Reading the Mud Meter

As they slog toward the May 17 runoff election, both Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn and City Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa seem determined to accentuate the negative.

Hahn seeks to portray Villaraigosa as -- to borrow a dreaded word from last year’s Bush-Kerry campaign -- a flip-flopper whose record is riddled with inconsistencies.

The Villaraigosa campaign responds with an all-caps e-mail: “JAMES HAHN COMMITS MOTHER OF ALL FLIP-FLOPS.”

Does negative campaigning do voters a favor by spotlighting flaws they might otherwise miss? Or does it amount to just throwing mud and hoping the voters don’t bother to find out what’s underneath?

Let’s deconstruct some of the most recent charges to see where they fall on the following mud meter:

* True

* False

* True, but so what?

* False, but beside the point

* Code for something else

Hahn on Villaraigosa

Exhibit A: Hahn alleges that in the 2001 mayoral race (yes, this is a rematch), Villaraigosa told a San Fernando Valley audience that he didn’t think then-Police Chief Bernard C. Parks was doing such a hot job. He told a mostly black South L.A. audience that he supported the African American chief.

True. At least according to a scratchy snippet of tape produced by the Hahn campaign. This matters to Hahn, whose decision not to back Parks as chief is now costing him endorsements from black leaders. Although Villaraigosa would hardly be the first politician to tailor his message to his audience, it should matter to voters too, if it is part of a pattern. But Hahn’s other two examples fail to prove that.

Exhibit B: The Hahn campaign uncovers an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit, more than a decade old, against an early gang injunction that names Villaraigosa, then an ACLU leader, as a plaintiff. Villaraigosa has since expressed limited support for injunctions, which restrict named gang members in defined areas from congregating in public or carrying cellphones or pagers.

Code for something else. Politicians are allowed -- encouraged, even -- to change their minds over time. Hahn originated the use of injunctions in Los Angeles, and debating their effectiveness is of legitimate interest to voters. But the ACLU connection is code for labeling Villaraigosa a wild-eyed, criminal-loving liberal.

Exhibit C: Hahn charges that Villaraigosa broke a promise to serve out his four-year council term before running again for mayor.

True, but so what? City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo just set a record by forming an exploratory committee to run for a new office the day after he was reelected to his old one. Compared with this, Villaraigosa is an old-timer.

Villaraigosa on Hahn

Exhibit D: Villaraigosa’s “mother of all flip-flops” countercharge alleges that as mayor, Hahn broke a pledge he’d made as a candidate in 2001 not to expand Los Angeles International Airport.

False but beside the point. Hahn didn’t break his promise. His $11-billion “safety and security” revamp at least aimed to restrain passenger growth by eliminating airline gates. Trouble is, it was dead on arrival. It took Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski to broker the less costly compromise now on the table.

Exhibit E: Villaraigosa accuses Hahn of overseeing the most investigated City Hall in modern city history.

True. Hahn is correct that no one in his administration has yet been indicted in the investigations into his political fundraising and city contracting. But even without indictments, he is accountable for his lack of judgment in naming his former campaign fundraiser as liaison to the city’s lucrative contract-generating departments and for not questioning his office’s cozy relationship with a private PR firm that billed and sometimes padded charges to another city department.

Punch and Counterpunch

Exhibit F: Hahn slams Villaraigosa for not agreeing to more than three runoff debates. Villaraigosa slams Hahn for skipping debates during the primary.

True and true, but so what? If Hahn, who was every candidate’s punching bag during the March election, had skipped all the debates, we would have cared. And we would care more now if Villaraigosa, who with sky-high approval ratings has the least to gain, refused to debate at all during the runoff. The more debates, the muddier -- which is why, gentle voters, it’s a good idea to always apply your own mud meter.