Riordan and Woo Renew Attacks in Mayoral Debate : Campaign: Character and competence are at issue in live telecast. Experts say no serious blows were landed and doubt that exchange had a significant impact on election.

With less than two days left before the polls open, the candidates for mayor of Los Angeles finally went head to head on live television Sunday night, in a debate full of the usual acrimony but with few surprises or dramatic gaffes.

After sparring over their proposals for stimulating the economy, fighting crime and hiring more police officers, City Councilman Michael Woo went on the offensive first with what has become a familiar attack on Richard Riordan’s role as an investor in Mattel Inc. Riordan participated in a plan to reorganize the company that led to the closure of two local plants and the loss of several hundred jobs.

The war of words boiled down to a case of character vs. competence as Woo sought to portray Riordan as the “epitome of 1980s greed” and Riordan characterized Woo as a career politician who did nothing to stop the city’s slide into a crime-ridden recession.

The candidates’ mutual disdain appeared to carry over even after the cameras stopped rolling. They cordially shook hands at the end of the debate but ignored each other when passing in the hallway moments later.

But for all the ill will, the debate, which could have derailed either candidate this close to the election, did not deliver any body blows, in the opinion of a group of experts asked by The Times to monitor the exchange.

“I doubt very much this could sway an undecided voter one way or another,” said David Friedman, a lawyer who writes often about politics. “I view it as a complete standoff.”

Friedman noted, however, that Riordan, who in past debates has lost his composure when attacked by Woo, maintained his poise in the face of skillful questioning.

“I do think Riordan did a good job of not being baited into some of the more pointed criticism and just sort of sloughing it off,” Friedman said. “Although I think Woo also did a good job of questioning Riordan.”

The debate, televised live on KCOP Channel 13 and interrupted frequently by commercial breaks, gathered momentum slowly but gained a nasty edge when Woo sought to discredit Riordan’s claims of having created thousands of jobs as a socially responsible investor.

Woo told Riordan: “I think you need to be held accountable for the fact that you are the epitome of 1980s greed in that you’ve made over $74 million through these leveraged buyouts . . . but the record shows you’ve only created a total of 14 jobs.”

In what has become a familiar tack in his campaign, Woo went on to assail Riordan’s record at Mattel. “He was able to make between $16 million and $20 million, and yet he was involved in closing down Mattel’s last two manufacturing plants with 1,300 jobs lost to Mexico, where people make 65 cents an hour.”

Later, Riordan fired back: “Mr. Woo, as the head of the government efficiency committee of the City Council, they only had nine meetings since he was chairman. He plans to streamline the city government. Why didn’t he do it a year ago?

“Where was he a year ago, three years ago, five years ago? Where was he when crime got out of control? Where was he when taxes went up? Where was he as his neighbors lost their jobs? We need action, not talk.”

The Times’ panel of commentators agreed that Woo was the more aggressive, but did not agree about the effectiveness of his tactics.

“What Mike Woo is trying to do here is cast doubt in people’s minds by attacking,” said Robin Kramer, a public affairs consultant. “I think he has done a good job of keeping up the attacks. . . . But I don’t necessarily think they work.”

Prof. Thomas Hollihan, a USC expert in political debating, thought that Woo succeeded with his attempt to control the tenor of the debate.

“There is one school of thought that says attack, attack, attack, so he can focus the attention of the debate, and he is being pretty successful at it,” Hollihan said. “It just communicates a general sense that he is confident and in control and he can define what the issues are.”

All three experts consulted by The Times agreed that there was not a definitive moment that would sway voters. “There have been no mistakes of the kind that often change people’s minds in debates,” Hollihan said.

Riordan, a first-time campaigner who generally has lacked Woo’s polish as a public speaker, agreed to debate live on only two stations during the runoff campaign--Channels 13 and 11--and those stations have the lowest-rated newscasts among the city’s seven VHF television stations. Channels 2, 4, 5, 7 and 28 also sought to stage debates. Woo accepted all their invitations.

Sunday’s debate competed for viewers against CBS’ broadcast of Broadway’s Tony Awards, the premiere of “South Beach” on NBC and reruns of “Police Academy 6” on ABC and “Married . . . With Children” and “Herman’s Head” on Fox.

The candidates will meet again tonight, in a debate scheduled to air on KTTV Channel 11 from 6 to 7 p.m.

The debates are providing a personal dimension to a campaign that has been fought largely in the mails and over the airwaves, with garish brochures and canned TV spots carrying a message that is by turns simplistic and exaggerated.

For Riordan, the older of the two by more than 20 years, the debates offer an opportunity to take advantage of his age, exhibit stature and inspire confidence. They give Riordan his last and best chance to rebut Woo’s charge that people cannot trust Dick Riordan. Coming on the heels of recent disclosures about three alcohol-related arrests, they give Riordan the chance to dispel any notions that he is less than a solid citizen.

(The issue of Riordan’s arrests did not come up during Sunday’s debate.)

For Woo, the challenge is to fire up his base, the Democrats who will vote for him if they are motivated to vote at all.

Woo must inspire confidence in the face of charges by his opponent that he allowed Hollywood to become an urban slough of despond.

He also can use the debates to try to distance himself from responsibility for the failures of a City Council that he has belonged to for eight years. In addition, public opinion polls make it clear that Woo must continue to broaden his appeal among middle-class voters, especially in the San Fernando Valley where Riordan is strongest.

Before the debate Sunday, Riordan and Woo stuck to their messages--and their political bases-- in an effort to encourage supporters to get to the polls Tuesday.

A casually dressed Riordan sought to portray himself as an average guy committed to preserving Los Angeles’ families. Replacing his suit and tie with a plaid shirt and khaki pants, Riordan tossed around a football and a baseball with children at Balboa Park in Encino and held a news conference while standing in a large sandbox next to a jungle gym.

At the park, the site of the shooting death of a 2 1/2-year-old boy in April, Riordan said he was the candidate to take back the parks for the city’s children. “We have to take this city back from the carjackers, the murderers, the drug pushers and the prostitutes, and give it back to the families.”

Woo, meanwhile, made his regular round of church visits through South-Central Los Angeles with supporters, including Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, County Supervisor Gloria Molina and Rabbi David Elliason of Hebrew Union College. Woo touted his multiethnic support and cast Riordan as the choice of the privileged.

“I’ve got news for Dick Riordan,” Woo said at an afternoon rally in Lincoln Park attended by about 75 people. “You can spend every penny you’ve got . . . every dollar you’ve got. The office of mayor is not for sale to the highest bidder.”

Times staff writers Richard Simon, Faye Fiore, James Rainey, Marc Lacey, Ron Russell and Steven Herbert contributed to this story.

Countdown to Election Day / 1 Day Left in the L.A. Mayoral Campaign

THE DAY IN REVIEW

How the mayoral candidates spent their day:

Before meeting in their first televised debate of the runoff campaign, Richard Riordan and Michael Woo stuck to their messages--and their political bases--in an effort to encourage supporters to get to the polls Tuesday.

At a news conference at Balboa Park in Encino, site of the shooting death of a 2 1/2-year-old boy in April, Riordan said he was the candidate to take back the parks for the city’s children. Woo, meanwhile, made a round of church visits through South-Central Los Angeles with supporters, including Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, County Supervisor Gloria Molina and Rabbi David Elliason of Hebrew Union College. Woo touted his multiethnic support and cast Riordan as the choice of the privileged.

AIRWAVES / MAILBOX

How the campaign was waged in the realm of advertising:

Riordan sent out a mailer headlined “It Happened In Hollywood,” attacking Woo’s record in that community as a city councilman.

COMING UP

Some of the key events on the candidates’ schedules today:

Riordan and Woo will appear on KTLA Channel 5 from 8 to 8:30 a.m. to answer questions from the public.

The candidates will meet in their final debate on KTTV Channel 11 from 6 to 7 p.m. The debate will air simultaneously on radio station KCRW-FM 89.9.