Consider how the race for California's U.S. senator began: In January 2023, Democratic Reps. Katie Porter (Irvine) and Adam Schiff (Burbank) announced their candidacies for the seat vacated by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. The following month, Rep. Barbara Lee (Oakland) enters the race, rounding out a field of Democratic candidates that spanned the party's ideological spectrum. In letters to the editor, readers welcomed a race involving such high-profile legislators and hoped for a friendly, substantive contest.
We know how that turned out. Schiff and his allies focused their attacks on Steve Garvey, a politically astute effort to raise the Republican candidate's profile. Porter, who came in third behind Schiff and Garvey and thus failed to make the runoff, used the Trumpian term “rig” in a post-election tweetprovoking violent reactions from members of his own party.
After Election Day, our letter writers focus more on the ugly politics of the Senate race than on the candidates' ideas. Now it's Garvey's turn versus Schiff.
————
To the editor: I voted for Schiff and I think he is the best Senate candidate. But I can't get the bad taste out of my mouth about the tactics he used to ensure he faced Garvey and not Porter in the November general election.
I always saw Schiff as a very honorable man and now I am baffled. As columnist George Skelton wrote, Schiff's targeting of Garvey as a way to raise the Republican's profile was a cold, calculated political move that wasn't necessary. Schiff had been ahead in every poll from the start, and at worst he would have faced Porter in November.
Schiff needs to fire his campaign manager as a signal to us that he regrets using this regrettable and unacceptable tactic and will not commit such shenanigans again.
Carol Spector, Ventura
..
To the editor: I am absolutely shocked that Skelton considers Schiff's strategy to prop up Garvey a stain on his reputation.
Come on. The idea of running is to win. Did Schiff attack his Democratic rivals? Did he anoint them? Did he give them nicknames?
No. Rather, what he did was extremely smart: He went after Garvey, giving him more recognition because it would be easier to defeat the Republican in November.
How is that dirty politics?
To me, Schiff's tactic reaffirmed that he is very smart and knows how to get things done. Isn't that what we want in a senator?
Mike Moersen, Thousand Oaks
..
To the editor: So let me understand the objections to Schiff's campaign strategy: If he had attacked Porter instead of Garvey, would that have somehow decreased Garvey's votes and increased Porter's?
Isn't it more likely that with three strong Democrats in the race, the Democratic vote was always divided? And would Garvey, the only Republican with name recognition, get the majority of the much smaller Republican vote, but still finish at least second?
Why shouldn't Schiff go after his likely general election opponent from the start?
Richard Webber, Sherman Oaks
..
To the editor: Columnist Mark Z. Barabak criticizes Porter for calling an election influenced by billionaires and dark money “rigged.”
But a system where outside parties can come in and spend unlimited amounts (and we see this all the time) is indeed a rigged system.
The problem of money in politics is much worse than what MAGA Republicans complain about when they say the election is rigged.
Harlan Levinson, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Porter could have dramatically improved his reputation and career if he hadn't used a loaded term like “rigged.”
Instead of reflecting and promoting the ideals of the Democratic Party, she sounds as petulant and spoiled as a certain former president of the United States.
Tsk, Representative Porter. You could have been saved if you had shown a modicum of grace when you lost.
Toby Horn, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: I find Barabak's argument incredibly discouraging. He seems to be arguing that the system worked just as it should.
Billionaires were able to get rid of someone who challenged their power by spending millions of dollars on advertising. What could be more undemocratic than that?
I will miss Porter's voice in Congress. There are very few politicians willing to challenge the power of money in our system.
John La Grange, Solana Beach
..
To the editor: Porter's bitterness after losing is very sad.
Not long ago I attended a fundraiser sponsored by Schiff for Porter that raised significant funds for his House campaign. Thanks to Schiff, I contributed to Porter's campaign and she proved to be a very effective member of Congress.
Schiff's ads were not directed at Porter; They attacked a Republican opponent, something he now expresses bitterness about.
Instead, he should support Schiff.
Louis Lipofsky, Beverly Hills
..
To the editor: Shame on Porter. As a policy, you should know the procedure. She may have been outwitted, but not deceived or defeated in a “rigged” election.
If Porter is naïve enough to think she can use words that challenge our election, especially in the current environment, she is not yet experienced enough to be trusted with a Senate seat.
I was so sorry to lose Porter in the House that I was willing to volunteer my services and support her in whatever she decided to do. Now not so much.
Grow. California voters got it right.
Sharon Fane, Crown
