LOCAL ELECTIONS / L.A. MAYOR : Woo Courts Top Democrats as Riordan Attacks Rival on Crime

Michael Woo posed side by side with Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles), showing off an endorsement by one of California’s most prominent Democrats. Richard Riordan stood outside the Hollywood police station, assailing Woo’s record on crime.

On Friday, the contrasting strategies of the Los Angeles mayor’s race came into sharp focus. In a battle for the city’s predominantly Democratic electorate, Woo has begun a drive to win the endorsements of leading Democrats as he continues to remind voters that Riordan is a Reagan-backed rich Republican with links to anti-abortion groups and other right-wing organizations.

Riordan, on the other hand, has been pounding away at his message that this officially nonpartisan race is about issues, not politics, and that people’s concerns about crime and the economy will transcend party loyalty.

“The issues in the city are safety and jobs, safety and jobs, safety and jobs,” Riordan said at a news conference outside the Hollywood division of the Los Angeles Police Department.

He went on to cite rising crime statistics in Hollywood over the past eight years, the period Woo represented the area on the City Council. The numbers reflected a sharp rise in homicide and other major crimes.

It was not the first time Riordan has sought to exploit voter discontent with Woo in Hollywood, and he made sure that his audience included some of the councilman’s most vocal critics. But it was one of Riordan’s more effective appearances.

Turning to the group of about 20 residents who had been applauding his attacks on Woo, he deftly countered the councilman’s appeal to party loyalty. “How many of you are Democrats?” he asked. Most raised their hands.

“Not a dumb move on Riordan’s part,” said Joe Cerrell, an independent political consultant who once directed the California Democratic Party. “Riordan is saying, ‘You may have some old pol from Washington on your side, but I’ve got the neighborhood.’ ”

Woo’s bid for high-profile endorsements, however, could reap dividends. After Waxman’s endorsement Friday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) plans to announce hers today, state Treasurer Kathleen Brown is already committed, Jesse Jackson is in the wings and President Clinton is still a possibility.

Such a formidable cadre of party royalty could help Woo in a variety of ways, shoring up his image with Democratic moderates, women and Jewish voters who cast their lot with other candidates in the primary. And it could help him raise money.

Although most experts contend that a candidate’s message matters most, endorsements can help. “Is it possible to make what is supposed to be a nonpartisan race into a partisan race? Yes, you can,” said Mark Mellman, a Washington-based Democratic pollster who is not involved in the mayor’s race. “And you can do that with endorsements. Again it is the message: ‘We’re Democrats. Mike Woo is a good Democrat. And Riordan represents Reagan Republicanism.’ ”

The state Democratic Party’s endorsement last week gives Woo access to the party’s vast resources, which could provide a vital boost as he attempts to stay financially competitive with an opponent capable of pouring his personal millions into the campaign.

With a base of more than 100,000 contributors, Woo’s party could quickly raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, including large donations from wealthy supporters and labor unions. It also is capable of mobilizing volunteers, running get-out-the-vote phone banks, producing specialized mailings and organizing large rallies.

But by breaking with tradition and welcoming a separately funded, Democratic Party campaign into the nonpartisan race, Woo has reached beyond the campaign finance limitations envisioned in the city ethics laws he has claimed credit for writing--and given Riordan an opening to attack him for being hypocritical.

Although posing as the father of city ethics reform, Riordan said, Woo is taking advantage of a legal loophole that allows political parties to make contributions and expenditures above city limits.

Woo’s effort to turn the race into a partisan battle has other risks as well. There is the possibility of looking weak in the eyes of his party if noteworthy endorsements fail to materialize. One already has. Mayor Tom Bradley, eminent Democrat and the man whose multiethnic coalition Woo hopes to inherit June 8, indicated that he would not be endorsing either candidate.

But where Woo could be hurt the most in the endorsement derby he has set in motion is if the President decides not to endorse him.

“Woo is pressing very hard for a commitment. I would be too,” a senior White House official said this week.

Woo has good reason to press his case with the President, said Mellman. An endorsement followed by a presidential visit on the eve of the election could be a decisive stroke, the consultant said.

“It increases interest, galvanizes turnout and it could mean a lot,” he said. “In a race like this, it could be the difference between winning and losing.”

But voters in California have a habit of dismissing their party’s choice. Los Angeles may be a Democratic town, but the voters, in political consultant Cerrell’s words, “have very low party loyalty.”

Riordan, who must extend his base beyond the Republicans he courted in the primary with endorsements from former President Ronald Reagan and former Housing Secretary Jack Kemp, is taking nothing for granted.

In public, Riordan maintains that the issue of partisanship is a red herring in a city hungry for a leader of any political persuasion who can do something about crime and the economy.

But his campaign, which includes a number of Democratic operatives, has acknowledged working behind the scenes to sabotage potential Woo endorsements, particularly that of President Clinton.

“I have made calls to Washington,” said Bill Wardlaw, who chairs Riordan’s campaign and who headed the California campaign to elect Clinton.

Just as the Riordan camp is seeking to undercut Woo’s endorsement gambit, Woo is trying to steal some of Riordan’s thunder on the issue of crime.

He has been bolstering his message on crime and accusing Riordan of waffling on a key element of his plan to pay for 3,000 more police officers by leasing the Los Angeles International Airport to a private manager.

Woo charges that Riordan is misrepresenting the crime picture in Hollywood. “Mr. Riordan needs to get his facts straight,” Woo said. Police statistics show a modest drop in major crime during the first part of this year in Hollywood.

As for the airport, Woo has charged all along that Riordan’s proposal is full of holes.

Riordan has touted the lease proposal as the means to more officers, and a booklet outlining his campaign platform says the lease revenue “alone would more than pay for” the additional officers. But a recent city analysis concluded that only a fraction of the estimated funds may be quickly available from an airport lease.

Challenged about the lease proposal at a news conference Friday, Riordan took a different approach, playing down the significance of the airport in his overall police plan. He told reporters: “First of all, it’s not the linchpin (of his police plan). It’s one of a number of items. It’s roughly 20% of the revenues that I project” can be generated through cost-cutting and contracting out for services.

In fact, the airport lease appears to represent closer to half the annual city savings Riordan has claimed he can generate to pay for police and erase the city budget deficit without new taxes. Aides refused to explain the discrepancy but issued a statement saying Riordan still believes that an LAX lease can fund all of the additional police officers.

Even as he was playing up his Democratic connections Friday, Woo turned to the issue of crime.

Appearing with Waxman at a public library in the Fairfax district, Woo discussed his plan to hire 2,200 more police officers by cutting city departmental budgets by 5% over the next several years.

Reminded of his alliance with organized labor, including unions representing city workers, Woo said he was prepared to stick by his plan even if it meant laying off city workers.

“It could cause some sacrifice. It may require cutbacks or layoffs,” he said.

But he got a taste of the reaction that may be in store for him when two workers stepped up to take issue with a proposal that could once again make library funding a victim of municipal austerity.

“It’s about the only safe place for kids to go,” volunteer librarian Dorothy Frisch said. “We need more police because of gigantic trends like this one to close down places like this that keep kids off the streets and out of trouble,” library clerk Eva Cox added.

Visibly irritated by the confrontation, Woo argued that paying for police was more important than protecting library budgets.

“Unless I come up with a plan to pay for more police,” he said, “we are going to lose the families who use the libraries.”

Clifford reported from Los Angeles, Miller from Washington. Times staff writers Rich Connell and Marc Lacey also contributed to this story.