Opinion: In today’s pages: Coliseum questions, compassionless conservatism, world domination
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
The editorial board considers whether it’s time to let USC run the Coliseum:
The Times has long promoted the Coliseum as the best place for an NFL team. Still, we have to hand it to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for recognizing the truth: The NFL and the stadium broke up long ago and aren’t getting back together. At least, not as long as the commission acts as a marriage broker. USC, of course, wants everything: the ability to run the Coliseum for the next four decades, lucrative naming rights, power to bring much-needed seating, lighting and facility improvements. And it wants it for a very long time. Would USC be able to demolish part of the stadium or to alter the look and feel of the historic structure with renovations?
The board doesn’t like the GOP’s new compassionless conservatism, on display at Wednesday night’s debate. And the board wonders whether Lebanon’s new leader can bring in democracy.
The University of Richmond’s Carl Tobias takes a look at the newest member of the 9th Circuit. Mansoor Ijaz thinks neither Nawaz Sharif nor Benazir Bhutto would make for good Musharraf replacements. Columnists Joel Stein plots world domination, one drink at a time. And columnist Ronald Brownstein says there’s still some fight left in the GOP.
Readers react to USC’s proposal to leave the Coliseum for the Rose Bowl. Calabasas’ Jonathan Kotler notes a trend of teams leaving the Coliseum: ‘The Los Angeles Chargers: gone. The Los Angeles Rams: gone. The Los Angeles Raiders: gone. The Los Angeles Lakers: gone. The Los Angeles Kings: gone. UCLA football: gone. USC basketball: gone. USC football: one foot out the door.’