 22, 2005 1:54 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

As is your typical practice, Harriman, you picked the weakest point of that "nony" argument, to refute and ignored the parts where your own logic was turned on you to show your candidate for the loser, political opportunist, and hypocrite that he is. The parts you cannot refute are obvious. Lives may well be lost by his political posturing, the statistics you mis-state are useless here, and the citywide sales tax measure stood a better change of being approved by the voters in a general election than does Antonio.

I would much rather back a "dead certain loser" measure that might save lives - and at least give the people a chance to make that decision -- than an equally "dead certain loser" candidate, rejected by the citywide voters once already, that is willing to continue risking lives unnecessarily for political gain.

If his $500K "gift" for measure A was not just what is has been portrayed as, here, showboating, then why not put up an equal amount to help the citywide measure pass in May? The city measure's numbers are closer to passage than the county-wide measure's were at this same point.

The answer is simple -- political leaders other than AV "might" have profited from its passage. And we can't have that, even if it did save lives. The goal of all dollars spent from AV's campaign coffers are the same -- advance the career, feed the ego. Nothing more.

February 22, 2005 2:14 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I guarantee that if any one of the other council members would have proposed the sales tax hike Attention Deficit Villaraigosa would have voted YES. He didn't want Hahn to get the credited. A total asshole who ignored his people.

February 22, 2005 3:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

How many more unnecessary deaths is beating Hahn worth to you, Tony V?

February 22, 2005 3:51 PM  

Blogger J. Harriman said:

Jeez, you make it sound like Antonio defeated this single-handedly. Hahn couldn't get two of his own endorsers (Zine and Smith) to vote for it.

The Times opposed it, the Daily News opposed it. It was polling sub-50%. The business community opposed it. Hertzberg vociferously opposed it. Parks opposed it.

No careful consensus was built for it, Hahn just sprang it on the world, and proceeded to threaten and bully Councilmembers to toe the line.

There is no way to pass a 2/3 bond measure without broad, near unanimous support. And even then its pretty tough. There is 0% chance it would have passed. 0. So it wouldn't have saved any lives. It just would have made it almost impossible to put back on the ballot in 06.

February 22, 2005 4:12 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

JEEZ, you help make the parallels all over the place, AGAIN: ADV can't get most of HIS past endorsers to back him; the Daily News opposes HIM, the Times gave HIM a barely passable (shared) endorsement; HE's polling sub-sub 50 (sub-30, his primary mark in '01); the major unions oppose HIM; HE has no business backing; Hertzberg opposes HIM; Parks opposes HIM; HIS consensus from 4 (even 2) years ago has slipped considerably; HE just sprang his candidacy on the city and his district - diminishing the chances of other anti-Hahn candidates in the race.

There is NO way to run a ultra-liberal candidate here without broadening support; there is 0% chance ADV will win a citywide mayoral race. 0. It just makes it that much more probable that he will be on a state senate ballot in '06. Thank you for helping make the case, again, that he is a (how did you phrase it) "dead certain loser" in any runoff.

February 22, 2005 4:33 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Harriman you are wrong. The WLA Chamber that reprents over 1,200 businesses (expensive real estate) strongly supported the sales tax hike. WHy? Cause they know that officers are more important. The WLA Chamber had a chart of all smaller police depts. bordering LA. Sadly, Santa Monica, Culver City, Beverly HIlls and the rest have more officers in fewer square miles than LAPD. There was another Harbor Chamber that supported so your'e wrong in saying it wasn't business supported. ADV was an asshole and he screwed up not listening to his constituents on this one. All they asked was to be given a chance to make their own decision and simply put on the ballot.

February 22, 2005 4:59 PM  

Blogger J. Harriman said:

VICA strongly opposed Hahn's new measure:

LA Economic Development Commision (Jack Kyser) strongly opposed it.

Lee Baca opposed it (according to the VICA document)

The LA Chamber was neutral, but have since called on the Council to draft a better thought-out ordinance for a later ballot.

(oh, Alarcon opposed it too)

Scarcely the unanimity you need to pass

February 22, 2005 5:41 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

And I suppose these business groups were all over themselves supporting the county measure that ADV favored, right? They'll line up to support anything similar that ADV proposes next time, right?

February 22, 2005 5:53 PM  

Anonymous Clarification said:

"Countywide voters certainly spoke loud and hard against the first measure."

Judging from the above comment, you'd think that the majority opposed Measure A, but in fact over 60% approved the measure. Harriman is right in that Jim Hahn did virtually nothing to raise money for the campaign, and the moment it lost, his millionaire buddy Rick Caruso is ready to fund a city measure. Too late.

February 22, 2005 5:56 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

To J. Harriman: If you are an honest person you will stop calling it "Hahn's new measure", it was Bernard Parks who introduced the motion to "INCREASE local sales tax for public safety."

ITEM NO. (10) - 03-2267-S1 Motion (Parks - Miscikowski) relative to instructing the Chief Legislative Analyst to report with recommendations to place a measure on the March 2005 or May 2005 ballot to increase the local sales tax for public safety purposes

Here is the link of the vote:

You must be on Villaraigosa's paid staff if you are willing to spin this type of lie.

February 22, 2005 10:41 PM  

Blogger FromDaCheapSeats said:

Villaraigosa failed his district by not voting to put the measure on the ballot.

As a councilmember his first responsibility is to HIS district and they begged him to vote yes, even Father John Moretta asked him to vote yes.

Instead of listening to his district he chose to listen to the LA Times and nay-sayers from outside his district because he cares more about his Mayoral campaign than representing his district.

With 70% of his constituents supporting Measure A he would have no problem getting re-elected if it failed.

Sometimes you have think of the people you serve not you're PERSONAL political needs. He couldn't let the Mayor have this win because of the Mayor's race.

February 22, 2005 10:49 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home