Sybert, Sherman and Shroyer

The defeat of Richard Sybert for Congress seems to be a repudiation of the in-vogue campaign strategy of disguising one’s background in a cloak of popular images and hiding one’s views in a mishmash of moderate platitudes.

Rather than stand on his background as an attorney and make a case for his conservation-leaning positions, Sybert meticulously molded an image as a small-business man and claimed positions he thought better matched the tastes and concerns of the district, all described in the broadest slogans--”pro-choice,” “pro-environment,” “pro-Israel.”

At the same time, Sybert alleged in mailer after mailer that he was being smeared, when his track record on the very same issues so important to this district was revealed by opponent Brad Sherman to be conservative and right-leaning and contradicting the appealing but empty labels Sybert had proclaimed for himself.

Chalk one up for the voters who saw through the slickness of Sybert’s campaign materials and chose the self-described “recovering nerd,” Brad Sherman, as the best candidate with the necessary integrity to fill the shoes of Congress’ most honorable member, retiring Rep. Tony Beilenson.

JOAN H. LEONARD, Sherman Oaks

*

Now that the “non-litigious, litigious” Republican Richard Sybert has again lost in his quest for Congress (“Sherman Credits Moderation for His Win,” Nov. 7), will Sybert sue both Bob Dole and the 24th Congressional District voters for nonsupport?

HOWARD COHEN, North Hills

*

My name is Ralph Shroyer. I ran for Congress this past election as a Peace and Freedom Party candidate in the 24th Congressional District. Being somewhat of a realist, I had no illusions about actually winning. My principal purpose was to enlighten the public about the urgent need for reform in our electoral system. As well, I hoped to inject some new or controversial ideas into the campaign. These are things The Times itself has professed to advocate in the past.

Why then, you might wonder, did The Times [Valley Edition] pretend throughout the campaign that my candidacy did not exist [considering that part of the 24th District is in the Valley]? Other local papers in the area, including the Daily News, rushed to call me. They printed my picture and provided news exposure, including my views. Yet, I never heard from The Times [Valley Edition]. . . . The Ventura Edition of The Times did solicit and print news of my candidacy.

By now you might have surmised that The Times was endorsing my Democratic opponent, and since my party is considered to the left of the political spectrum, closer to the Democratic side of the center, they must have feared that my candidacy would detract votes from theirs.

What does this say about all those patriotic editorials and urgings of civic responsibility we see in The Times? Sounds like a bunch of hypocritical malarkey. Or, who was it that said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels”?

Amid all the complaints about the campaigns being dull and focusing on personal attacks rather than issues, and all the fuss about special interests’ money corrupting the electoral process, The Times boycotts candidates who refuse to grovel and solicit campaign contributions from the wealthy special interests, and who wish to inject ideas and issues into the campaign that are not carefully crafted to appeal to the conventional wisdom of the center.

Talk about the need for electoral reform! Face it, Los Angeles Times, you are part of the problem.

RALPH SHROYER, Woodland Hills