The San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee held its all-important endorsements meeting last eve. File photo by Luke Thomas.
By Greg Kamin
Author’s Note: One person’s opinionated, snarky, and (somewhat) accurate observations of last eve’s all-important DCCC endorsement votes.
August 12, 2010
In a one party-town, the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC) is arguably the most important endorsement of all. We’ll all get the results in our mailboxes later (well, at least those of us who are registered Democrats), but die-hard political junkies like myself aren’t content with that. We want to see the political theater, the results of the backroom deal-making, and the nitty-gritty breakdown of the numbers – not just who won and who lost, but who back-stabbed, who got thrown under the bus, who covered their rear, etc.
So on August 11th, a couple hundred people packed themselves into the smallest possible room for the biggest meeting of the year to get an up close and personal look at the machinations of the local Democratic Party. Unlike some in the standing room only crowd at the Local 2 headquarters, I got lucky and snagged one of the uncomfortable chairs, and sat for all three hours so you didn’t have to. This is what I saw…
John Burton’s Iron Curtain Election protection racket
The Guardian did a good job covering the backstory to this, but basically, the State Democratic Party joined the established legal elite in twisting the arms of the local DCCC to try and get them to rescind their endorsement of Michael Nava, in order to give Republican-turned-DTS judge Richard Ulmer an easier time getting elected.
Um… yeah. It’s every bit as bad as it sounds. The rationale seems to be that incumbent judges shouldn’t have to face opponents for re-election. Back when I lived in the Soviet Union, they had elections where you only had one candidate, and (surprise surprise) that candidate always won. But last time I checked, the Iron Curtain came down, and this is not the Soviet Politburo.
Former California Senator Carole Migden and Attorney Bill Fazio, who squeaked into 12th place on the west side, had requested a re-vote, on the somewhat specious reasoning that they didn’t have a chance to participate the first time. Migden spoke first, repeating the assertion that incumbent judges should be given the benefit of the doubt. But boy, was team Nava ready for them!
Supervisor David Campos gave one of his most eloquent and passionate speeches ever. The audience repeatedly applauded. La Raza Lawyers Foundation was in the house. Alice B. Toklas Club members were on hand to lend support. By the time DCCC member Arlo Hale Smith started speaking in favor of keeping the endorsement, it was pretty clear that the coup had failed. Ever the politician, Fazio then got up, carefully backpedaled and explained why his asking for a re-vote really didn’t mean that he wanted a re-vote, said that he’d be voting ‘no’ on his own request, and basically threw Carole Migden – squirming in her seat by this point – under the bus. In the end, only she voted yes to have a re-vote. Anyone who was initially inclined to go along had run for cover. As well they should, because the whole thing was shameful from the start, in my humble opinion.
On to the juicy stuff – the Supe course
District 2
I got an email from the Janet Reilly campaign a few days ago. It said she was still in the D2 Supervisor race. I would have liked to see a stronger commitment – like “I’m in it till the end” or “I’m in it to win” instead of just “I’m still in the race.” But still, that was good enough for the DCCC. The vote for Reilly was surprisingly lopsided, with moderates seemingly abandoning their longtime rubber stamp, incumbent Supervisor Michaela Alioto Pier. Twenty-seven of 33 votes for Reilly, Fazio and Speaker Nancy Pelosi going No Endorsement (NE), Migden voting for District 2 challenger Cat Anderson (who?), Tom Hsieh and Scott Weiner abstaining, and Mary Jung casting the lone vote for Alioto-Pier. They even refused to give Alioto-Pier a #2 endorsement!
Which makes me wonder, is there a deal? Will Reilly pull out if the City Attorney’s appeal fails? I really hope not, because that district deserves a choice. If she does pull out now, it won’t look very good for Reilly. It will look like she made a backroom deal, even if there was none.
District 4
No surprises here. All went for Chu, except Campos, Michael Goldstein, and Assemblymember Tom Ammiano who abstained, and Eric Quezada who voted no endorsement. Good for him! I know there’s only one viable candidate (which is a travesty in and of itself), but with a candidate like that, I’d rather vote for a fire hydrant.
District 6
School Board President Jane Kim made a big push for this one. Her young male supporters were handing out lit pieces to all who entered the room, with a picture of a very photogenic Jane along with a caption saying “Our Time is Now.” But it was just not happening. A spirited attempt by Supervisor John Avalos’s proxy for a dual endorsement failed, and 18 votes for Debra Walker secured the endorsement.
3 for Kim – David Chiu, Bill Fazio (of all people!), and Sandra Lee-Fewer
6 for Theresa Sparks – Mayor Gavin Newsom, California Senator Mark Leno, Pelosi, Scott Weiner, Smith, and Jung
4 No endorsement – Hseih, Melanie Nutter, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Assemblymember Fiona Ma
2 Abstentions -Congresswoman Jackie Speier and District Attorney Kamala Harris
I suspect some of the no endorsement and abstention votes were “cya (cover your rear)” votes by politicians too chicken to reveal their real positions when they know they’re going to lose.
But team Kim wasn’t done yet. A push for a #2 endorsement was led by her strongest supporter, Board of Supervisors President David Chiu (I’ll leave it to the rumor mill as to why). But Campos, eloquent as usual, argued that Debra Walker should get the sole endorsement. After all, why Kim and not any one of a number of terrific candidates in the D6 field? Goldstein argued that if he were to vote for a second endorsement, he’d want it to go to someone who had lived more than 2 years in the district. The argument being that when you move to the district, you should get to know it for a few years, as opposed to running for supervisor… well, “Now,” as Jane’s mail piece alludes to.
Kim picked up a few votes in two subsequent ballots. I got the distinct impression that a couple of the moderates, particularly those who switched from Sparks to Kim, were doing so not because they wanted to endorse Kim, but for strategic or just plain spiteful reasons to trip up Walker. But in the end it was not enough, and Kim was shut out. Visibly angry, she didn’t stay in the room much longer.
District 8
Rumor had it that Rafael Mandleman didn’t have the votes outright going into the DCCC tonight, and that a deal had been struck for Rebecca Prozan to get the #2 position. But in a sign of just how weak the moderate/conservative faction has become, those who wanted someone other than Mandleman chose to vote no endorsement instead of naming a candidate. Cop-out! But whatever, Mandelman secured the first-place nomination with 18 affirmative votes, all but 2 (Senator Leeland Yee and Ammiano) coming from the elected members. Would it really kill Pelosi, Leno, or Speier to endorse just one progressive, just one time in their lives?
After the first vote, Scott Weiner congratulated Mandelman, made it clear that he was still running his race and intended to win, and said that he would not be seeking the Democratic Party endorsement. Once progressives started voting for Rebecca Prozan for #2, it was clear that a deal had indeed been done.
But one has to feel a bit sorry for Scott Weiner. All those years currying favor with the Chamber of Commerce, developers and the downtown party elite, only to get shut out like that. He definitely got outmaneuvered. As for this whole ‘not seeking the party endorsement’ thing, it’s a case of sour grapes of course. But officially, Scott Weiner is now the one major Democratic candidate who neither sought nor wanted the endorsement of the party. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t look good any way you spin it!
District 10
Continued till Sept. 8th. Stay tuned!
Time to De-Fang BART?
The election for BART Board is interesting in the fact that San Francisco’s only out Republican officeholder still sits there. What’s even more interesting is that James Fang never seems to get a strong opponent, and the Democratic party establishment kisses his wealthy behind. But even when some third-party unknown runs against him, they get at least 35 percent of the vote. That’s a huge chunk actually. Well, this year, another unknown is running against him -some guy named Hill, except this year there’s a “D” behind his name. Seems to be a good guy. DCCC member Alix Rosenthal eased people’s concerns about his viability, saying that with the DCCC endorsement, he’s viable. Given how the other elections turned out, that’s actually probably true. Even Fazio agreed that if we’re Democrats, might as well vote for the Democrat. I’m sure we’ll be seeing Fazio run for office, the way he’s been voting today. Anyway, Hill got it with 20 votes.
3 Abs -Yee, Leno, Speier
10 NE (mostly Fang people who didn’t want to say so): Hseih, Jung, Katz, Smith, Weiner, Feinstein, Pelosi, Newsom, Harris, Ma. Such loyal Democrats! Peskin gives moderates Newsom and Harris DCCC seats without a fight, and they can’t even bring themselves to vote against a conservative Republican on the BART Board. How ’bout we go NE on the Lt. Governor’s race?
Community College Board
Not much drama in a race with 3 candidates for 3 seats. All endorsed.
Props for the Props (names named to keep folks accountable)
AA -Citywide Vehicle Registration Fee –YES -29 in favor, only Hseih and Smith voting no. Pelosi and Speier abstained.
A -Retrofit Bond –YES by acclamation
B -City Retirement and Health Plans (the Adachi measure) overwhelming NO. Only Hseih, Jung, Smith, and Feinstein voted NE. Cowards! I don’t believe for a minute that any of these four are really not voting one way or the other.
C -Mayor’s mandatory question time, round 2 -20 YES, 12 NO, 1 Abs, pretty much along ideological lines.
D -Non-citizen voting in School Board elections 23 YES. Hseih, Jung, Smith, and Ma No. Feinstein and Fazio NE, and Abs from Newsom, Harris, Speier, and Pelosi. Starting to see some patterns in the names?
E -Election Day voter registration for local races -29 YES and the rest Abs
F -Health Service Board Elections -changes proposed by Elsbernd and opposed by labor. 20 No. Strangely, though, the rest didn’t break down by party lines. Ammiano and Chiu joined Leno, Feinstein and Weiner to vote Yes.
G -Muni wages -I think this is another one of Elsbernd’s little jabs at city workers. NE won the day with 16 out of 30 votes (3 abstentions didn’t count for the total).
H -Newsom’s hypocritical attempt to throw progressives off the DCCC if they’re also elected to something else locally -25 NO. 5 yes (Hseih, Jung, Feinstein, Newsom, and Ma). Of course -who else? Pelosi abstained, along with Melanie Nutter (that valued member of the progressive slate!) Smith went NE
I -Saturday voting. Good concept, but I have my questions about this particular measure. So did Goldstein, Haaland, and strangely Newsom. Everybody else voted YES.
J -Hotel tax temporary increase -25 YES, 4 No (Newsom, Feinstein, Weiner, and Smith), 2 NE (Hseih and Jung), 2 Abs (Pelosi and Nutter, that great fair-weather progressive)
K -Hotel tax poison pill proposed by Newsom -pretty much the reverse of the vote on J. 25 NO. 5 yes, 1 NE, 2 Abs
L -Sit-Lie. Oh boy. Unfortunately I missed some of the count because they’d gone from a roll call vote to a complicated hand count thing, and to make matters worse, Warren Hinckle was braying something in what appeared to be a drunken stupor in back of me, so I couldn’t hear everything. But this piece of garbage was in fact voted down with 20 NO. The usual suspects voted yes. Melanie Nutter abstained. OK… I know everyone likes her bubbly personality, but please! Can anyone tell me why she ran on the progressive slate, if she can’t even bring herself to vote against Sit-Lie?
M -Community policing/foot patrols -21 YES. 8 members were against community policing -Fewer (whose husband is a cop), the dynamic duo Hseih and Jung, Katz, Weiner (ding ding ding -CAMPAIGN PIECE FOR HIS OPPONENTS), Feinstein, Newsom, and Harris. Speier abstained. And so did… Nutter.
N -Real estate tax 26 YES.
And finally, Prop 19, the statewide marijuana legalization prop that the state party failed to take a position on (FAIL being the operative word here) -surprisingly, YES with 27 votes. That included every single elected member, including Hseih and Jung, whom Peskin even asked to make sure. Plus Yee, Leno, and Ammiano. The only people who didn’t want to take a position or voted No, were our illustrious elected officials, they of the permanent DCCC seats.
Two things I noticed…
1. The elected officals who don’t have to run for DCCC but have permanent voting status are very much out of step with the members of the DCCC that the people of San Francisco actually voted for to represent them on their party committee. I’ve harped on this point before, but this evening makes it clear how much something really needs to change. At the very least, get rid of their proxies so that Newsom and Feinstein and all the rest have to actually physically come down and face the people and take a public stand. If they care that much, let them come down and vote rather than hide behind proxies in a cowardly manner. The act of physically seeing their constituents stare back at them taking some of those stands at odds with the people of this city might move them to vote differently. Or alternatively, if they really don’t care to take time off from their busy fundraising schedules, then don’t vote on the DCCC!
2. This whole tendency to vote NE or abstain if your side is going to lose. I’m sorry, but it’s irritating. Just cut the bull and tell people how you really feel. And if you’re really sitting on the fence on important issues, or you just want to keep your vote secret, then maybe you shouldn’t be running for a public position on a body whose main purpose is to take positions!
Just my two cents.
The Hunger Site
September 8, 2010 at 9:49 pm
That’s Kat Anderson, and I have been running for D2 supervisor since last October. I even met Luke on July 23 at the Dept. of Elections when he came out to interview MAP when she pulled her papers.
http://www.katanderson.net
August 17, 2010 at 7:00 pm
@Greg: You say, “With a vote by acclamation at their last meeting, they took away the right of the state Democratic Party Chair to have a vote. Just like that. In reality, it would probably be next to impossible to do the same to the elected officials, and there may be state party rules that preclude that.”
Not sure why you say it would be next to impossible unless there is indeed a state party rule, and it must be fairly easy to figure out whether or not there is.
August 17, 2010 at 10:28 am
Point in case,
At last evening’s CBD sponsored D-6 forum the 5 invited candidates had no problem rationalizing leaving their poorer fellow candidates shunned (10 of us). In favor of a consortium of Downtown interests who illegally used tax exempt money to buy wine and food and security and a space and ads for the elitist event. If they’ll sell out as candidates, how will they do as electeds? Shit, they’re already co-opted.
Go Giants!
h.
August 17, 2010 at 9:02 am
@Greg, progressives once upon a time wanted to dismantle the Kaufman strong mayor form of government and replace it with a system of checks and balances involving both elected branches of government.
That has been abandoned, and now all that we are left with is the pushing of the merry go round, operating as best they can under the strong mayor, pro-corporate form of government.
Unless you’re an elected, a nonprofiteer, or one of the few San Franciscans to benefit from social services provided by city funded nonprofits, then there is nothing in this project for you.
Just like Obama has abandoned his electoral coalition in favor of a different governing coalition, San Francisco progressives have abandoned their electoral coalition in favor of a different governing coalition.
Good luck with that.
-marc
August 16, 2010 at 11:14 pm
@Ann,
I believe they do have the power to change the rules. With a vote by acclamation at their last meeting, they took away the right of the state Democratic Party Chair to have a vote. Just like that. In reality, it would probably be next to impossible to do the same to the elected officials, and there may be state party rules that preclude that. But they could, in fact, take away their rights to vote by proxy (which the Guardian has argued for as well). That would have the same effect in reality, because I can’t see Dianne Feinstein taking a break from war profiteering and fundraising to come vote on the little old San Francisco DCCC.
And btw, my view isn’t quite as pessimistic as Erika’s or Marc’s. Our priorities are pretty screwed up as a nation. And yes, people become compromised and corrupted by power.
But the achievements of the progressive movement in San Francisco are not insignificant, and they are worth fighting for. And it matters who is elected. And this, btw, is why I’ve remained a Democrat. I don’t always agree with the party dogs. I proudly served as a district coordinator for the Matt Gonzalez campaign. But I’ve always remained a Democrat, because the Democratic party machinery in San Francisco is very powerful, and I don’t want to cede that party machinery entirely to the agents of the corporatocracy.
August 16, 2010 at 11:10 am
Erika,
The supes greatest power is the ability to put things on the ballot. Watching David Chiu trade them away was pretty telling as regards David Chiu.
The best idea for SFPD reform comes from Sheriff Mike Hennessey. He says that if we really want police reform we should make the Police Chief an elected official. That way if they refuse to do things like actually do Foot Patrols we can vote them out til we get one who will. That’s a good plank for any Progressive platform I’d think:
Make Police Chief and Elected position!
h.
August 16, 2010 at 9:58 am
@Erika: Agree, though I still don’t understand what’s behind the scheming re Walker and/or Walker and the THC/BeyondChron.
@Greg: Despite how futile Erika makes all this sound, does the majority on the D Triple C have the power to change the rules, making all those with voting seats run for them?
Or, as you said, at the very least, making state/national office holders and candidates show up to vote instead of sending proxies?
August 16, 2010 at 8:21 am
@Erika, Greg, those are not my opinions, that Walker was/is not viable, rather my read of the opinions of those who are supporting Kim. Many of them see this as replaying the narrative of Gonzalez 2003. Relating my evaluation of the opinions and positions of others does not mean that those opinions or positions are mine.
I am concerned about district familiarity. That said, length of time working in the district is only successful if a potential supervisor organized community members to advance common goals. Of Meko, Walker and Kim, only Meko has made any measurable progress at that, and as a result, he was owned by the Planning Department that slow walked the WSOMA plan as a reward.
Once upon a time, before Sarah moved the kids to Fairfield, before Chris and Sarah were married, there were those who criticized Chris Daly for moving into D6 within the year prior to his election. Bill Barnes’ response was that none of us had lived in D6 for any length of time because it only came into existence once district elections commenced. Daly had organized D6 residents while not living here.
Matt Gonzalez, likewise, moved from the Mission to D5 in the year prior to his election to the Board of Supervisors.
D6 is not D5, the development pressures exist here that do not exist anywhere else but D10. Kim has no experience with land use conflicts, Meko and Walker do, but not successfully.
Erika: “That said, this discussion seems almost futile to me. Given that SF is broke and will be broke for the foreseeable future, I almost think our elected officials hardly matter anymore. We’ve already seen massive service cuts, and I see no alternative to more of the same.”
Yep, this is why I quit volunteering in politics last month after the nonprofits scuttled MTA reform in order to keep the activist employing poverty maintenance organization sector in business. My time is not best spent making mega chits for people who hate me to use to keep their paychecks flowing from my property tax payments while I’m not working myself. Continuing down that road is just pure self destructive insanity.
As Eric Hoffer famously wrote:
“America has not been a good milieu for the rise of a mass movement. What starts out here as a mass movement ends up as a racket, a cult, or a corporation.”
We are somewhere between racket and cult pimping for all manner of corporations, where the nonprofits and organized labor who are funded to do this kind of work are running the operation into the ground for immediate short term gain. That they continue to get paid, for now, that they do not quit in disgrace or commit suicide as they would in Japan speaks volumes to the rigged nature of this game.
So at a certain level, I want to see Sparks defeated, and if it is true that Brown and Pak are behind and to benefit from Kim, that is most disturbing. But I am not availed of any illusions that Walker or Meko are in any position to challenge the corporate dominance that is converting our district from a diverse place to live into a trustafarian theme camp for hipsters and tech workers.
From the Puff-Ho-garth himself:
“But the progressive machine – and yes, it is a machine – long ago anointed Debra Walker, foreclosing any reasonable chances for another progressive to get the endorsement. When I was planning to run, these insiders told me to wait my turn. But a few offered to help me get the “second-choice” slot at the DCCC. When I saw last night that they didn’t even give that to Kim, I felt punched in the stomach.”
I know that many of us want to punch the Puff Ho in the stomach while relieving the Tenderloin Housing Clinic of tax subsidy to propagandize for more tax subsidy, but the Puff Ho relates the notion of turn taking that prevails amongst the progressive Democrat Party clique.
And seriously, there is very little progressive about Walker or Meko, they’re good liberals. We are fucked.
-marc
August 16, 2010 at 7:43 am
On point…..
RIP.
SUE BIERMAN.
1994. Propostion O.
One place to start.
August 15, 2010 at 10:18 pm
“Had there not been viability issues with Walker, Kim et al would not have entered the race.”
I don’t buy this one bit! I think the race has always been Walker’s to lose. Ammiano/Gonzalez was different. Ammiano had already lost in 1999 against a wildly unpopular Willie Brown.
I’m with Greg on this. Even if you can argue that Walker didn’t appear sufficiently viable, what is the difference between Walker/Kim on the issues? When Gonzalez got into the mayor’s race in 2003, he was able to point to several important votes at the Board of Supes where he differed from Ammiano. The business tax settlement was just one example.
I do differ from Greg in that I don’t think Kim is a spoiler. Anyone has the right to run, and we have had multiple progressives in Supe races before. But, I completely fail to see Kim’s motives for running, other than certain people wanting to deny Walker the seat, as h. has mentioned.
That said, this discussion seems almost futile to me. Given that SF is broke and will be broke for the foreseeable future, I almost think our elected officials hardly matter anymore. We’ve already seen massive service cuts, and I see no alternative to more of the same. Even if the new revenue measures pass, it won’t be enough to improve MUNI or offer affordable housing. The SFPD and the MEA will continue to collect huge paychecks while being utterly unaccountable.
August 15, 2010 at 9:58 pm
@Greg: I just noted the same statement, above, that I believe I edited out of the KPFA News a few times, both to cut the length and because it didn’t make sense:
“The elected officals who don’t have to run for DCCC but have permanent voting status are very much out of step with the members of the DCCC that the people of San Francisco actually voted for to represent them on their party committee.”
Elected officials have “permanent voting status”? By this you mean, of course, state and national elected officials, and, though they do seem like fixtures once they’re incumbent, they’re not formally elected for life and thus do not have “permanent voting status.” May seem like a quibble at this point, but I’d still like to imagine that Nancy Pelosi is not quite royalty.
August 15, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Here’s the KPFA News version of this story, featuring star FCJ writer Greg Kamin himself: http://goo.gl/DRui.
August 15, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Here’s the Sunday, 08.15.2010, KPFA News version of this story, featuring star FCJ writer Greg Kamin himself: http://goo.gl/lCgb.
August 15, 2010 at 1:00 pm
“The words “it is his turn” were used verbatim in 2003.”
I haven’t heard those words uttered once about Debra yet.
“I believe that you overstate Walker’s viability. Had there not been viability issues with Walker, Kim et al would not have entered the race.”
Well, I think we disagree about Walker’s viability. Walker has proven herself a viable candidate in both vote-getting ability (on the DCCC) and in fundraising. But regardless of her viability *per se*, I really don’t think you can make the argument that this is *why* Kim entered the race.
With Matt Gonzalez, it was clearly the reason. He entered the race explicitly because he didn’t want it to go to Newsom, and he saw a danger in that with Ammiano as the progressive “nominee.” It was pretty obvious that he had zero personal ambition in the whole thing. He was doing it -agree or disagree -for the good of the city in his eyes, and that’s what made him such an attractive candidate.
With Kim, I don’t get that sense at all. I see more of a strategic calculation that she believes she can win, so she entered the race. Her slogan says it best -“Our [read: my] time is NOW.” Say what you will about Jane, but I don’t think even her supporters could claim with a straight face that she’s not an extremely ambitious person in terms of personal advancement.
And again, that doesn’t preclude her from being a good supervisor, but I think it’s a qualitatively different motivation than that which propelled Matt Gonzalez to run.
August 15, 2010 at 9:07 am
By “her turn,” I mean that she’s toiled in the fields of the Democrat Party clique for longer than the next one, and by that measure, it is her turn.
There are those who would question whether Gonzalez or Ammiano was actually more viable in 2003. Many who believe that it is Debra’s turn were of that mind back in the day. The words “it is his turn” were used verbatim in 2003. Joe Lynn and I used the “its his/her turn” turn of phrase as a shortcut to describing the progocialite pecking order, ratifying existing political kinship networks as an excuse for not problem solving.
Again, if the Pak/Brown nexus thesis is correct, then Kim’s political coalition would be more friendly to downtown than Daly should Kim win.
I believe that you overstate Walker’s viability. Had there not been viability issues with Walker, Kim et al would not have entered the race.
As far as the individuals in Kim’s progressive activist base that you enumerate go, two of them have records of doing and saying anything and everything in politics for money, win or lose they get paid, and Richard probably believes that Walker is genuinely less reliable and radical than a potentially compromised Kim on a bad day. All things being equal, I tend to agree with Richard, but am wary of the particular direction they’ve gone to expand the coalition.
Again, there is potentially an economy at work as Sparks wanes and Kim waxes.
-marc
August 15, 2010 at 8:22 am
Off point, but…
RIP.
ABBEY LINCOLN.
A little musical memorial on my FB profile.
August 14, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Marc wrote:
“I think the dominant factor in the DCCC is that it was deemed amongst most of the DCCC that it is Debra’s *turn* to be supervisor, just as it was Tom’s *turn* to be elected mayor in 2003.”
I dunno… call me naive, but I don’t really believe it’s just that, unless by “her turn” you mean that she’s actually been in the district. Unlike the mayor’s race, where residency wasn’t a factor, it is in district elections. Carpetbagging undermines not only candidates from the district, but the argument can be made that it undermines district elections itself. And yes, moderates are already making that argument.
“The apt comparison from 2003 is not Gonzalez/Newsom–the DCCC did not give the conservative Sparks the time of day–rather Gonzalez/Ammiano, assuming that Kim’s coalition is not occupying the vacuum left by Sparks’ anemic campaign and changing those policy and values bases.”
Well first of all I think it will probably be occupying that space more, now that the DCCC shut her out. I think it could drive her more into the arms of downtown. But there’s a risk to that. How much of that are people like Paul Hogarth, Richard Marquez and Enrique Pearce going to tolerate before she hollows out her base?
Also though, there was a viability issue with Ammiano in 2003, which made a split more defensible. There really isn’t a viability issue with Debra Walker. Had Jane Kim not entered the race, Walker would easily be able to carry the district. With Kim’s entry, she opens the possibility of Theresa Sparks winning, and not only that, but also sucks valuable field energy from other places where we need it, like D8! I think that’s where a lot of the resentment is coming from against Kim, not just this simplistic notion that she’s running “out of turn.”
August 14, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Toss this in,
In 80 days or so the voters will vote the 4 Prog supes off the DCCC. Then … Peskin appoints the new reps! I say he appoints Greg Kamin and Hope Johnson and a couple of the
‘losers’ from the D-6 pack of hounds.
Giants won, so it can’t be too bad can it?
h.
August 14, 2010 at 10:25 am
@Patrick, the lack of sun has made this summer’s stupice crop the worst in 8 years.
So long as progressives only attack organized labor, leaving the corruption of downtown and the nonprofits unscathed, I’m not breaking into a sweat this time around.
-marc
August 14, 2010 at 9:50 am
@marc…unfortunately you know it can, and will. Quite frankly, while I hope we may get a couple of good years from Rafi, assuming he prevails, once any so called ‘progressive’ starts climbing that Stairway to Sacramento, they rapidly become co-opted and jettison the ideals that now prove to be ‘uncomfortable’ and alienate potential donors. Tom, Chris, Sue Bierman and a precious few others are the exceptions rather than the rule.
I am not afraid to enter any fight for the right, even when I know that the chances of ‘winning’ are remote. For example I consider the mayoral campaigns of Matt and Tom to be victories, even though they ‘lost’. Likewise I am proud of my support for Ahimsa when she ran.
I believe it is essential that we support candidates from outside the insider box of primarily “white males”, or their doppelgangers.
D6…..James Keys.
D10…Nyese Joshua.
Have a groovy weekend. Pinch back your tomatoes.
August 14, 2010 at 9:02 am
@Greg, I think the dominant factor in the DCCC is that it was deemed amongst most of the DCCC that it is Debra’s *turn* to be supervisor, just as it was Tom’s *turn* to be elected mayor in 2003.
The apt comparison from 2003 is not Gonzalez/Newsom–the DCCC did not give the conservative Sparks the time of day–rather Gonzalez/Ammiano, assuming that Kim’s coalition is not occupying the vacuum left by Sparks’ anemic campaign and changing those policy and values bases.
@Patrick, yeah, mis problemas son sus problemas or maybe the other way around.
I’m seeing the nonprofit labor coalition failing to deliver as a cyclist facing 5 years of paralysis. As a volunteer urban planner I’m seeing nonprofits stab the community in the back to get some coin. As an ethics advocate I’m seeing progressives and conservatives alike fearing sunshine. As a dependent of a 20 year city worker who is poised to lose health insurance, labor is failing us after being warned. And as a transit geek I just watched the entire incompetent infrastructure sell out hundreds of thousands of San Franciscans so that a hundred or so could keep their jobs providing services to a few thousand.
Can it really get worse?
-marc
August 14, 2010 at 7:57 am
@marc…..But then so often you’re so right on, though a tad long-winded at times, that it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of two little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.
XXX
August 14, 2010 at 7:47 am
@Ann,
Although I like Kay, I’m not sure that her remarks are representative of where most of the membership of the DCCC was coming from. Jane’s party switch wasn’t mentioned once during the proceedings. I think the much bigger factor was the fact that she has no history in the district, and other canidates do. And the fact that her candidacy still has the potential to throw the race to a more conservative candidate.
Personally, I’m more of a values voter than a party dog. And there are a lot of folks on the DCCC who feel the same way. Hence the reluctance to endorse Newsom in 2003 over Matt Gonzalez. They finally did, after much arm twisting, but it was a battle. And it was a more conservative DCCC then. It was a fight because a lot of people felt that Matt better represented the values of the very liberal DCCC electorate. So no, I don’t think the party switch will be a factor for Rizzo or Mirkarimi.
August 14, 2010 at 7:27 am
Hey James, in the (not so) fun house hall of mirrors that is San Francisco politics, all we can do is ask whether rumor is true, to spread the disinfectant of sunshine on the sordid affair.
Given that Sparks’ campaign appears to be stuck in neutral and Kim’s campaign is flush, the Rose Pak/Willie Brown connections, if any, might just redefine the meaning of the term “downtown candidate.” Pak is close to CCDC, both she and Brown were at Kim’s kickoff. Questions about the electoral coalitions being formed are legitimate, essential.
The D6 race is all about land use, and with the progressive candidates who have toiled in the land use realm not having much concrete to show for their decades of work–the land use laundry list of the nonprofit so-called community congress is an indictment of failure more so than any reality-based prescription for action–then these questions are all the more important.
Again, land use is in shambles not for the lack of good ideas, rather for the lack of political will to challenge power where we have strengths and they have weaknesses. Changing that equation hinges on this election.
At the end of the day, unless you’ve got a direct interest in making money off of a city decision, it appears that like the conservatives, none of the leading progressive candidates can spare the time of day when it comes to representing the interests of residents, broadly construed, over corporations.
Thus, the stakes in this election with this range of candidates and their funders are much lower for most residents of D6, given that the only constituents who count have interests diametrically opposed to those of us who live here and are not getting our moneys worth out of basic city services like Muni, DPW, Rec and Park and Planning.
The progressive/labor/nonprofit nexus is not just failing us, it is expressing contempt for us. It can either make itself relevant to most residents or we’ll just have to take the hit for it failing, losing funding after losing the election, whether this one or the next one. A stake through the heart of the designated stakeholders might not be a bad thing. Destruction is often the first step towards re-creation.
In Japan, we would have seen mass resignations, suicides, in shame for this kind of record of failure. But in the US, the money keeps on flowing to organizations so long as they continue to pose no threat to the ruling consensus.
-marc
August 14, 2010 at 7:13 am
@kay vasilyeva:
Should we interpret this, which seems to be a lesson to Jane Kim, also as a warning to John Rizzo and Ross Mirkarimi, that having crossed the line from Green to Dem for 2 years will not be enough in the next D5 race (Rizzo) and mayoral or sheriff’s races (Mirkarimi)?
“I urge everyone to remember that the purpose of the DCCC, in this case, is to endorse Democrats, and that it takes a little more effort than just changing your voter registration’s party designation 2 years ago to ultimately be considered by those who value the DCCC’s legacy.”
August 13, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Hi Marc. The answer to your question is: who knows? A passing glance at campaign filings shows that just about everyone left, right, and center have very questionable supporters. More than enough rocks for the glass houses. So in that sense, anything is possible. The two scenarios you paint out seem unlikely to me because: 1) Willie Brown doesn’t have a ton of friends left in that circle 2) I would think that Chiu would be wary about an endorsement that would cost him some needed allies.
However, like I said, anything is possible. You may be correct.
August 13, 2010 at 7:39 pm
So is it true that Willie Brown was breaking into a sweat, phoning up the DCCC to gin up support for Jane Kim?
Is it also true that David Chiu was on board for Weiner until the Mandelman/Prozan deal became apparent?
-marc
August 13, 2010 at 7:07 pm
I think that the DCCC may live to regret not endorsing three candidates for D6. Why not pick a #2 and a #3 as well as a #1? Is this not the same crowd who advocated for Instant Run Off Voting on the ground that progressive candidates wouldn’t have to savage each other? I learned today that the strategy of picking a single candidate, and not the full amount allowed by IRV is called “bulleting.” In this case the bullet may refer to the suicidal actions the DCCC took by increasing the odds of a downtown victory in November.
August 13, 2010 at 6:58 pm
@Pat Monk: I take it you’re registered Declined-to-State, and consider that the “radicalzenanarcho-yippiehumanistmofo” choice, since I’ve never heard of a write-in voter reg option.
August 13, 2010 at 6:30 pm
80 days?
Jim’s not against fun. He’s a ‘leather man’ for God’s sake! He holds the Neighborhood Representative slot on the Entertainment Commission so people assume he’s all NIMBY and that’s not true. Viable campaign? You hope his lit is being made. Greg, he’s a master printer with his own factory. Granted, lots of his supporters are antiques like myself but there are more of us than you think.
Anyway, only 80 days left and I don’t see the Prog campaign with the big money (Kim) going after Sparks. I just got a phone call from Kim supporter Michael Nulty criticizing Walker for registering voters in the Tenderloin. This is a bad thing?
I got tickets to see Lincecum on Sunday!
h.
August 13, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Greg, great review of the proceedings. I’m glad that the party we elected made such sound decisions, as a whole, regarding candidates.
I urge everyone to remember that the purpose of the DCCC, in this case, is to endorse Democrats, and that it takes a little more effort than just changing your voter registration’s party designation 2 years ago to ultimately be considered by those who value the DCCC’s legacy.
Please feel free to quip about what the DTrip’s legacy really is in your opinion. I’m talking about the legacy of electing solid Dems.
August 13, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Some additional random thoughts…
I think Debra and Jim, two LGBT candidates with a long history in the district, should actively be asking for each other’s seconds.
I’ve noticed some of Jane’s supporters trying to compare her to Barack Obama, who also ran against a more established candidate and was criticized for not having enough experience. In fact, the slogan “Our Time is Now” is taken directly from the Obama campaign. I just want to say that the comparison is false. Leaving aside the fact that Obama has turned out to be a bit of a disappointment, there were some real issue differences with Hillary, much moreso than between Jane and Debra. There was also a real question of whether Hillary was too polarizing to win against a Republican who sought to portray himself as a moderate. I don’t think the same applies in the D6 race with Debra.
And lastly, this whole carpetbagger issue is not just some idle game of inside baseball. Already some of the moderates are making noises to the effect of “what’s the point of district elections if you’re just going to elect carpetbaggers?” Never mind the hypocrisy on their part, the spin is very real, and they have a powerful spin machine in the corporate media. If Jane Kim wins, be prepared for an attack on district elections on those grounds.
August 13, 2010 at 1:25 pm
@h,
“Debra’s not the ‘only’ one. Meko’s been doing the same kind of public service in our district ”
Yes, but the third criteria that people were looking for is viability. Jim just doesn’t have his campaign together to the same degree that Debra and Jane do.
Otherwise there’s nothing wrong with him. Well, actually, I personally am very worried that he’ll be anti-nightlife, which is why I would rank him behind Kim. But on the other issues he seems solid.
” Kim stormed out of the DCCC meeting as though she was entitled and had been robbed. …Check out Tony’s film when Weiner stands to proclaim that he don’t need no stinking badge that he’s gonna win anyway. Then check Jane Kim’s march away with her little troup. Identical body language.”
Yep. Pretty much nails it. As much as her supporters want to spin it away, a lot of people in the audience (and the committee) took note of that body language. It doesn’t look good on either candidate.
Kim and Weiner in a nutshell –
Kim: “Our (my) time is now” (dammit!)
Weiner: I don’t need no stinkin’ Democratic Party
By contrast, Meko was all class. Nothing you can say there.
I hope the campaign lit is already being made.
D6: The time to run for supervisor is when you’ve shown committment to the neighborhood.
D8: Just quote Scott Weiner saying that he doesn’t want/won’t seek the Democratic Party endorsement. …see how well that goes over.
August 13, 2010 at 12:34 pm
@Patrick Monk: Just curious, are you registered Green, Peace and Freedom, DTS, or ?
@Luke Thomas: Have you run a piece on Janet Reilly, who she is, where she stands? If so, I missed it.
@Greg: Agree with everyone else; great report.
@All those questioning the possibilities of the Democratic Party at this point:
Stalwarts like Tom Hayden and Norman Solomon are always on about getting active with their Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) to storm the Democratic Party, which usually seemed to be Chris Daly’s goal as well, though in an FCJ editorial earlier this year, I believe that he, (Chris Daly), said that Obama’s invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration had left him discouraged about the possibility of real change.
At another point I remember his Facebook remark that “Obama was such a great candidate; too bad we had to have an election.”
When I asked Norman Solomon how he was going to mount a progressive challenge in the 2012 presidential race, which is sure to cost a billion $, given 2008’s unforeseen costs, or in federal elections costing tens of millions, his response was “That’s a long discussion,” despite many long discussions on his Facebook page, meaning, I concluded, that he didn’t have a response, and neither does PDA.
August 13, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Liars can figure,
“Figures don’t lie but liars can figure.” Thus spake Joe O’Donoghue. This liar figures that the Pelosi relayed endorsement of Theresa Sparks (through a proxy) trumps her pause mid-limo-entry blessing of Jane Kim a couple of weeks ago at SF City Hall. Seems Rose Pak couldn’t get Nancy to give it up for Kim.
Just run an honest race. Don’t attack one another. Leave that to me. Everyone appear at every venue and insist that everyone (only 15 now) be invited to every venue. There are lots of fascinating candidates and I can’t wait to hear them ALL in front of a crowd.
h.
August 13, 2010 at 12:16 pm
@annie.
>radicalzenanarcho-yippiehumanistmofo<
August 13, 2010 at 12:07 pm
These are interesting comments, but it seems like the growing population in D6 is in that Mission Bay/South Beach area down near the Giants ballpark. I’m not sure that crowd is going to be excited about voting for Walker.
Speaking of Giants, let’s hope they win the Padres series.
August 13, 2010 at 12:00 pm
@marc. jeez, but sometimes you can be a royal pain in the – oops – better not use ‘that’ word…lighten up. Also isn’t it rather presumptuous to assume that just because I’m married I must therefore be ‘straight’.
NYESE JOSHUA.
http://sfbayview.com/2010/nyese-joshua-no-hidden-agenda-in-run-for-D10-supervisor/
August 13, 2010 at 11:58 am
@Pat: Just curious, are you registered Green or Peace and Freedom, or ? DTS?
@Luke Thomas: Have you run a piece on Janet Reilly, who she is, where she seems to stand?
August 13, 2010 at 11:30 am
The Tea Party base has more in common with progressives than many would wish to acknowledge.
It is a cop out, a ratification of the failed duopoly, that we are being led to focus on the fringes of that populist movement and its would be corporate instigators, rather than on our common outrage at government run by and for special interests.
If progressives are afraid to leave their comfort zone, then they will never make the jump to majoritarian status.
-marc
August 13, 2010 at 11:10 am
Can someone explain how Debra Walker threatens the funding of the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and BeyondChron?
August 13, 2010 at 11:05 am
… and the Tea Party movement fits perfectly with the fascist protocol.
August 13, 2010 at 11:00 am
@Patrick Monk
Of course it was a slap at Daly.
Much as I admire Daly, who is rightly proud of moving Democrats in SF to the left on important issues, he erred by being loyal to the Democratic Party which always only just tolerated him while moving in the direction of its consensus agendas.
Sadly, I think he endorsed Keys only after he realized himself that he had nothing to lose.
Those that stick with the party now are making the same mistake: sending good to bad.
It is most evident in the continuing inconsequence of the poor, a complete disempowerment of unions, less independence of small non-profits and a selective attrition to their resources, and of course keeping a lid on dissent against a fascist government that rewards an oligarchy bent on permanent war.
The left will only resuscitate if it rebels completely against this system:
demanding all the things they hoped for but were deceived about. It must break with all fascist parties.
Sadly, leftists sit while a manufactured group, the Tea Party Movement, grabs headlines.
August 13, 2010 at 10:49 am
Greg,
Debra’s not the ‘only’ one. Meko’s been doing the same kind of public service in our district (I’ve lived here for 30 years) for 33 years. Debra has 27 years service. Both great candidates. If anyone should feel slighted it’s Jim. Kim stormed out of the DCCC meeting as though she was entitled and had been robbed. In fact, she and her group along with Sparks and Zamora are the opportunistic poachers.
Check out Tony’s film when Weiner stands to proclaim that he don’t need no stinking badge that he’s gonna win anyway. Then check Jane Kim’s march away with her little troup. Identical body language.
Hey, I’m still voting for her third but only because Salomon chose not to run.
h.
August 13, 2010 at 10:40 am
More thought on D10. While I’m sure Matt’s endorsement will carry weight, I think it is worth keeping in mind that if you check out Tony Kelly’s official campaign sit, all his support comes from Potrero Hill, virtually none from BVHP. Also he fails to address some of the elephants in the room; Lennar’s Urban Renewal; Luxury condos in Candlestick Point Park; and the proposed freeway over the wetlands.
What do you have to say Tony.
August 13, 2010 at 10:32 am
@Patrick, it just sucks ass for a straight guy to use “sodomite” as a pejorative.
@Greg, excellent reportage, thanks for enduring the tortured mind fuck that is a DCCC endorsement meeting.
-marc
August 13, 2010 at 10:09 am
@jclow
It can be revealing to know exactly who is endorsing each candidate. Do you happen to know why Jane does not supply such information, at least not on her site.
August 13, 2010 at 9:09 am
Phew !!! Thanks Greg, my head is spinning.
D6. Not a single vote for Keys. Probably because most folks, as usual, were looking to see which side would spread most butter on their bread. Could it have been a slap at Chris, a recognition that he no longer holds power.
D10. I remember during Ahimsa’s campaign when a group of us were discussing trying to ‘groom’ someone from the community to run. We all were hoping that Alicia Schwarz might be that person but she declined saying that her work with POWER was more important, probably a wise decision. While I do not know much about NYESE JOSHUA, there is little info on her site yet, but if her list of “friends” is representative of her positions then she could well be the one. I was curious as to why she was not invited to the recent DCCC candidates meeting. Sweet Melissa informed me that it was because she had not returned the questionnaire. If she is serious then I encourage her to ‘get it together and get out there’.
The election of James Keys in D6, and Nyese Joshua in D10, could correct the predominantly ‘white male’ insider imbalance on the BOS and hopefully refocus attention on the real needs of the people as opposed to the greed of the Newsodomites.
PS. SODOMITE. Definition #6; Urban Dictionary.
“An element that is formed by the fusion of atoms
in a stagnant mixture of urine and feces. It is worth
more than gold, but has very little actual use,
besides the fact that it’s pretty”.
August 13, 2010 at 8:51 am
Jc.Low,
I appreciate your perspective, but that’s just it… how exactly IS Jane Kim better on the issues than Debra Walker, James Keys, or Jim Meko?
Parachuting into a district with bucketfulls of money is a red flag to me -that in and of itself doesn’t completely disqualify a candidate, but that candidate had better be head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to the issues.
I haven’t heard ANY argument from ANY of her supporters that makes a good case that she is better on the issues than other candidates in the race, so perhaps you can enlighten me.
I can see no rationale for Jane’s candidacy other than “our time is now,” as it said on her lit. Translation: I want to be supervisor NOW, not wait till I’ve lived in the district a little bit.
Well, ok. But here’s the thing. This is a pretty dangerous game Jane’s playing. Her ambition could well result in neither Debra nor herself being elected, but rather throw the race to a more conservative candidate. Therein lies the danger, and I think in this sense the Democratic County Central Committee was doing exactly what it should. They endorsed the one candidate who stands up for the ideals of the local Democratic base, has a history of activism in the district, and has her act together campaign-wise.
Can you honestly say *all three* of those things about any of the other candidates? And yes, they chose to not to dilute the strength of that endorsement, as well they should.
August 13, 2010 at 8:30 am
@BrentRobinson: “The fact of the matter is that Jane enjoys the support of so many young volunteers, male and female, because she is able to connect with our generation. Much like President Obama (on whose campaign I previously worked), Jane speaks to our concerns and aspirations, and presents a vision of District 6 and broader San Francisco in which we are willing to invest our time and energy.”
I like Jane just fine, but don’t think that the argument that Jane is like Obama is going to carry much water with those who were energized and mobilized to vote for a candidate who heralded change yet delivered more of the same. Didn’t Schwarzenegger run on a similar platform in 2003?
San Francisco faces very manageable crises in the degradation of city services due to corruption on the part of politicians beholden to particular interests in the for-profit and non-profit sectors. This corruption costs more than any revenue measure that progressives are likely to pass.
A true progressive candidacy would highlight the way that most San Franciscans are not being served by the corporatist model of politics, the extent to which these political forces have made D6 worse over the past ten years, and a path forward that puts D6 residents first.
Jane Kim has done alright on the SFUSD Board. Most of the heavy lifting to fix that operation was done by Mark Sanchez in the middle of the past decade, who took more hits for more of us than any politician in SF save Chris Daly and unlike Chris, was able to thoroughly remake the SFUSD and lead the first successful tax increase ballot measure campaign in decades. In D9 in 2008, that record of success was rewarded with second place. The current board is simply coasting on work already done.
Unfortunately, none of the preeminent candidates has a track record of solid accomplishment in addressing the most pressing issues in D6. Talk is one thing, but one would hope that viable contenders would bring more to the table than than false hope and shadows of change.
Politics in SF is little more than the continual re-ratification of existing kinship networks, promising of City largess to private entities, and has little to do with problem solving. Who needs problem solving when everything is rolling along so well, and so long as “I” am “in?”
-marc
August 13, 2010 at 8:11 am
Hey all,
Here’s Tony De Renzo’s actual tape of the thing.
Current Folder: INBOX Sign Out
Compose Addresses Folders Options Search Help Calendar Fetch Forum
Message List | Delete Previous | Next Forward | Forward as Attachment | Reply | Reply All
Subject: The DCCC Coverage
From: “Potony”
Date: Fri, August 13, 2010 5:35 am
To: “brown, h.”
Priority: Normal
Options: View Full Header | View Printable Version | Download this as a file | View Message Details
http://blip.tv/file/3999837
Tony De Renzo
(415) 318-0688
http://www.pottalktv.org
Attachments:
untitled-[2] 0.2 k [ text/html ] Download | View
Delete & Prev | Delete & Next
Move to:
August 13, 2010 at 1:06 am
Yet there is little criticism on the tactics of those arm-twisting and making backroom deals? Democratic, much?
Why can’t we address actual issues rather than make baseless attacks on candidates? Jane has proven to be a dedicated public servant, a coalition builder, and an adamant fighter for social justice in the community. It is upsetting to see the level of animosity towards her – a fellow progressive Democrat, a community rights advocate, a woman, and a person of color. Don’t we want to encourage new leaders to emerge with a fresh voice and diversify the political process? We are fortunate to have so many viable candidates for the District 6 race (and mostly women too!). Sadly, members of the DCCC undermined rank-choice voting by blocking out the 2nd place endorsement. Let’s challenge the status quo and set the mudslinging aside. The constituents of District 6 deserve better than this –our future deserves better than this. By the way, Mr. Kamin, Jane stayed until the very end of the meeting and made the attempt to greet everyone, so you might want to retract the statement about her leaving angry. And maybe reconsider your comment about her “very photogenic” face — it comes off sexist and demeaning, which was probably not your intent. She is a substantial candidate, not a contestant in a beauty pageant.
Also, just to respond to some of the other comments being made. Jane is her own person – not a puppet for Randy, Rose, or whoever else people want to associate her with. She has garnered a broad, grassroots base of support over the years. Is it too hard to believe that a young woman of color can stand on her own ground and be independent? I’d like to think we moved beyond sexist and racist insinuations like that. But, time and time again, our seemingly progressive allies fail us, further alienating young voters who would like to see some real change and progress.
We don’t see many leaders emerging to actually spearhead something meaningful, other than consolidating their own power. It’s a breath of fresh air to have a candidate like Jane who isn’t tied down by the existing establishment. Ultimately, the decision for who will be the next D6 Supervisor will be made by the voters, not the politicos and electeds that continue to play into this petty game.
August 12, 2010 at 11:14 pm
One more response for Patrick and other interested parties:
Here’s the full breakdown on all 3 votes for D6, along with my best guess as to what strategy was going through the member’s head (sometimes the guess was well-informed, but don’t take it for gospel). The first vote was for first place endorsement. The second vote was for second place endorsement. The third vote was for second place endorsement once the lowest vote-getter (in this case, Sparks) was eliminated.
W=Walker
K=Kim
S=Sparks
NE =No endorsement
A=Abstain
P followed by one of the other signs= I’ll pass until I see how everyone else voted, then make my decision strategically.
Note there’s a difference between A and NE. A doesn’t count toward the total -it’s basically saying “I’m staying out of this.” NE does count, and can wind up as the official DCCC position. It basically means “I want the DCCC to not endorse ANY of these candidates for this position.”
Avalos -W,K,K (genuinely wanted to dual endorse both)
Bornstein -W,NE,NE (Walker only)
Campos -W,NE,NE (Walker only)
Chiu -K,K,K (Kim! Kim! Kim!)
Fazio -K,K,K (we were all wondering about this!)
Fewer -K,K,K (likes Kim, would’ve been OK to dual endorse)
Goldstein -W, p-NE, NE (was undecided initially about “Walker only” position, but said that if he were to do a second, it wouldn’t be Kim. Went NE once it became clear that it would be Kim or nobody)
Haaland -W, NE, NE (Walker only)
Hsieh -NE, NE, NE (voted by proxy. Probably decided in advance that NE was safest since progressives would likely win)
Jung -S, p-S, p-K (always the schemer, that Mary Jung. I think the strategy here is maximum damage to progressives, rather than any love for Jane Kim)
Katz -W, p-K, K (hell if I know!)
Mandleman -W, NE, NE (Walker only)
Mar -W, K, K (genuinely wanted Walker first, Kim second. Pretty much said so.)
Marks -W, NE,NE (Walker only)
Migden -W, K, K (hell if I know)
Morrison -W,NE,NE (Walker only)
Nutter -NE,A,A (wtf???)
O’Connor -W,NE,NE (Walker only)
Peskin -W,NE,NE (Walker only)
Quezada -W,K,K (genuinely wanted Walker first, Kim second)
Rosenthal -W,NE,NE (Walker only)
Smith -S, p-S, K (if not Sparks, at least let’s dilute the endorsement of Walker to hurt progressives)
Walker -W,NE,NE (Walker only)
Weiner -S,S,NE (straightforward conservative vote -bigger things to worry about than how to best jab progressives in the eye)
Feinstein -NE,NE,NE (just plain meanspirited. Remember, she could have abstained, but chose an affrimative NE vote)
Pelosi -S,S,NE (straightforward conservative vote- no games)
Speier -A,A,A (I’m not going to get involved in this)
Newsom -S,S,NE (straightforward conservative vote)
Harris -A,A,A (same as Speier)
Yee -W,NE,NE (Walker only)
Leno -S,S,NE (straightforward conservative vote)
Ma -NE,K,K (anti-Walker? Perhaps hybrid of instructions for first round and a liberated proxy for subsequent rounds, but comes across as an “anyone but Walker” vote)
Ammiano W,NE,NE (Walker only)
August 12, 2010 at 10:28 pm
h,
It’s fine. I pretty much expected some of this kind of response, and I don’t think it deserves any further discussion from me.
I don’t know about Enrique Pearce in particular, with whom I’m having a much more intelligent dialogue on another venue, but you’re on to something about the general tone of the Kim campaign. Believe it or not, I’d actually be inclined to support Kim second, but these tactics are a real turnoff.
That said, some of the tactics that are alienating some of the politicos don’t necessarily apply to the larger electorate. Kim is making a push for seconds, for example. If Debra Walker isn’t doing the same, that’s a big mistake.
August 12, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Patrick,
With regards to the D8 breakdown,
NE was as follows: Fazio, Hsieh, Jung, Katz, Nutter, O’Connor, Smith, Weiner, Feinstein, Pelosi, Speier, Newsom, Leno, Ma.
Harris voted for Prozan.
All else for Mandleman.
For the #2 spot, everybody voted for Prozan except: Haaland, Nutter, O’Connor, Smith, Weiner, Feinstein, Pelosi, Speier, Newsom, Leno, and Ammiano… all of which voted NE.
For the other races, I think I did break it down.
August 12, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Great Greg,
I’ve always appreciated your posts. You probably have several thousand under your pen name that would make a very nice history of the last decade.
You got accused of making a “flaccid insinuation”. Oooooh, that goes right to where we live. I’ve been seeing this about the Kim campaign. They’re truly a “scorched earth” bunch and it’s reflecting badly upon Jane.
The money and power in this campaign is coming from Rose Pak and Randy Shaw. Jane was brought in to make certain that Debra doesn’t become supervisor. It is really that simple. I mean, damn, I’m endorsing her third and she’s trying to screw that up? If she’d just make Enrique and his thug Mod Squad shut up and smile and hand out flyers she’d win easily. The young boyscout going after Kamin …
You, boy, what’s your name? Yeah, ‘Brent’. Do you live in District 6?
For starters.
h.
August 12, 2010 at 3:27 pm
Brent makes good points (it is ridiculous to repeat the bosh that men support Jane Kim because she is attractive), but bragging about supporting Obama shows he is a fool.
August 12, 2010 at 2:52 pm
As one of Jane Kim’s “young male supporters,” and as the person who attempted to hand Greg Kamin a leaflet as he entered the DCCC meeting last night, I must object first to his inference that Ms. Kim’s supporters are all young males. Had Kamin bothered to look just six feet past my colleague and I, he would have seen two young women who were also making a “big push” for Jane. Moreover, if Kamin would care to venture beyond the incestuous circle of DCCC politics and actually attend some of the events organized by Jane’s volunteers, he would encounter a diverse cross-section of the community.
Second, I must object to Kamin’s flaccid insinuation that young males such as myself volunteer for Jane for any reason other than that we want to make this city a better place. If, as Mr. Kamin suggests, young people are driven to volunteer based on their sexual attraction to the candidate, then wouldn’t Debra Walker (an attractive woman herself) be similarly afflicted by hordes of young women (and men) wanting to volunteer on her campaign? Yet I don’t see Debra Walker having any such problem.
The fact of the matter is that Jane enjoys the support of so many young volunteers, male and female, because she is able to connect with our generation. Much like President Obama (on whose campaign I previously worked), Jane speaks to our concerns and aspirations, and presents a vision of District 6 and broader San Francisco in which we are willing to invest our time and energy.
August 12, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Thanks for all the nice comments, folks. I expected more skewering 😉
h,
I didn’t shun you. You were either standing too far away or I was too busy either listening to the proceedings or talking to someone else. That’s all.
mwbsf,
Thanks. I’m just an amateur. I wouldn’t dare compare myself to someone of that caliber. But seriously, if you’re referring to who I think it is, it’s someone I respect both as a writer and a progressive. In this though, I think personal interests have caused a decline in both judgement and writing. We’re all biased, me included. But since my daily bread doesn’t depend on anything City Hall-related, I can call them as I see them.
Patrick,
I’ll fill in the blanks on the supe races. I don’t recall the DCCC site posting names, which is why it’s important to do stuff like this. But it’s a big project, I have to go back and look at my notes, and I’m at work. Right now I’m just trying to keep up with reading the comments, let alone answering them.
And remember… Rafi Yes! Prozac No! Weiners R for grilling!
August 12, 2010 at 1:11 pm
“School Board President Jane Kim made a big push for this one. Her young male supporters… “
Nice bit of nuance, that.
When Paul Hogarth & Beyond Chron can admit their deep conflict of interest with regard to Debra Walker, maybe then we can take them with more than a grain of salt. She represents a clear and present danger to their financial interests, end of story. It takes a certain level of chutzpah to piss all over the spirit of district elections by splitting the Progressive coalition with a carpetbagger, and then to carp about “giving progressives a voice.”
This exactly is what party leadership is supposed to do. It’s electoral math, not Tammany Hall.
August 12, 2010 at 1:05 pm
> James holds the Keys to perpetuating progressivism in D6.
> Nyese Joshua can start the process of preserving what little remains of the BVHP community and undoing years of Auntie Tomasophenia sophistry.
> Run Janet Run. Alioto should take a long ride off a short pier.
> RAFI…RAFI…RAFI !!!
August 12, 2010 at 11:54 am
The power of the ranks of the gray old wolves have been culled by the failure to address pressures of gentrification.
Sometimes drama is needed, otherwise, like Obama, you end up compromising with yourself first and find yourself holding the very short end of the stick.
-marc
August 12, 2010 at 10:58 am
Marc and Paul,
Don’t count Meko out. I’m doubting the D Triple C nod means nearly as much in D-6 as it does in, say … D-10? Jim’s core supporters are mostly gray old wolves like me but we tend to be surrounded by our own packs. And, Jamie? Isn’t he the head of the Rincon Hill Neighbors or something.
We got ourselves a ball game here. I was very glad to see Walker rebound last evening. Kim’s my third choice here but the tactics Pierce and his people were employing turned everyone off. Gimme Jim ‘No Drama’ Meko.
go Giants!
h.
August 12, 2010 at 10:32 am
If Debra Walker wins, Randy Shaw and his Puff Ho-garth are afraid that she will cut off the THC and Beyondchron at their city funded balls.
Speaking of balls, poor baby Paul who was told to wait his turn and to hope for a second place endorsement and now feels kicked in the gut.
Residents of District Six feel kicked in the groin between the jockeying for position amongst the major candidates as they try to assuage both their nonprofit bases as well as developer interests salivating over the riches our district has to offer.
Meko’s support of Prop B is probably what doomed him at the DCCC.
-marc
August 12, 2010 at 10:21 am
@Jamie, as a Jim Meko supporter you should be outraged that the DCCC didn’t extend a second-place vote to ANY of Debra’s progressive challengers.
I support Jane Kim, but if the DCCC is truly about giving progressives a voice they could have also given the nod to Jim Meko, James Keys, Anna Conda Hyde and perhaps others. The fact they did “No Endorsement” when there was no reason besides protecting Debra speaks volumes.
In 2004, the Bay Guardian gave an eloquent 2nd-place endorsement to Renee Saucedo in District 9 – who was running against Tom Ammiano. Their point? Even our strongest progressive friends should be held accountable.
If you’re really sincere about telling other candidates that you “look forward to supporting them in future elections,” you should extend them the courtesy of a second-place vote — even if they’re running against your best friend.
On that note, I’ve decided to support Anna Conda as my second-choice vote for District 6. I’m undecided about my third-choice vote at this point, but we still have 3 months.
August 12, 2010 at 9:50 am
This speaks volumes about the artificial and manipulative power of what is in reality a one party system. (Differentiating between Democrats and Republicans is about as significant as differentiating between who has earlobes and who doesn’t.)
Where are the leaders?
There are none.
True leaders would completely break with this system that contains all debate in a fishbowl like this.
To participate in this charade of democracy at all is to endorse the failed and criminal state we live in.
August 12, 2010 at 9:47 am
@mbwsf, Yep, Hogarth opposes cronyism when his cronies, who he and Randy Shaw support because they fear the cooties of others, are frozen out.
@Jamie, what matters more than how much time one spends doing activism is how effective one is in advancing the community’s agenda, and whether one can out organize one’s opponents. I’ll take the DCCC machine over neoliberal speculative billionaires attacking health care any day.
-marc
August 12, 2010 at 9:32 am
Greg,
I just wrote and told Hogarth he had the best piece on the event and then I read yours. Much better than any coverage thus far. Who’s mwbsf? I agree that substance is preferable but a ‘spoonful of sex/glitz makes the medicine go down.
Great piece Greg. Thanks for writing it.
I notice you shunned me at the meeting. Should I pretend I don’t know you? Don’t be a piss ant.
h.
August 12, 2010 at 9:26 am
FYI, I consider Jim an outsider because he spends his free-time advocating for our neighborhoods … Not working inside in the Democratic Party machine.
August 12, 2010 at 9:24 am
I am glad that the DCCC did not endorse a carpetbagger in the District 6 race. I really like Jane as a friend, but she and Theresa Sparks just moved into District 6 last year to run for Supervisor. How can we D6 residents trust their loyalty and why overlook long-time residents and activists like my good friend Jim Meko for folks who just parachute in? I am helping Jim with his campaign, but among the insiders under consideration, I am happy that one of our long-time residents and fighters won, as opposed to a carpetbagger like Sparks or Kim.
August 12, 2010 at 8:43 am
Thanks Greg – loved it. Much more informative than the biased, superficial, nasty, divisive and naive tantrum piece by someone else I read earlier.
August 12, 2010 at 8:03 am
Greg,
It would be informative if you, or someone, could post a complete listing of exactly who voted for which candidate. I havent yet had time to check DCCC site.