The first time Democrat Jon Lauritzen ran for the 38th Assembly District, his campaign made headlines when party volunteers charged Simi Valley police officers with harassing and intimidating them as they handed out leaflets supporting his election bid.
Back for another try four years later, Lauritzen, 62, said he and his supporters now feel more welcome in the largely conservative city because the local Democratic club has since taken on a higher profile, aggressively campaigning for Democratic candidates.
But even as a bevy of labor groups walk precincts on behalf of Lauritzen and other Democrats, the retired high school teacher concedes that he is facing long odds in his effort to succeed Republican Tom McClintock, forced from the seat by term limits.
Not only do Republicans greatly outnumber Democrats in the district, which covers Simi Valley, Fillmore and parts of the San Fernando and Santa Clarita valleys, his Republican opponent, physician Keith Richman, has trounced him in fund-raising.
So in the waning days before next week’s election, Lauritzen has his fingers crossed, saying he hopes that after the conservative politics of McClintock, voters in the district will have tired of Republican representation that can get little done in an Assembly controlled by Democrats.
“That’s the only chance I have,” Lauritzen said.
But Richman, 46, who bills himself as a moderate Republican, said voters are not likely to confuse him with McClintock.
The millionaire internist favors abortion rights, opposes Proposition 38 (the school voucher initiative) and advocates increased funding for public education.
“I’m constructive. I can work with people and get things done,” said Richman, who spent $420,000 of his own money to win a close-fought primary in March.
“The conservative wing of the Republican Party put in a lot of money against me, and I had to spend more than I planned,” said Richman, president of a Mission Hills-based medical group. He has raised $727,932, counting his own $420,000 contribution.
Meanwhile, Lauritzen, who has seen little support from Assembly leaders because of the district’s GOP leanings, has been forced to slug it out with the $38,282 he has raised to date, including $17,500 in loans.
The Chatsworth resident, who spent 34 years as a math and computer science teacher, plans to spend the remaining days of the campaign touting his proposals for improving education: strengthening emergency teaching credential requirements, modernizing school facilities, and requiring increased technology training for teachers.
Lauritzen also is calling for state oversight of the massive Newhall Ranch housing project to minimize its effect on roads, sewers, utilities and schools.
“The whole region needs to be looked at in terms of infrastructure,” he said.
Lauritzen calls his opponent a “decent guy,” but he questions Richman’s Republican credentials, because his positions appear to be so similar to Lauritzen’s own. He also takes particular delight in pointing out that Richman’s wife, Deborah, is a registered Democrat.
“He made a strategic move by declaring himself a Republican,” Lauritzen said. “He’d rather be a Democrat, if he thought he could win as one.”
Richman, who said he changed his party registration from Democrat to Republican in 1992, scoffs at Lauritzen’s assertion, and for evidence of his party loyalty he points to his tenure on Los Angeles’ Community Redevelopment Agency as an appointee of Republican Mayor Richard Riordan.
“I’m just a mainstream Republican,” said Richman, who added that he did not know which political party his wife is registered under.
McClintock endorsed Richman’s opponent in the primary, but he has since won the incumbent’s backing, as well as the support of Republican leaders from across Ventura and Los Angeles counties.
Among his top priorities, Richman said, is to push for massive spending on roads, highways and water systems.
“We need to make investments in our future,” Richman said.
And as a physician, Richman said he is keenly interested in health-care reforms that would make insurance more accessible and affordable.
He is also concerned that health-care providers are not being adequately compensated for their services, attributing the recent collapse of Simi Valley-based Family Health Care to insufficient reimbursements from health plans.
“We need to reduce the amount of uncompensated care that providers give,” said Richman, whose campaign received $16,039 from the California Medical Action Committee.
Richman, a Northridge resident and father of two, said he would leave his medical practice, Lakeside Medical Group, if elected. But he has not yet determined whether he would sell his interest in the 250-employee company.
“I see myself as a citizen legislator,” he said.
Also running for the seat is Libertarian candidate Philip Baron, who has raised nearly $3,000 to date. Starting today, his campaign will air commercials on cable channels in Simi Valley and the San Fernando Valley.
Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Noam Chomsky and Woody Allen were among the familiar faces in the latest batch of photographs released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee in connection to the late Jeffrey Epstein. With the Justice Department preparing to make additional files public, the images underscore an uncomfortable truth for us all: The convicted sex offender moved comfortably among some of the most intelligent men in the world. Rhodes scholars, technology leaders and artists.
Also in the release was a photograph of a woman’s lower leg and foot on what appears to be a bed, with a paperback copy of Vladimir Nabokov’s “Lolita” visible in the background. The 1955 novel centers on a middle-aged man’s sexual obsession with a 12-year-old girl. Epstein, a serial sexual abuser, famously nicknamed one of his private planes “The Lolita Express.” And we are to believe that some of the globe’s brightest minds could not put the dots together?
Donald Trump, who once described himself as “a very stable genius,” included.
“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York magazine in 2002. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
Later, the two had a public falling out, and Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Great. But denial after the fact is only one side of this story. The other is harder to digest: Either the self-proclaimed “very stable genius” spent nearly two decades around Epstein without recognizing what was happening in plain sight — or he recognized it and chose silence. Neither explanation reflects on intelligence as much as it does on character. No wonder Trump’s defenders keep raising the most overused word in American politics today: hoax.
“Once again, House Democrats are selectively releasing cherry-picked photos with random redactions to try and create a false narrative,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson. “Here’s the reality: Democrats like Stacey Plaskett and Hakeem Jeffries were soliciting money and meetings from Epstein after he was a convicted sex offender. The Democrat hoax against President Trump has been repeatedly debunked, and the Trump administration has done more for Epstein’s victims than Democrats ever have by repeatedly calling for transparency, releasing thousands of pages of documents and calling for further investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends.”
Jackson has a point.
Democrats were cherry-picking which photos to release, even if many of the men pictured were aligned with progressives. That includes the president, who was a Democrat when he and Epstein were running together in New York in the 2000s. Trump didn’t register as a Republican until 2009. Now whether the choice of photos and timing was designed to shield political friends or weaponize against perceived enemies isn’t clear. What is clear is that it doesn’t take a genius to see that none of this is a hoax.
The victims are real. The flight logs are real. The millions that flowed into Epstein’s bank account have wire transfer confirmation numbers that can be traced. What Democrats are doing with the information is politics as usual. And you don’t want politics to dictate who gets justice and who gets vilified.
Whatever the politicians’ intentions, Americans can decide how to react to the disclosures. And what the men around Epstein did with the information they gathered on his jet or his island fits squarely at the heart of the national conversation about masculinity. What kind of men could allow such abuse to continue?
I’m not saying the intelligent men in Epstein’s ecosystem did something criminal, but the lack of whistleblowing before his arrest raises questions about their fortitude for right and wrong. And the Trump White House trying to characterize this conversation as a partisan witch hunt — a hoax — is an ineffective strategy because the pattern with their use of that word is so clear.
We saw what happened on Jan. 6, and Trump tells us the investigation is a hoax. We hear the recording of him pressuring Georgia officials to find votes, and he tells us the investigation is a hoax. Trump campaigned on affordability issues — the cost of bacon, no taxes on tips — but now that he’s in office such talk is a hoax by Democrats. As if we don’t know the price of groceries in real time. Ten years ago, Trump told us he had proof that President Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. We’re still waiting.
In his book, “Art of the Deal,” Trump framed his lies as “truthful hyperbole” but by now we should understand for him hyperbole matters more than truth — and his felony convictions confirm that some of his claims were indeed simply false.
So if there is a hoax, it is the notion that none of the brilliant men whom Epstein kept in his orbit had any idea what was going on.
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The release of photographs and documents from the House Oversight Committee demonstrates that Epstein moved freely among some of the world’s most accomplished and intelligent individuals, including Rhodes scholars, technology leaders and artists.
Either these prominent men failed to recognize warning signs despite obvious indicators like Epstein’s “Lolita Express” nickname referencing a novel about child sexual abuse, or they recognized the reality and chose silence—neither explanation reflects well on their character.
Claims that this is a hoax lack credibility because the evidence is concrete: the victims are real[1], the flight logs are documented[1][3], and the millions flowing through Epstein’s bank accounts have verifiable wire transfer confirmation numbers.
The apparent lack of whistleblowing from the men in Epstein’s ecosystem before his 2019 arrest raises serious questions about their moral fortitude and willingness to stand against wrongdoing.
The Trump administration’s strategy of characterizing these disclosures as a partisan witch hunt is ineffective, given the pattern of applying the term “hoax” to numerous matters that subsequently proved to be substantiated, from investigations into January 6 to documented pressuring of Georgia officials.
Regardless of whether Democrats’ selection of which photographs to release was politically motivated, legitimate questions about masculinity and moral responsibility remain central to the national conversation.
Different views on the topic
Democrats selectively released cherry-picked photographs with random redactions designed to create a false narrative while attempting to shield their own political allies, including figures like Stacey Plaskett and Hakeem Jeffries who solicited money and meetings from Epstein after his conviction.
The timing and selection of photographs released by House Democrats appear strategically designed to weaponize the Epstein matter against political opponents while deflecting scrutiny from Democratic figures who also maintained connections to the convicted sex offender[2].
The Trump administration has demonstrated greater commitment to transparency on the Epstein matter through the release of thousands of pages of documents and calls for further investigations into Epstein’s connections to Democratic associates.
Characterizing this as purely a partisan response overlooks the fact that prominent figures across the political spectrum, including those who were Democrats when they associated with Epstein in the 2000s, had connections requiring examination[2].
DETROIT — In the frantic final firefight of the 1992 presidential campaign, this battered industrial city may have been ground zero.
In the last days before today’s vote, President Bush and Bill Clinton crossed paths over and over again through a narrow band of critical Rust Belt and Great Lakes states–from New Jersey and Pennsylvania to Ohio and Wisconsin. But no state occupied more of their attention than Michigan.
Into this battlefield, the two major contenders have fired television and radio ads, mailings, surrogate speakers and repeated visits of their own–to the point where even veteran local observers have been overwhelmed. Their efforts–reinforced by Ross Perot’s national television barrage–have put the campaign on everyone’s lips.
“There’s a lot of strong feelings on it this year,” said LeAnn Kirrmann, a Republican activist from Grand Ledge, as she waited for Bush to arrive at a rally near here Sunday.
That appears to be the case across the nation, as voters render their verdict on this stormy, vituperative and often path-breaking campaign. Polls show the percentage of voters paying close attention to the campaign has soared this fall, and most experts expect a large turnout–a dramatic conclusion to a campaign that has regularly produced moments of high drama.
“It’s a mortal lock that turnout is going up,” said GOP pollster Bill McInturff.
After tightening significantly last week, national polls show Clinton again holding a comfortable lead over Bush, with Perot lagging behind. Few observers are entirely certain that a campaign that has been consistently unpredictable doesn’t hold one or two more surprises. But a Bush comeback at this stage would rank as the most dramatic reversal of fortune in the final hours of a presidential race.
In their final maneuvering, both Bush and Clinton targeted this state for contrasting reasons that underscore the length of the odds facing the President.
The widespread economic uneasiness in Michigan–symbolized by the continuing turmoil of General Motors Corp., which led to a management shake-up Monday–has always made the state an uphill climb for Bush despite its Republican leanings in recent presidential campaigns.
It remains a daunting challenge for the President now: The latest statewide tracking poll for a Detroit TV station, released Monday night, showed Clinton leading with 46%, Bush with 30% and Ross Perot at 16%.
Facing such numbers, Bush might have written off Michigan in a different year to spend his last campaign hours elsewhere. But the President has been forced to pound relentlessly at the state because there appears to be no way he can win the necessary 270 electoral votes without Michigan’s 18.
That reality defines Clinton’s stake in the state. Although Clinton–with his strong base on both coasts–can probably win today without carrying Michigan, he has invested so heavily here precisely because he knows Bush cannot.
“That’s Clinton’s great advantage,” said Democratic strategist Tad Devine. “He can focus on trying to take just one link out of Bush’s chain.”
Clinton’s intense focus on Michigan represents the reversal of a traditional Republican tactic. Because the GOP base in the South and West left Democrats so little room to maneuver in past presidential campaigns, Republicans have typically been able to dictate the battlefield in the election’s final hours.
In past years, the Republicans devoted enormous resources to a single conservative-leaning state–usually Ohio–confident that if they won there, the Democrats could not reach an Electoral College majority.
This year, though, it is Clinton who has the lead and the flexibility to choose where to fight. He has selected Michigan as his version of Ohio.
“That is a pretty fair analogy,” said David Wilhelm, Clinton’s campaign manager. “Michigan is a linchpin to our Electoral College strategy; it is a state that if we win, it destroys almost any chance that Bush will be reelected.”
With the state playing such a central role in the strategies of both candidates, their efforts here have been enormous. “Some of us,” said Don Tucker, the Democratic chairman in populous Oakland County, “have started to think Clinton and Bush are running for President of Michigan.”
When Clinton arrived in Detroit on Monday for a lunchtime airport rally, it marked his third visit to the area in five days and his sixth trip to the state in two weeks.
On Sunday, Bush roused the faithful with a scathing attack on Clinton at a rally in Auburn Hills, just north of here–his third run at the state in eight days.
Last Thursday, voters from around the state were able to ask Bush questions in a televised town meeting from Grand Rapids. The next night Clinton flew to the Detroit suburbs to hold his own televised town meeting.
When Clinton forces made their final buy of television time last week, they estimated they were placing enough commercials on the air so that each Michigan resident would see them 14 times through Election Day.
Bush, both sides figure, is on the air even more heavily–especially with a foreboding spot about Clinton’s record as governor that might be titled “Apocalypse Arkansas.” From both sides, acerbic radio advertisements blare incessantly.
As for Perot, local observers say his ad assault has been less visible than in some other states. But his promises to shake up Washington have won him a strong following.
At one point early last week, Republican polls showed Perot surging over 20% in this state. With most of Perot’s gains coming from Clinton, that tightened the Michigan race considerably.
But, as has happened throughout the country, Perot’s support has slipped here since he accused the White House last week of engineering dirty tricks that forced his withdrawal from the race in July. Initially, the voters deserting Perot disproportionately moved to Bush, but now Clinton is winning his share of those voters and consolidating his lead.
“The President is unlikely to close the gap in Michigan on Election Day,” said GOP pollster Steve Lombardo.
Even with Clinton’s lead in the polls, Democrats here remain edgy. Almost without exception, they are haunted by the memory of 1990, when then-Gov. James J. Blanchard led Republican John Engler by 10 percentage points in the final polls–and then was swept from office by a strong Republican effort to get out their vote, coupled with a poor turnout in Detroit.
Democrats are insistent that won’t happen again. Registration is up in Detroit, and Mayor Coleman A. Young has put his shoulder into the Clinton effort. One local official estimated this weekend that 65% of registered Detroit voters could come to the polls today, compared to just 54% four years ago.
Unions are pushing hard too: The UAW has been distributing to members copies of a Flint newspaper article reporting that Ross Perot owns a Mercedes-Benz and other foreign cars. In Michigan, that’s not much different than burning a flag.
Republican efforts to turn out the vote are just as intense. In Oakland County alone, GOP volunteers made more than 150,000 calls last weekend, said Jim Alexander, the county GOP chairman.
Local observers say religious conservatives and anti-abortion activists are mounting powerful drives; thousands of copies of the Christian Coalition’s voter guide on the presidential candidates were distributed at Bush’s rally in Auburn Hills on Sunday.
Beyond its impact on the Electoral College, voting in Michigan should help answer some of the key questions on which the results will pivot around the nation. Among them:
* Can Clinton reclaim the so-called Reagan Democrats–the blue-collar ethnics who deserted the party during the 1970s and 1980s over taxes, the economy and the perception that Democrats favored minorities?
Stressing such issues as welfare reform and his support for the death penalty, Clinton has aggressively courted voters in Macomb County, a Detroit suburb renowned as the breeding ground of Reagan Democrats.
Republicans have fired back with targeted mailers hitting Clinton on trust and taxes. And Perot could be a formidable competitor in Macomb County and similar neighborhoods for the votes of working-class residents disgusted with Bush and the gridlock in Washington.
* Can Bush hold suburban Republicans and independents who favor abortion rights? Four years ago, he carried the generally affluent Detroit suburb of Oakland County by 109,000 votes. But the hard-right line on social issues at the Republican Convention did not play well there, and Democrats are optimistic that Clinton’s centrist message will allow him to make significant inroads, not only in Oakland County but in similar places in New Jersey, Illinois and Pennsylvania.
* Can Clinton get the high turnout he needs from blacks after a campaign so heavily focused on wooing white swing voters in the suburbs? The answer will affect the result not only here but in other industrial states, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as Southern battlegrounds like Georgia and Louisiana.
* Will young voters show up today? One reason Clinton’s margin diminished in some national surveys last week is those polls included very few young people among their likely voters–and Clinton, the first baby boomer to top a national ticket, has been running very well with the young.
In 1988, just 36% of eligible voters age 18 to 24 actually turned out. Mike Dolan, field director for Rock the Vote, a nonpartisan national effort to register and turn out young voters, predicts as many as half of them may vote this year.
Such a spike in turnout would be a huge boost for Clinton; in this state, for example, he has courted students at rallies at both the University of Michigan and Michigan State University.
One cloud on the Democratic horizon is the possibility of rain today in Michigan and much of the Midwest. Conventional wisdom holds that rain could dampen turnout in Detroit and other urban centers and pinch Clinton’s vote.
But many on both sides believe that interest in this campaign is so high that even rain won’t cool it off. “With all of the attention to the race this year,” Alexander said, “I don’t know if even rain is going to matter.”
In January 2018, conservative Fox News host Laura Ingraham was having dinner at Toscana, an Italian restaurant in Brentwood, when she spotted the renowned Hollywood director — and unabashed liberal — Rob Reiner.
She asked him to come on her show, “The Ingraham Angle.” He was on set the next day.
After introducing him as “a brilliant director,” who made her favorite movie, “This is Spinal Tap,” Ingraham said: “Last night, the first thing Reiner says is: ‘Are they gonna shut the government down?’’ I’m like, wow, I’m here in L.A.; I wanna talk about Hollywood stuff. But he wants to talk about politics.”
Al Gore and Rob Reiner attend the Tribeca Film Festival in New York in April 2007.
(Scott Gries / Getty Images)
Ingraham and Reiner vehemently disagreed — about alleged Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election, about whether President Trump is racist, about the treatment of conservatives in Hollywood.
But Reiner also called Ingraham “smart as hell.” And Ingraham said Reiner “should be lauded” for being willing to spar with her, unlike many politicians on both sides of the aisle.
It was the kind of blunt but ultimately respectful exchange that added to Reiner’s widespread appeal off-screen, both because of — and in spite of — his views.
Reiner and his wife, Michele, were killed at their Brentwood home last weekend, allegedly by their son, Nick, who has been charged with murder. The couple’s deaths have sent a thunderclap through Hollywood and beyond, partly because the Reiners had so many friends and connections in creative and political circles.
Rob Reiner — who, in the role of Michael “Meathead” Stivic in the groundbreaking sitcom “All in the Family,” played the liberal foil to his bigoted, conservative father-in-law, Archie Bunker — seemed to relish his real-life role as a progressive celebrity activist. That made him a hero to many in blue California but a villain to others, especially the reality-TV-show-star-turned-president, Donald Trump.
In a highly criticized social media post, Trump attributed the deaths to “the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.”
But while Reiner, a blistering critic of the president, disagreed with many conservatives on policy, he also worked to build relationships with them — in media and entertainment circles, the California State Capitol, and beyond.
Actors Alec Baldwin and James Woods listen to director Rob Reiner in between scenes for the 1996 film “Ghosts Of Mississippi.”
(Columbia Pictures via Getty Images)
Actor James Woods, a longtime Trump supporter, said in a Fox News interview this week that Reiner saved his career by casting him in the 1996 film “Ghosts of Mississippi” over studio objections. He called Reiner “a great patriot” with whom he shared a mutual respect despite myriad political disagreements.
Andrew Kolvet, a spokesman for conservative powerhouse Turning Point USA, wrote on X that he “shared approximately zero in common with Rob Reiner politically, but I am so saddened by this news” and praying that “justice would be swift and without conspiracies [sic] theories.”
Kolvet said Reiner “responded with grace and compassion” to the September killing of TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk — a violent end that Reiner said nobody deserved, regardless of their views.
Hard-right Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, of Georgia, called the deaths “a family tragedy, not about politics or political enemies.” And GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, of Texas, wrote on X that “The Princess Bride” was his favorite film and called Reiner “a comedic and story-telling master.”
Off screen, Reiner had a unique ability to connect with people of all persuasions, in various mediums, at the top of their careers or just starting. He was very much influenced by Norman Lear, the creator of “All in the Family,” who blended his Hollywood career with progressive activism.
Similar to Lear, Reiner didn’t just dabble in social causes and campaigns. He launched them, led them and brought people aboard. “He wasn’t building an operation the way Hollywood typically does, making donations, hosting fundraisers,” said Ben Austin, a former aide to Reiner who worked in the White House during the Clinton administration.
And all the time, he did it while making movies, some of them deeply personal, intertwined with his life as a parent.
Reiner was the driving force behind the successful 1998 California ballot measure, Proposition 10, a landmark policy that put a tax on tobacco products and pumped billions of dollars into preschools, teacher training, and support for struggling families. He enlisted help in that effort from such beloved figures as Steven Spielberg, Robin Williams and his own father, comedy legend Carl Reiner.
After the initiative passed, Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, appointed the younger Reiner chairman of the First 5 commission overseeing disbursement of the funds.
Rob Reiner co-founded the group that would help overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in California.
(Los Angeles Times)
And in 2009, Reiner co-founded the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which led the successful legal fight to overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage in California. The group hired legal luminaries from opposite sides of the political spectrum to overturn the ballot measure: the conservative former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and litigator David Boies, a liberal who squared off against Olson in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that gave George W. Bush the presidency in 2000.
Former Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, a Democrat, said in an interview Wednesday that Reiner successfully rallied people to the cause because he was so adept at humanizing the stories of the plaintiffs and other same-sex couples — and emphasizing love.
“I don’t think you can overstate how influential he was at the national, state and local level and how well-liked he was,” Garcetti said. “Politics and movies share this in common: They both need good stories … and he was such a gifted storyteller.”
Garcetti said that while many celebrities lend money and faces to political causes, prettying up political mailers and email blasts, “Rob built those causes. He wasn’t like the frosting on the cake. He actually was the baker.”
Garcetti, then a Los Angeles City Council member, joined Reiner in stumping for 2004 Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean, for whom the director was an early backer. Garcetti crossed paths with him often, including during the push to overturn Proposition 8 — and at the Los Angeles City Hall wedding of Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, two of the plaintiffs in the federal case that struck it down.
Katami wrote in an Instagram post this week that Reiner and his wife “stood with us in court for 4.5 years” and that he and his husband sat at the couple’s table in their home many times.
Rob Reiner chats in 2012 with Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, plaintiffs in the case that struck down Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.
(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)
“Because of them, they were able to sit at our table, at our wedding, on a day and in a moment that would not exist without their belief in who we are and how we love,” Katamami wrote.
He added: “They are brave. They are funny. They are generous. They are deeply human. And they make everyone around them feel seen, protected, and encouraged to be more fully themselves.”
Former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat now running for California governor, officiated Katami and Zarrillo’s wedding. He said in an interview that Reiner personally bankrolled much of the legal fight because he genuinely believed it was the right thing to do.
In 2008, Villaraigosa kicked off his successful reelection campaign with a private reception at the Reiners’ home.
“You know, the one thing about Rob Reiner: There was no pretense,” Villaraigosa said. “If you go to his house … he’s a very wealthy man — he has been a director, an actor, co-founder of Castle Rock Entertainment — and yet his house was like a home. It wasn’t a mansion. It was like a ranch-style house, very homey.”
Rob Reiner hugs then-Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in January 2015. The director had just introduced Villaraigosa at a school as the mayor kicked off his Leadership Tour highlighting his support for universal preschool.
(Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)
Villaraigosa and others said Reiner had a granular knowledge of the policies he supported, garnering the respect — if not always the affection — of those with whom he disagreed.
Gale Kaufman, a veteran Democratic strategist who was a longtime advisor to the influential California Teachers Assn., clashed with Reiner over education policy but admired his commitment to — and knowledge about — the issue.
Kaufman told The Times this week that she was amazed by “his attention to detail and his dogged determination that he was right.”
“This was not just someone giving you a pot of money and saying, ‘Go do this.’ This was a guy who was … in every piece of it.”
Cinematographer Reed Morano was one of several in Hollywood whose career soared because of Reiner.
In the late 2000s, Morano was known for filming low-budget projects — often in a gritty, hand-held style. Many of them premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, including the Oscar-nominated “Frozen River.”
In the early 2010s, Morano got a chance to pitch her talents to Reiner and producer Alan Greisman, who were assembling a team to shoot 2012’s “The Magic of Belle Isle,” starring Morgan Freeman and Virginia Madsen and directed by Reiner.
Barely 15 minutes after leaving the meeting, Morano got a call telling her she had the job.
“The thing that strikes me is he could have had anybody he wanted,” said Morano on a call Tuesday from New York City, noting that “Belle Isle” was the biggest budget project she had worked on up to that point. “It’s just he was so open-minded and so forward-thinking, and I think he could see potential that other people couldn’t see.”
Morano then handled cinematography for Reiner’s “And So It Goes,” starring Michael Douglas and Diane Keaton, released to 2014. Reiner, she said, also wanted her to work on “Being Charlie,” the 2015 addiction drama co-written by his son Nick, but she was unable to because of scheduling conflicts. Separately from Reiner, she would go on to win an Emmy in 2017 for directing on the series “The Handmaid’s Tale” and a prize at Sundance for her second film as director, 2018’s “I Think We’re Alone Now.”
A decade before Morano connected with Reiner, Michael Trujillo, now a veteran campaign consultant, went to work for him as a young communications and policy aide for First 5. He was in his early 20s and was stunned to learn he would be working steps from Reiner’s office in the Beverly Hills headquarters of his legendary Castle Rock Entertainment.
Rob Reiner speaks in 1998 to a child development policy group about Proposition 10, which added sales tax to tobacco products to fund early childhood education.
(Robert Durell / Los Angeles Times)
“I show up to Castle Rock Entertainment as a 22-year-old, in Beverly Hills, off Maple Drive. I’m just a Mexican kid from the northeast San Fernando Valley. My dad was a construction worker. My mom was a secretary … and I’m like, ‘What the f— am I doing here?” Trujillo said with a laugh.
Castle Rock, he said, was simultaneously a Hollywood hot spot and “a classroom in politics.” Trujillo said he once played office golf — blue cardboard for water hazards; brown paper for sand traps — with actors Christopher Guest and Eugene Levy while the movie “A Mighty Wind” was being edited. Politicians were always there, too.
Trujillo regularly joined Reiner on his once-a-month flights from Santa Monica to Sacramento for First Five commission meetings and tagged along to news conferences and school classrooms. He usually carried a Sharpie, knowing fans would show up with DVDs or VHS tapes of their favorite Reiner flicks to be signed.
“Rob was able to have conversations with anyone and everyone,” Trujillo said. “If you’re a Republican or Democratic legislator nationally, or even local or in the state, you were still a fanboy. You still wanted to meet his character from ‘All in the Family.’ You still wanted to shake the hand of the guy that made ‘Princess Bride.’ You still wanted to talk to the guy that made ‘A Few Good Men.’”