-
Website
http://thedistrictweekly.com/ -
Original page
http://thedistrictweekly.com/print/features/suja-lowenthal-and-the-art-and-science-of-politics/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Bill: Why are you blindly defending Suja while launching a blitzkreig against the Weekly for simply reporting the facts as they have been presented?
"What kind of privacy do we owe our public officials? Should there be a general standard or should we consider privacy on a case-by-case basis? Either way, what kind of privacy do we owe the Lowenthals?
Is a divorce off limits when the marriage created connections that factored into the election? Is a child-custody battle between once-loving spouses taboo when the now-spurned spouse and child were part of the campaign strategy?
When Suja ran for office in 2006, one of her most effective pieces of political literature was a mailer that included a charming photo of her family. They were dressed casually, in long-sleeved T-shirts and jeans, and they cuddled together on a green, trimmed lawn. Suja showed us the smiling faces of her husband and her son because they were supposed to infer reasons to vote for her.
Now, as that husband has filed for divorce, requested sole custody of that son and pleaded that he not have to pay alimony, are we supposed to ignore the collapse of those not-so-subliminal campaign suggestions and not factor the new circumstances of her private life into our assessment of her as a public figure?"
I'm not quite sure, myself. What do you think?
# 6, I disagree with you. Her life is not private for two reasons: 1) she is a public servant; and 2) when she ran for office, her family was the centerpiece of her campaign. In fact, I received several large postcards of Suja, her husband and son that said something like "family is very important to me." So she is the one who made it an issue, not anybody else. Why then is it unfair to examine that issue that she created herself? Essentially, her mail said vote for me because I am part of this lovely family that means so much to me. And many of us did. But now it seems that she was involved in extramarital affairs. If that is in fact the case, she was not just lying/cheating on husband, but also on the voters who voted for her based on her mail.
PS Are you saying when council members vote on an issue involving the opposite sex that they are sleeping with them? If so, the whole city must be one gigantic orgy.
And, if I hear that same speech again, “the long, somewhat varying, enriching journey I traveled before I became a public servant”: her immigration from India at age seven, and her subsequent climb to a position of leadership and consequence" ugh! get over yourself.
To put it more crudely, doubtless to the offense of you and others of your ilk, you are a female chauvinist sow who needs to GROW UP majorly by first trying to see past your own vagina. Even if that means, for you, doublestandard, growing a set of balls.
The difference is no man will file a sexual harassment suit against Suja but it may happen to Val if he keeps it up.
First, no one’s saying Suja had an affair–no one but you, Double Standard for Women. Second, not knowing the details of the mayor’s relationship, I can’t say much except this: the point under consideration is whether Suja ought to have disclosed her relationship with men who brought business before the council. Otherwise, who cares?
And if you think there’s a double-standard, I beg you to consider Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, etc.
This isn’t an issue of sex or gender. It’s a question of transparency in government. See Dave’s latest post for comments on that:
http://thedistrictweekly.com/daily/writing-shot...
You may care more about your adspace than you do your integrity, but its going to kick your as* one of these days...
GROW UP doublestandard!! It's not a gender issue. It's a CHARACTER issue!! Women, just like all men, are expected to possess decent moral character!
It's easier in this life being a dude, but that ain't one of our perks. Writing our name in the snow and not needing to talk about our feelings, however, are big bonuses.
Carl Kemp as the spokesman for John Rouse??
Carl is a very busy man these days..he is a registered lobbyist for Englander and Associates, (check Los Angeles registered lobbyists). Carl served the city under both Hankala and Miller and then took a position with the Port before going with Englander. Lobbying firms love this and want ex city employees for the obvious reasons -expertise in in city policy and a network of professional and personal relationships. Carl has been seen lobbying the redevelopment agengy for the Hyatt Pace and for those of you on the eastside....Carl is the lobbyist working with David Malmuth and Cliff Ratkovich on the new SEAPORT MARINA project...but that's another story!
(And my thought and prayers are with those hurt in today's auto accident. I wish them a full and speedy recovery.)
Will -- do what you have to do to keep your business strong. If you have to go no further in your approach to challenging stories than you are demonstrating here, I will understand. I would be sad to see your business fail -- Long Beach would be a poorer place without you -- so if you see thorough investigation of this issue as too big a financial risk because of excessive exposure to lawsuits, I understand. The quality of what you are providing to Long Beach is already far and away a net plus to the community.
That said . . .
I am dismayed that you are punting on this story. You call for a discussion on this issue, posing as a kind of gladiator asking the audience for thumbs up or thumbs down on this woman's privacy. It's the wrong focus -- you should be telling us what we stand to gain as a community by intruding in this public figure's private life. Judging by the chaotic and confused discussion string here, your readers don't know -- so you have to tell them.
You're not telling us what you think is at stake. You should.
I am not a lawyer (though I often usefully play one in my pronouncements to my children), but libel law and the First Amendment would seem to support you asking Suja Lowenthal damn near anything you want to at this point in time. And the reason why is because the law recognizes that our political life as a society is improved when news organizations provide maximum information about government decision making. The character of an elected official is germane and is clearly of "compelling public interest." You have to demonstrate you are not acting out of "malice aforethought," but you do this by acknowledging that this line of questioning is of public interest and by asking her questions and giving her time to respond before publishing her responses. It may not make you popular with everyone at City Hall -- but is that your goal?
Do you have legal counsel telling you anything different? If so, and your counselor is telling you to drop your notebook and slowly back away from questioning elected officials about their sex lives, you may have an obligation to either get a new lawyer or tell your readers this is the advice you are following.
And I don't think the question is about her honesty. I think it's more a question of her loyalty to those who support her and her personal courage: how does she confront an evolving situation (hypothetically, an increasingly unsatisfying marriage) that challenges her previous, very public, commitments? This could be (hypothetically) a wedding vow or this could be a commitment to supporters to complete her campaign for a school board seat instead of opportunistically jumping into Dan Baker's still warm council seat (I'm surprised THAT chapter in the Suja Lowenthal Hagiography wasn't in your article--talk about abandonment! She left a lot of good people as angry as jilted spouses and in-laws when she bailed . . . and delivered to Long Beach by her abandonment the school board member much in the news of late).
Bottom line: does she treat her partners -- personal and political -- with respect in resolving conflicting political or personal desires, or does she find it acceptable to abandon those partners when convenient, jump into a new seat and parse ethics law with alternative weekly reporters as a diversion?
Low scores here on loyalty and personal courage lead to future stories (that you could pre-write today) about what she is leaving Long Beach holding in the bag as she departs for Sacramento or D.C. The importance of exposing this depends on what you, as political journalists, think would be in that bag.
Memorable coverage could change the political climate here -- can anyone say "Michael Carona"? (bless you, Moxley) But if you think the game isn't worth the candle -- if you think Long Beach needs more politicians like Suja, not fewer -- say so (cuz you seem a little, well, smitten). I'll still kinda respect you in the morning.
Frankly, I think Americans in the voting booth admire adulterers. As long as they don't lie about it, do something homosexual (without the prior acceptance of their homosexuality), or reveal some beyond-the-pale kink (wherever that pale may be), they're golden. Plain vanilla cheating on a spouse suggests a certain initiative and reckless individualism in a politician that we can't help but find appealing. Heck, you can even cheat and be the presidential nominee of a major political party! So infidelity might even advance a political career in this brave new world.
But my goodness -- what's that about Suja being abandoned (for whatever reason) by her mother for two years at the age of five? and she volunteers this information to her audiences? Any psychologist in the crowd could fill you in on what that could mean for the adult version of that child. It's not pretty.
Will -- I think it's really about what you and Dave have the stomach for and the direction you want to take your publication. As I said above, don't endanger your enterprise. But you could provide an even greater public service than you already do, if that is in your plans.
Dave -- this is a great story, as far as it goes. You placed into superb context your interview with Lowenthal that I previously understood poorly. You have told us all some important things about Long Beach politics that have not been previously reported, and for that I thank you.
Yes, Suja's career of political opportunism sucks,... as well as her conflict of interest with her voting record,... But it's Suja Lowenthal's, as well as Al Lowenthal's, and Bonnie Lowenthal's voting record of sticking it to every taxpayer that REALLY sucks!
The forever money losing Queen Mary and that whole fiasco.
The money losing Aquarium that old Al Lowenthal was instrumental in helping stick the city with on a forever basis, (check the whole history of that continual big fat lie over on LBReport.com).
And the proposed NEW TAX INCREASE? Designed to pay for basic services such as streets and sidewalks that should be covered by the first basic expenditure of a major city?
Yup, those Lowenthal's have never seen a tax increase they didn't like.
An important fact that we often tend to forget is that we, the electorate, retain the responsibility for managing and leading…for governing…our communities, counties, states and nation but that we temporarily delegate the authority to others while they remain in office to represent us. Please note the distinction: We retain the *responsibility* but we delegate the *authority*.
When we remember this simple fact we then see that the true challenge before is not whether to hold elected officials accountable for their behavior when it impacts their mandate but, rather, why we often seem so reluctant to do so. We sometimes trip all over ourselves making excuses and allowances for those we elect. We are all human after all (well, most of us) and we are usually loathe to accuse others, especially when the issue involves what would normally be a personal relationship. To do so means we have to pass judgment and most of us don’t like to do that either.
Not liking something, though, does not make it cease to exist. We can’t close our eyes and pretend that our responsibilities as an electorate magically disappear just because it's sometimes uncomfortable to consider them. Not only *should* we scrutinize the behavior and actions of all of our elected officials but we *must*. Not only must we do so in *this* case but in *all* cases.
By some standards, Suja cuts quite a sympathetic figure: she’s survived personal adversity; she’s attractive and intelligent; articulate and educated and seems to have the best interests of her constituents at heart. Great! Some see her as a great crusader for her various causes and a strong and vocal advocate for those she represents.
But others see something else.
So let’s stop the hand-wringing over whether we should scrutinize the behavior and actions of our elected officials (including Suja) and, if so, to what degree. As a person, Suja has a right to conduct her personal life in any way she sees fit. But as an elected official she does not have a right to permit her personal relationships to compromise her mandate to represent us without conflicts of interest.
Has Suja done so in this case? We really don’t know yet (at least I don’t). But since the question has now been raised, it must likewise now be answered to our satisfaction. Because Suja has presumed to govern us, that’s the only standard that should now apply: our standard, as interpreted by a non-partisan and impartial body such as the FPPC, whose stated mission is: “…to promote the integrity of representative state and local government in California through fair, impartial interpretation and enforcement of political campaign, lobbying, and conflict of interest laws.”
If the FPPC feels this doesn't fall within their purview then we need to either alter their purview or create another investigative entity. The FPPC works for us too, remember? If we want situations like this to be within their scope than, guess what...they are! If we have to ammend the Political Reform Act of 1974 to make that happen, then let's do that.
The answer is really quite simple: We *must* scrutinize the behavior and actions of our elected officials in *all* cases. If the scrutiny reveals no violation of their mandate to represent us without conflicts of interest, that’s wonderful. Should the scrutiny produce a different result, however, then such persons must be removed from office and swiftly. This, of course, requires a level of involvement and intestinal fortitude on the part of the electorate that we, as a people, haven’t really displayed in many decades.
So we end where we began: The challenge is not whether to hold our elected officials responsible but, rather, to remember that as a freely governed people it is our *duty* to do so…
…and then to act accordingly.
Don't worry, Juan. Al will get back to us on that issues, as soon as he's done with his latest tax raising scheme for whatever is his latest boondoggle.
And Suja is no different.
Since day one, whenever one sees a Lowenthal speaking, hold on to your wallet.
And i don't find anything amusing with that, mate.