Editor's notes

Lee needs to reign in the "Run, Ed, Run" campaign



I'm not going to tell Ed Lee he can't run for mayor. I know he promised he wasn't going to. I know that if he hadn't made that promise, he wouldn't have had the six votes to win the office. I think Lee believed at the time that he didn't want to run in November, and he may believe it now.

But this is still a democracy, and if Lee thinks the situation has changed and he's the only person who can properly lead the city over the next four years, he ought to put his name forward.

Right now, though, he's allowing the "draft Ed Lee" movement to get out of control.

Chinatown powerbroker Rose Pak and political consultant Enrique Pierce (who runs the clearly misnamed Left Coast Campaigns and loves to tout his progressive credentials) have set up an office, are raising money, and have hatched this plan to get Lee to agree to put his name on the ballot and not actively campaign.

The operation — which, let's remember, carries Ed Lee's name on it — has already run afoul of the law. The Ethics Commission — hardly an aggressive political watchdog — says the campaign had improperly filed as a political action committee. That's not Lee's fault — he has nothing to do with this. But it already taints his reputation.

Lee, by all accounts, has done a far better job with the budget than his immediate predecessor. He's actually been talking to people. He listens; he accepts logic; he tries to make thing work. I admit, the bar is pretty low — Gavin Newsom was a complete asshole. Still: Lee's a decent guy.

But he has some heavy political baggage — and most of it has to do with his connections to sleazy operators like Pak and Willie Brown. As long as he's linked to people who treat campaign finance laws, lobbying rules, and political ethics with disdain bordering on hostility, he's going to have trouble keeping the public trust.

And right now, those same people are raising money — money that is already being spent on a political campaign — and the noncandidate is letting it happen.

Run if you want, Ed. But if you're going to keep your promise, then it's time to call Pak, Pierce and company and tell them to quit.


Promises should mean something. He promised he wouldn't run. The reason he has some modicum of credibility is that he doesn't (presently) need to play politics.

And he's doing a shitty job. Just today, the Chronicle reported that he agreed to a deal with the fire department whereby fire would get a raise, but would have to pay a commensurate amount into their pensions. Lee and the City Family claim it's a good deal because it's cost neutral. That's not true. Pensions are based on income, so now that fire's income went up, the pension payout down the road just went up. Taxpayers aren't stupid.

We can't have every Mayor being obsequious to the police/fire unions. They are sucking the City dry.

Posted by The Commish on Jun. 28, 2011 @ 10:42 pm

What- he's being clever with his "I won't run" crap while not calling off the clowns running his write-in campaign?

Please tell us how he is substantively any different than Newsom. He is cutting the same corrupt back-room deals with the police and fire unions RIGHT NOW- giving these folks big raises (while every other City cuts public safety worker pay/benefits) while having the gall to call it "cost neutral." He just cut a deal that increased the City's unfunded pension liability tens of millions of dollars and is LYING to the public claiming it doesn't cost the City/taxpayers anything.

These people continue to suck every dime out of a depleting City treasury. The City is corrupt and we have to read another obsequious Ed Lee take from SFBG of all people??

Posted by Guest on Jun. 28, 2011 @ 11:23 pm

ed lee sucks. he's a joke of mayor and sucks up to the wealthy. he's been getting rich as a "public servant" and needs to get his ass kicked hard in politics and send that boy home, crying to his momma.

also, Enrique Pearce is using a phony name.

Posted by Prog Losses on Jun. 29, 2011 @ 12:03 am

He's already reigning. If what you mean is "rein in", that's another story. And if you mean "resign" that's a whole 'nother one.

Posted by Mr. Proofreader on Jun. 30, 2011 @ 5:15 pm

He's already reigning. If you mean "rein in", that's another story. And if you mean "resign" that a whole 'nother story.

Posted by Mr. Proofreader on Jun. 30, 2011 @ 5:17 pm