The Times credits Jackson for working 'hard to distinguish himself from the rest of the pack,' and being the 'most vocal about attacking Trutanich for breaking his pledge to complete two terms as city attorney before seeking another office,' as well as successfully preventing Trutanich from using a misleading ballot designation. The Times also acknowledges the general sentiment that many see Jackson as 'Trutanich's chief rival,' with the pair likely to face each other in the November run off election.
The Times made it clear that their criteria for assessment of all the candidates will be a twofold one. First, what is the candidate's position on the matters that the Times considers important for LA's next DA, namely, three strikes, the death penalty, public integrity, juvenile justice and realignment. Second, can the Times, its readers and LA's voters believe that the candidate will actually follow through with their stated positions. Jackson seems to score high marks in the Times two-step analysis, noting that he while he is not entirely the 'stay the course' candidate, he is passionate and credible about the changes he will bring if elected.
The Times will review the candidacies of Chief Deputy Jackie Lacey, Deputy District Attorney Danette Meyers, and city prosecutor Carmen Trutanich before they announce their endorsement later this week. Given their favorable review of Jackson, he must surely be in serious contention for that endorsement.
Equally, given the parameters the Times has established for their analysis of the candidates, Carmen Trutanich must be dreading what the Times will say about his candidacy which, as has been noted, 'was born of a lie.' Under the Times' two-step analysis, Trutanich has all the right answers for the first step - three strikes, the death penalty, public integrity (please don't laugh) juvenile justice and realignment.
However, under the second step, likely follow-through (let's call that credibility), Trutanich can only be expected to be as feckless and dishonest as the Times has already noted he is. His promised reform for medical marijuana evaporated in a New York minute. His promised support for the City Controller to audit elected officials was forgotten as soon the words left his lips. His pledge to serve was meaningless, and his entire campaign is toxically polluted with lies and deception. Simply put, the only thing that the Times or anyone else can believe about Trutanich is that he will say anything to be elected, and he will renege on every single promise he makes.
Of course, the anticipated response from Trutanich when he fails to