BART Director Tom Radulovich.
Photo by Luke Thomas
By Luke Thomas
December 17, 2009
FCJ reported in October BART Board Director Tom Radulovich is considering throwing his hat into the 2010 race for District 8 Supervisor. Â He has now confirmed he will not run and will, instead, throw his support behind Board of Appeals Commissioner Rafael Mandelman.
“I have decided not to run,” Radulovich told FCJ. “I am enthusiastically supporting Rafael.”
Radulovich previously ran in 2002 for the open District 8 supervisor seat vacated by then Supervisor Mark Leno. He placed third with 19.26 percent of the vote before a runoff between Supervisor Bevan Dufty and San Francisco Ethics Commissioner Eileen Hansen.
Luke Thomas
Luke Thomas is a former software developer and computer consultant who proudly hails from London, England. In 2001, Thomas took a yearlong sabbatical to travel and develop a photographic portfolio. Upon his return to the US, Thomas studied photojournalism to pursue a career in journalism. In 2004, Thomas worked for several neighborhood newspapers in San Francisco before accepting a partnership agreement with the SanFranciscoSentinel.com, a news website formerly covering local, state and national politics. In September 2006, Thomas launched FogCityJournal.com. The BBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, New York Times, Der Spiegel, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Magazine, 7x7, San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Bay Guardian and the San Francisco Weekly, among other publications and news outlets, have published his work. Thomas is a member of the Freelance Unit of the Pacific Media Workers Guild, TNG-CWA Local 39521 and is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Follow Me:
The Hunger Site
December 22, 2009 at 9:37 am
Dear Patrick Monk,
Thanks for your sweet greeting above. I always enjoy seeing feelings like these dumped on others in the name of human compassion.
Best wishes to you for a happy and healthy New Year.
December 21, 2009 at 9:45 pm
RUHTRA
Cant you feel sweet Harry and John ripping off your tarnished faery wings. Have you joined those who have become so conservative, chubby, complacent and comfortable that they have forgotten the struggles we are still fighting for equality for all; including young gay mouthy street punks who are just looking for a safe place to rest awhile; pigmentally or socio-economically challenged; blah – blah; or yadda-yadda; whatever works for you.
Do you remember when – you weren’t – “IN”.
December 21, 2009 at 11:14 am
Greg,
I remain enamored of your ‘first’ creation (IRV). Downtown interests will certainly have at least a half dozen candidates in the D-6 race. Expect dopelgangers for every Prog entry. All this effort to put all our eggs in one basket in every race doesn’t work for me.
Great set of columns today by the way, Luke. Longer to read Fog City than the Chron and Ex. combined.
Happy holidays by the way to all including our grinches.
h.
December 21, 2009 at 10:02 am
Well, they’ll stone ya when you’re trying to be so good,
They’ll stone ya just a-like they said they would.
They’ll stone ya when you’re tryin’ to go home.
Then they’ll stone ya when you’re there all alone.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
Well, they’ll stone ya when you’re walkin’ ‘long the street.
They’ll stone ya when you’re tryin’ to keep your seat.
They’ll stone ya when you’re walkin’ on the floor.
They’ll stone ya when you’re walkin’ to the door.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
They’ll stone ya when you’re at the breakfast table.
They’ll stone ya when you are young and able.
They’ll stone ya when you’re tryin’ to make a buck.
They’ll stone ya and then they’ll say, “good luck.”
Tell ya what, I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
Well, they’ll stone you and say that it’s the end.
Then they’ll stone you and then they’ll come back again.
They’ll stone you when you’re riding in your car.
They’ll stone you when you’re playing your guitar.
Yes, but I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
Well, they’ll stone you when you walk all alone.
They’ll stone you when you are walking home.
They’ll stone you and then say you are brave.
They’ll stone you when you are set down in your grave.
But I would not feel so all alone,
Everybody must get stoned.
December 21, 2009 at 8:37 am
In a post above, Marc says:
“Everybody must get stoned.”
This is the comment that you will be remembered for.
Other comments that other SF progressives will be remembered for are these:
“Fuck you, bitch!” (Chris Daly)
“Payback is a bitch” (Aaron Peskin)
“Kiss my gay ass!” (Tom Ammiano)
For the sake of the city and also human decency, I sincerely hope that Rafael Mandelman will rise above this level in his quest to become the supe from district eight.
December 20, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Ditto, Ann.
December 20, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Arthur, I would not feel so all alone. Everybody must get stoned.
-marc
December 20, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Tom Radulovich has stood out, among public figures at all levels, in my mind, since, months back, amidst all the blather about green jobs, he said he wished we were talking about creating social value, rather than jobs for the sake of jobs.
I’m sure that’s not an exact quote, but close enough, and it told me that he questions the cultural, and infrastructural, hell that has us trapped in a spiral of war and environmental destruction—the deification of economic growth, for it’s own sake. More stuff, more jobs, more money. Even if they’re “green jobs” producing green stuff, we’ve always gotta have more, for their own sake, and “jobs” leads “green,” as in the Sunset Reservoir corporate solar debacle.
I’m sorry to see the only politician I know to have raised the most fundamental issue, even in the worst recession since the Great Depression, leave the race. One might ask what he possibly could have proposed to encourage cultural/infrastructural transformation, at a municipal level, but, what’s anyone going to propose at a federal, or state, level now? We’re in such a hole now that I’m sitting here reading this and responding, out of habit as much as despair.
That said, sure I’ll vote for Rafael Mandelman, not knowing much except that he’s my friends’ candidate of choice, and, that Scott Wiener opposed a Democratic County Central Committee resolution calling on Nancy Pelosi to call on Obama to propose an exit strategy before she gave him any more money for the Af-Pak War.
December 20, 2009 at 11:59 am
In a post above, marc says:
“We’ll leave the finger wagging to Arthur.”
What? Marc Salomon leave the finger-wagging to someone else?
Would we expect the pope to leave making the sign of the cross to someone else?
Jokes aside, there’s a serious issue here:
If Rafael Mandelman acts like one of the typical Pharisees that we find among the Greens or the Milk Clubbers, he will go down to defeat.
But if comes across as a real person, in the style of Harvey Milk, he will have a chance.
Don’t stone the messenger for delivering the message.
December 20, 2009 at 9:40 am
“The worst possible thing that Mandelamn could do is wag his finger in everyone’s face, in the typical SF progressive tradition, and claim to be the vanguard of progress, superior to everyone else on all the issues.”
We’ll leave the finger wagging to Arthur.
-marc
December 20, 2009 at 7:40 am
Bottom line: less choices = less democracy. If you can’t find a way to appeal to enough voters in order to win, it’s your own fucking fault that you are a sucky candidate.
December 19, 2009 at 11:55 pm
h,
I worked on 2002’s Prop A. In fact, I pushed IRV for my college’s elections when I was a student, long before I ever heard the name IRV. In fact, in my naivete, I thought I invented the thing! And I love it just as much now as I did then.
But, knowing the ins and outs of how IRV works, I also know its limitations. Fact is, you’ll never be everyone’s second choice. There will *always* be vote scatter. For one thing, some people just bullet-vote. For another, some voters find it hard enough to decide who to vote for #1, let alone #2 and 3. Not most perhaps, but enough. Plus -and this is important -ethnic and gender affinity trumps ideological affinity in second and third choice rankings.
This is one reason the Sue Lee -Alicia Wang combo worked much better than the secondary conservative candidates did for Lillian Sing. But still, Sue Lee got maybe 70% of Alicia’s votes. Not enough. Had it not been for just enough IRV-induced vote-scatter, Sue Lee and not Eric Mar would have been the supervisor from the Richmond.
(And BTW, I’m only saying all this because the other side has already figured this out. Latterman has pretty much indicated as much in his analyses)
IRV is terrific for many reasons, not just for progressives, but for the city as a whole. But if you think it gives progressives license to run multiple candidates against one strong conservative, that would be a disasterous miscalculation.
December 19, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I disagree,
Y’all are tossing aside IRV after pushing it for so many years. I prefer 3 strong Progs with divergent bases in every district contest. Being ‘everyone’s second choice’ isn’t such a bad position.
On Hansen, I went to her campaign headquarters with the City Editor of a major daily and they made us (her little, yes Marc they were all ladies, cadre) … they made us wait outside on the street while they decided if they’d talk to us. We left.
Her staff lost her that race by being exclusionary.
h.
December 19, 2009 at 3:05 pm
In an earlier post, marc salomon says:
“D8 residents are concerned about BOTH the efficient, non-corrupt delivery of city services AND taking care of the least fortunate amongst us. Rafael is the only candidate in the race with the credentials on both of those…”
You’re entitled to your belief on this point. However, Rafael Mandelman has not yet convinced the voters that he is superior to everyone else on all the issues, as you believe.
And if he bases his campaign strategy on such an effort, he will lose. Any candidate who comes across as saying “I’m the only one who combines all the necessary credentials” will turn off the voters.
That was the same tactic used by Eileen Hansen and her supporters. It made her appear doctrinaire and elitist. The voters are tired of self-righteous, finger-wagging hype.
Mandelman is affable and intelligent. A better tactic for him would be to draw on these strengths.
That is, he should focus on concrete issues of concern to the voters. He should address them in a low-key, congenial way that is respectful both of other candidates and of undecided voters.
The worst possible thing that Mandelamn could do is wag his finger in everyone’s face, in the typical SF progressive tradition, and claim to be the vanguard of progress, superior to everyone else on all the issues.
This approach won’t work anymore. Chris Daly and his imitators have over-used it. The voters are sick of it.
December 19, 2009 at 10:53 am
Hey Arthur, do us a favor and nudge the needle on the gramophone.
Thanks,
Happy Holidays!
December 19, 2009 at 10:52 am
Arthur, D8 residents are concerned about BOTH the efficient, non-corrupt delivery of city services AND taking care of the least fortunate amongst us.
Rafael is the only candidate in the race with the credentials on both of those while his major opponents are closely associated with those in the City’s executive branch who are most responsible for the problems you mention in this strong mayor system.
Ironically, it could be that Dufty’s good relationship with Newsom and the services thus lavished on D8 by Newsom over the past six years to buff up Bevan could lessen the significance of QofL issues for D8 residents in this election. If Newsom’s people read this and cut off services to resuscitate the problem, then that reflects poorly on candidates identified as closer to Newsom.
-marc
December 19, 2009 at 10:39 am
No candidate for supe in district eight can win who antagonizes voters who are concerned about quality-of-life issues. The candidates don’t necessarily have to win over these voters, but they can’t afford to antagonize them.
This is is the big lesson of Eileen Hansen’s run in 2002 and of the disastrous later run of Alix Rosenthal, who said she wanted to make SF more “freaky” (I kid you not).
Even if Rafael Mandelman has learned this lesson, I doubt that he will be able to rein in his core supporters, especially the Green Party ideologues and the Milk Clubbers.
These folks go out of their way to scoff at residents who want to make their neighborhoods safe, clean, and peaceful. They do so even when such scoffing undermines the chances of the candidates whom they support. They can’t seem to help themselves.
So I predict that Mandelman will do very well among the Greens and the Milk Clubbers but will lose out in the end to candidates who are respectful of voters with quality-of-life concerns.
December 19, 2009 at 8:27 am
Alan, I thought it was someone else higher up in the campaign of a different gender than ours, if memory serves.
-marc
December 18, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Eileen Hansen lost to Bevan Dufty in 2002 because she turned her back on, and scoffed at, residents who were concerned about quality-of-life issues in district eight.
She and many of her supporters believed that it was ideologically incorrect for residents to want their neighborhoods to be safe, clean, and peaceful.
Bevan Dufty, on the other hand, listened respectfully. He conveyed a sense of neighborhood pride that was missing from Eileen Hansen.
The constituencies in district eight who care most about crime and grime are older gay men who have lived in the neighborhood a long time, women in general, and parents (whether gay or straight) who have young children.
There is a significant percentage of voters who fall into these categories.
So far, Rafael Mandelman has given no indication that he has learned from Eileen Hansen’s mistakes. In effect, Mandelman is advertising himself as the progressive alternative and not as the voice for all.
If Mandelman continues in this vein, he will share Hansen’s fate of winning the progressives and losing the rest.
That’s not good enough.
December 18, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I agree with Pat and Marc that it is good that Tom is bowing out and supporting Rafael, but I want to respond to Marc’s comments. I was the one in Eileen Hansen’s office who, when Marc walked in, blurted out, “The enemy!” It was a joke and I thought I said it in a joking manner. I guess I was figuring I could say that and have it understood as a joke since Marc and I were perhaps not close friends, but at least political friends. I had plenty of other friends in the Radulovich camp, such as Matt Gonzalez, and never felt any of them were “enemies” though perhaps rivals. In fact, in that campaign we never much focused on Tom. We were focused primarily on Bevan, who had the lion’s share of the support Mark Leno had had when Eileen ran against him earlier.
In retrospect, I guess I just need to learn when to keep my mouth shut!
December 18, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Tom made the right decision, thanks to him for putting the welfare of others first and making the best thoughtful, difficult choice.
Went to visit Eileen’s campaign before the November 2002 election to discuss how important it was to run a progressive D8 campaign that can appeal in D8 instead of a progressive D6 campaign in D8, as that crowd tends to most always fight the last war.
Supporting Tom but never seeing Eileen as the enemy, and with Tom’s campaign stuck in low gear (bicycle gear, not car), I was surprised that certain Hansen operatives freaked out when I came by because someone who was supporting “the enemy” was in the house.I think we came to agree that the guy with the goatee (Don’t think Dufty had one at the time) was not the enemy. Coffee was never had during the runoff, and some of the thinking that would manifest in Gonzalez’ trouncing of Newsom in D8 in 2003 not shared.
That approach, hopefully a thing of the past, is in my estimation why progressives did not take D8 in 2002, more so than the presence of Tom in the race, because that approach alienates a significant percentage of Tom’s voters that might have been mistaken for supporters.
Not sure if there are hard and fast rules about “spoiling,” but 2002 did teach us that diluting our forces can indeed bring significant impediments to advancing our agenda, and that we need to think through the ramifications beforehand in a way that perhaps was not evident in 2002.
I think Rafael Mandelman is well on his way to bringing together average D8 residents as well as less fortunate San Franciscans around areas of common interest towards building a progressive and liberal electoral coalition, reminiscent of Moscone, and that will contrast favorably with the rest of the field.
-marc
December 18, 2009 at 9:37 am
That is very good news. I just wish he had shown the same foresight and concern for the general good back in ’02. Think what a difference that would have made over the last five disatrous years if Eileen had been on the Bored of Supes. Oh well, spilt milk and corporate consolidation…carry on chaps.