Henry Cisneros

Frank del Olmo is precisely right (Commentary, Sept. 12). L.A. needs Henry Cisneros’ leadership. Let us briefly review his political career. After being elected mayor of San Antonio, he carried on a public and humiliating extramarital affair. He then went on to become secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and anyone who deals with that department knows that it is the same corrupt, disorganized mess it has always been. In order to contain the damage of his public affair, he made cash gifts to his mistress. When questioned about it by the FBI, he said he made the payments, but they were less than $10,000. The only explanation I know of for this lie would be that he did not file proper federal gift tax returns for the money paid.

These are precisely the type of strong, Clintonian leadership values that Los Angeles and Latinos, in particular, desperately need. We can never have enough quality people who cheat on and humiliate the women in their lives. We certainly need more people who lie to law enforcement agencies to protect themselves against further felonies and misdemeanors.

JERRY WINKLHOFER

Sherman Oaks

*

I second Del Olmo’s nomination of Cisneros to become Los Angeles’ next mayor. Cisneros would be, by far, the most distinguished, most qualified, most capable, most experienced and certainly the most exciting of any of the candidates--actual or potential--who are or might be running.

It is an interesting coincidence that Cisneros is a transplant from a Southern state and minority group member, like Tom Bradley, who served for 20 years as the finest mayor in L.A.’s history. All of the qualities that Angelenos could hope to find in a truly outstanding mayor are personified in Cisneros. It should be a footnote, only, that Cisneros made a serious mistake that he must now atone for.

DAVID K. CARLISLE

Los Angeles

*

I don’t understand why Del Olmo continues to prop up Cisneros. It is quite obvious he won’t promote any non-Latino, but there must be one honest Latino in this city to promote without importing dishonest politicians from Texas. Is there a benefit in referring to candidates as Latinos or Anglos? Is Del Olmo’s sole purpose to keep division going, to elect Latinos at any cost, regardless of their integrity?

We can settle for lackluster if it means we are getting someone honest and with integrity.

F.J. PACIOCCO

Anaheim