Comments on: Vote for anyone but Antonio, March 3rd!

By: Candidate Quotables for Your Use on This Election Day | Los Angeles Metblogs

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:04:33 +0000

[...] of citywide offices, chief amongst them: Mayor of our fair city. Whether you’re in the anyone-but-Antonio-camp, the maybe-Walter-Moore camp, the reluctant-but-firm-Antonio camp, or the [...]

By: richijk

richijk — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:12:44 +0000

For such a large city, is there any reason why the Democrats are not holding a debate?

Isn’t this supposed to be a democracy where people get to actually see & hear questions regarding our future and hopefully make their choice.

By: minos

minos — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:31:29 +0000

Bert, the 1950s don’t strike me as being so bad. I think life in L.A. then generally *was* better than it is today. Not so congested, better schools, less sprawl, not much gang violence, and not so ugly and rundown like it is now. When I see pictures of, say, MacArthur Park, or the Valley, or Hollywood Blvd from back then I think, “holy crap, what happened?” My take is that our trajectory has been downward since those days, and today we’re treading water _at best_.

By: lucindamichele

lucindamichele — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 07:51:38 +0000

That Zuma Dogg “after” pic is creepy.

By: chimatli

chimatli — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:34:37 +0000

Hey Ugly,
Perhaps, you should try reading more carefully. Every article on that page is attributed to Walter Moore. Why are you trying to deflect, if you agree with him?

I’m not a fan of Villaraigosa but I’d bet he’d get a lot more slack and free passes if he’d been part of the old boys network. He’s much better than Riordan who was one of the worst Los Angeles mayors and kinda creepy too.

By: Bert Green

Bert Green — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:49:05 +0000

Oh, come on people. Walter Moore is against transit, against diversity, against public infrastructure expenditures. What is he for? I can’t seem to figure that out. Don’t fall for this fool.

For all of AV’s apparent faults, I think he has been a good mayor. He is reforming the planning codes of the city, working hard to get rail transit built, creating alliances with national political figures to get Los Angeles more money for investment in infrastructure, and working hard behind the scenes to diversify the city’s political culture.

Of course he has faults, and some of them are embarrassing. But it’s telling that only the freaks are running. It’s not apathy, it’s respect on the part of the political establishment for his work and his stature. He’ll be termed out in 4 years.

Even if he runs for Governor in 2010, who would you all rather have for Governor, the Mayor of Los Angeles or the Mayor of San Francisco or maybe Oakland? I know which one I would choose.

By: theuglyamerican

theuglyamerican — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:47:58 +0000

In other words, me! : D

By: David Markland

David Markland — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:36:10 +0000

Very True, Ugly.
But Walter makes no bones about his belief that America is being invaded my Mexico, and appeals very much to the right wing fringe.

By: theuglyamerican

theuglyamerican — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:30:40 +0000

I would never support anyone who thinks my neighbors and I are part of a “Mexican invasion.”

Try reading the ENTIRE post, Chimatli.

It was obviously penned by the host blogger, NOT Walter Moore.

Nice try though.

By: chimatli

chimatli — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:53:59 +0000

Walter Moore?
I would never support anyone who thinks my neighbors and I are part of a “Mexican invasion.”

“Villaraigosa hopes to secure Los Angeles as a Mexican majority city with voting rights to elect other Mexicans to public office. Before long, Los Angeles will be a city of Mexico with city officials loyal to Mexico, not the United States. Villaraigosa has always been, and still is, a major part of the Mexican invasion of our country.”
-Walter Moore
http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/moore/

What a progressive!