Endorsements 2012: San Francisco races - Page 2

Rizzo and Selby for D5 supervisor. Our top choice in D1 is Eric Mar

|
(45)

Lee refused to come into the Guardian for an endorsement interview, or even to respond to our repeated calls with questions about his background and the false charges he's been leveling at Mar.

They include the accusation that Mar is being backed by well-funded "special interests" because he has the support of labor.

With David Campos and John Avalos unopposed, and District 5 a fractious mess, much progressive energy is focused on Mar's re-election. If Lee wins, it will be a huge setback to the progressive movement. We're nervous about Mar, given his recent votes—but we'll endorse him for another term.

DISTRICT 3

1. DAVID CHIU

We haven't always been happy with David Chiu. After being elected as a progressive — and getting elevated his first week in office to board president — he started slipping into the moderate, sometimes squishy center. He supported the Twitter tax break (approving it before the company even presented a community benefits plan). He helped put Ed Lee in the Mayor's Office, and was the swing vote approving the Parkmerced overhaul that drew strong opposition from tenant groups. He's tried to water down efforts by Sup. David Campos to close loopholes in the city's health-care law. He allowed the mayor to escape the real debate that was part of the voter-approved "question time."

In his second term as president, he appointed some of the more conservative supervisors as committee chairs. In our endorsement interview, Chiu said he doesn't believe those appointments have effected legislation — but Sups. Mark Farrell and Elsbernd have been actively sabotaging progressive appointments and initiatives on the Rules Committee, and Chu chairs the powerful Budget and finance Committee.

But on some issues, he's been not only a good vote but a leader. He played a key role in trying to stop the 8 Washington project. He's raised concerns about other waterfront development. He's also in the forefront of the fight to make sure that neighborhoods get their fair share in the CPMC deal and that St. Luke's remains a viable health-care option in the southeast part of the city.

Chiu has passed good environmental legislation, including streamlining the process to start urban agriculture projects and saving paper by limiting distribution of telephone books. He fought for the language access ordinance and the rights of immigrant parents in school board elections.

We wish Chiu weren't so quick to compromise, particularly with the mayor. But none of his competition, including opera singer and perennial candidate Wilma Pang, have presented a stronger alternative. Chiu's not perfect, but we support him for District 3 supervisor.

DISTRICT 5

1. JULIAN DAVIS

2. JOHN RIZZO

3. THEA SELBY

WE HAVE WITHDRAWN OUR ENDORSEMENT OF JULIAN DAVIS. MORE INFO HERE.

We hold this truth to be self-evident: District 5 is the heart of progressive San Francisco, the most left-leaning district in the city. The supervisor who represents the Haight, Western Addition, and Inner Sunset has to be a reliable part of the progressive community, someone who can be counted on to vote the right way pretty much 100 percent of the time.

Comments

Their logic for endorsing Jill Wynn fails me. And not endorsing Gladys Soto simply doesn't make sense.

And what about Measure G? What is the endorsement for that?

Posted by Common Sense SF on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

races/issues are right on. They veer sharply off course when it comes to San Francisco city races and issues. We do not need more supervisors, especially in D7, who take their marching orders from the goons of SEIU.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 7:25 pm

You seriously just endorsed another guy who inappropriately puts his hands on women? What's that everyone says about the establishment progressives being misogynistic as hell?

By the way, did Steven recuse himself or is it totally cool for the Guardian to let their reporters throw an endorsement to their personal friends?

Posted by Haven't we learned our lesson? on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 7:39 pm

It's amazing how desperate and cynical the Olague camp is at this point. We've seen this same rumor surface every time anyone has anything nice to say about Julian. Show us some names, dates, accusations, and police reports, or STFU and own the fact that you're bought and paid for by Willie Brown, Rose Pak, Ed Lee and their real estate clients.

Posted by Political Realist on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 9:43 pm

The Guardian pretty much admitted as much. What else was this supposed to be a reference to?

"His personal life and behavior in his 20s were not always admirable."

Posted by Haven't we learned our lesson? on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 2:08 pm

Julian Davis FTW!!!

Posted by D5 Denizen on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 7:49 pm

Yes, what about measure G, the ballot initiative to overturn Citizens United?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 8:09 pm

We went ahead and broke out our city proposition endorsements here: http://www.sfbg.com/2012/10/03/endorsements-2012-san-francisco-propositions

you'll find our thoughts on prop G among them

Posted by admin on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 9:31 am

Julian Davis 2012!!

Posted by District5guy on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 8:31 pm

He's been hyping his candidacy for months now while threatening Olague for wandering off the progressive rez. The endorsement of Julian Davis in D5 was a foregone conclusion - Olague is now totally free to vote her conscience on the Mirkarimi matter.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 9:10 pm
Yes

That doesn't mean principled progressives who supported Mirkarimi and who usually vote along something like the Bay Guardian's line should vote for Olague. While her independent voting record is OK, her febrile style has been really weak. Selby and Breed are sounding better and better to me.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 8:25 am

What's also curious is how when given an opportunity to endorse a female of color, in this race and others, the Guardian inevitably defers. Breed, Olague, Cohen - the misogyny of the progressive left in SF never fails to depress.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 2:23 pm

When given the opportunity by downtown interests to vote for a one of two women of color, yes, we deferred, instead choosing an African-American and a woman who are both independent of that corrupting influence. We aren't going to be shamed into playing the game that Willie Brown, Rose Pak, Ed Lee, and their operatives David Ho and Enrique Pearce want us to play, one that Christina Olague has been sucked into playing, to our great disappointment. And my guess, Troll II (or should I call you Enrique?), is that you're also on that same game's payroll.

Posted by steven on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

Sensitive much? If there weren't substance to the criticism, one voiced long before The Guardian went all in to defend a wife-smacking sheriff, you wouldn't be so vociferous in responding to it.

Here's a thought - you may be wrong and the criticism of your opponents may have substance. Ever stopped to consider that?

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 3:06 pm

Enrique Pearce (aka John Henry?) wrote the paean to Lee which was distributed free to everybody's doorstep... just one step up from your neighbor's drunken hurl, in terms of desirability, no doubt.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/10/behold-book-ed-lee-hits-san-fran...

Posted by Guest on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 4:01 pm

Yes, lilli - you're falling prey to the paranoia too? I didn't event VOTE for Lee last year.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 4:14 pm

Enrique Pearce (aka John Henry?) wrote the paean to Lee which was distributed free to everybody's doorstep... just one step up from your neighbor's drunken hurl, in terms of desirability, no doubt.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/10/behold-book-ed-lee-hits-san-fran...

Posted by Guest on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 4:01 pm

Steven, you've managed before now not to fall into that kind of paranoia about commenters here that the likes of lillipublicans spews. How disappointing.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 4:25 pm

It isn't paranoia to identify this deceptive tactic that has been effectively employed by Ho and Pearce to drive in a wedge that has divided and conquered the progressive movement in San Francisco, to the benefit of developers and commercial landlords. It's clear and well-documented what has happened, and Troll II is parroting Pearce, which is why I made an educated guess that they are the same person or directly connected. The Guardian has always stood up for progressive values, and yes, diversity is one of those values, which is why it's been such a smart strategy for Brown, Pak, and Lee to coopt women of color (Jane Kim, Christina Olague, etc.) to push their agenda. But identifying and calling out what's happening is the first step toward countering it, and that's not paranoia, because we've seen in vote after vote, policy after policy, that they really are out to undermine the progressive movement and gentrify San Francisco, increasing their profits and power at the expense of the working and middle classes.

Posted by steven on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 10:44 am

Expected the Davis, but glad to see that SFBG saw beyond its usual benchmarks to endorse a great candidate like Selby. I'm looking forward to seeing how she plays her cards in the next five weeks now that this one's been added to the deck.

Posted by somers on Oct. 02, 2012 @ 9:22 pm

then a better choice than Selby would be Hope Johnson.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 10:52 pm

The Bay Guardian seems to just endorse the candidates who give them the most advertising revenue.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 11:29 am

...who question their particular notion of "the progressive movement" the least.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 4:28 pm

But I'd add Hope Johnson.

Posted by Guest Ann Garrison on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 6:05 am

Nice to see the Jill Wynns endorsement.

She knows district history by memory and understand budgetary issues. No one can pull a fast one on her.

Posted by Troll the XIV on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 10:31 pm

Mostly pretty good picks, but a few doozies. Passing over a passionate advocate for kids like Gladys Soto... in favor of a lifetime career bureaucrat like Jill Wynns? Seriously?

Posted by Greg on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 10:58 pm

Missed the mark here big time. Based on his track record and aptitude, Yee is is not cut out to be a Supervisor. I saw one of his debates recently, his lack of eye contact, scripted remarks and poor communication skills were truly telling. Just because somebody has "experience" in a job does not make him qualified; electing the President of the School Board for Supervisor is like hiring the coach of winless pee-wee team to Coach the 49ers.

And if you are a fan of the status quo, giant budget deficits, and labor unions controlling this great but but ailing city we live in, then by all means vote for FX Crowley, career Labor Reprenative. Your kids will truly appreciate the giant debt burden incurred to pay for his misguided policies.

Look for somebody from the private sector that knows how to create jobs, manage a budget, negotiate for the best interest of families, students, and local business in District 7. My vote will go to Bob Squeri, lifelong resident of District 7, business owner, and not-for-profit leader.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 11:25 am

One simple reason not to support Eric Mar.... he does not answer emails or phone calls.... not even from someone that wanted to donate to his campaign....

Is that someone we want in office?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 6:09 pm

I totally agree... from what I've seen, Mar just follows his own agenda. I keep reading about how much he's done for our district, but I've seen very little. All you have to do is walk down Geary St. and see how the area has deteriorated since he's been in office. He's eccentric and seems to desperately want to be labeled as "progressive," but has done virtually nothing for us despite hearing a lot of District 1 resident complaints. I'm ready to see some new blood in the Richmond. McGoldrick was a disappointment, and then I voted for Mar. He's basically wasted a lot of our time.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 5:14 pm

Mar was McGoldrick's lap-dog, hand-picked to continue McGoldrick policies, which flew totally in the face of what District 1 voters wanted. Mar doesn't even have the cojones to "follow his own agenda": he took his marching orders from Chris Daly, Mirkarimi and their ilk -- people whose agenda is NOT what the majority of the people of District 1 want. Mar figured the'd ride Murky's badge (or hair) into a better-paying gov't position. (He's had "issues" paying child support and his taxes while Supervisor...) But now he's screwed. After 4 years, our "missing in action" Supervisor has almost no name recognition; a large majority of those who do recognize his name have a strongly negative impression...and his step-ladder, Mirkarimi, has folded. The very best Mirkarimi can hope for at this point is to be a lame-duck sheriff, an ineffectual joke (earning a ridiculous salary). So Mar has now spent 4 years selling his constituents' interests down the river in favor of what Mirkarimi and his cohort wants...and the "chickens are coming home to roost" as they say. At least the Jack in the Box franchise owner on Geary owes Mar for selling out 1000 of his constituents -- so Mar should be able to get a job making nachos there...

Posted by Guest on Oct. 08, 2012 @ 12:42 pm

"(It's interesting that Campos and John Avalos, the two supes who refused to moderate their stands or compromise with the likes of Rose Pak, are now running unopposed; their constituents seem to like consistency and honesty.)"

Read this on SFgate

"ATHENS, Ga. (AP) — Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior.

The Republican lawmaker made those comments during a speech Sept. 27 at a sportsman's banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell. Broun, a medical doctor, is running for re-election in November unopposed by Democrats."

Tim has used this "reasoning" around his golden boys in the past, so strange. In reality Tim is saying that the citizens of these districts are conceived as being so narrow and doctrinaire that no one wants to bother to run against them. Just as in some districts of Georgia.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 1:52 pm

It's really obvious that you don't even bother to read his articles (or anyone else's) before commenting. Otherwise, how do you come up with these non sequiturs?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 3:22 pm

these " " are?

They are quotation marks. Meaning what is inside them is quoted from some other place, in this case it is a quote of Mr Redmond.

Glad I can be of help.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 3:56 pm

... or perhaps, more to the point and more close to Samuel Johnson's original aphorism that I am paraphrasing, I should say "corporatist scoundrel."

The fact that political representatives who remain faithful to the electorate that put them into office thereby avoiding challenges at the ballot box has absolutely no bearing on the quality of the thinking or character of their constituents.

Matlock, you are such a hopelessly duplicitous jackass, it's hard to believe that anyone has ever been swayed by your rubbish, but you emit such a quantity of it, perhaps the laws of averages work in your favor on occasion.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 2:15 pm

are smart like you. As you claim to be a genius at every turn I can see how that works out for you. People that agree with you on most things must obviously be as self identified as smart as you.

Alas, Tim's argument is that a true believers will not face a challenger because they are so good at true belief and the public will love them. Not unlike the far rights claims that all they need are true republicans like Reagan and they will the White House forever. It is interesting that someone as self identified as smart as you falls for these obvious moronic talking points. So easily manipulated and so self identified smart.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 4:02 pm

to mention that today's Republican teabaggers revere Reagan in name only; in person, he would be *far* too liberal to satisfy their radicalism.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 06, 2012 @ 4:10 pm

From above: "If Lee wins, it will be a huge setback to the progressive movement."

Yep -- which is EXACTLY why he's hugely popular in the Richmond district. We are a neighborhood of very hard-working small-business people (dry cleaners, small restaurants, hair salons...) We are mostly people who are new to this country for whom EDUCATION means everything. We are people who want the American dream...most of whom had parents who came, or came ourselves, to San Francisco, put every cent we had and borrowed more to open a small business that their spouses, kids, nieces and nephews worked in 14 hours a day. And we'll be damned if we're going to have Mar and his nut case "regressives" tell us that our hard work is not going to advance our families, but we're supposed to pay ever-increasing property taxes and parking meter rates and business taxes and sales taxes to support a bunch of lazy jerks who lay around on Haight St. all day, stoned, preventing people from getting into shops, causing store owners to have to scrub urine off their buildings and sidewalks, while these scum beg for "money for dope."
Mar and Mirkarimi and Avalos think that working hard and managing to buy your own home is "bad"! WTF?! And we're "bad" because we will provide housing (1 flat, or an in-law apartment) in the same building we live in and must maintain in a city that is desperate for moderately priced rental units? Do you have ANY idea how many sm. property owners have taken units OFF the market and will no longer rent them because of the outrageous, scary laws that these idiots have put into place -- which leave a property owner utterly HELPLESS if they have a tenant who's crazy or addicted, or dangerous or ruining their property? Our neighborhood has been blighted to the point where it's almost unrecognizable from what it was 12 years ago. We have "Progressives" McGoldrick and Mar to blame for this. There is NOTHING "progressive" about what they have done to District 1. Throw the bums OUT -- and give 'em a good kick in the backside to make sure they have good clearance!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 08, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

Re: District 7, SFBG should have done some fact checking before endorsing FX Crowley. He is known as a corrupt union boss who bought his way into City Hall. In addition to the skeletons in his closet he has years of NLRB and EEOC charges for discriminatory hiring practices that primarily involve women. These lawsuits cost the union a small fortune and he will run his district just like he did his union ---into the ground.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 09, 2012 @ 1:13 am

I live in supe district 9 (SOMA) but received a district 6 absentee ballot, so there is nowhere to vote for supervisor!! I probably would not have realized unless I was going through the endorsements here. How often does the Dept of Elections f*** these mailings up??

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

My name is Bud Ryerson and I am a fully qualified write-in candidate for Supervisor in San Francisco District 9. Although we are not as powerful or as well funded as our opponent, it is not accurate to say that David Campos is running unopposed. We would appreciate seeing your correction before election day, if not your endorsement. We are on Facebook as "Bud 4 Nine" and also at http://bud4nine.budryerson.com. Thank you, and be sure to vote.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 30, 2012 @ 9:00 am

Here's what was written in this article in October, about Rachel Norton, but then SFBG deleted the text from their article:

"We recognize that Rachel Norton has been a powerful and effective advocate for students with special needs, and an advocate for healthier school food."

But they don't endorse her -- and they endorse the other incumbents even after such unflattering statements about them? Makes no sense, but SFBG never does, when they endorse candidates for school board.

Posted by Betty on Oct. 31, 2012 @ 8:13 am

Here the SFBG goes for ideological shortcut instead of doing its homework.
Steve Ngo headed the Budget Committee at CCSF. Do I need to point out that the last budget he signed off on was based on Prop. 30 passing? The Accreditation Committee surely noticed that. Instead of acting of any of the problems Accreditation pointed out six years ago, he went on witch hunts against well-meaning faculty and telling students they don't need a placement test to put them in the right English and Math classes. He's incompetent and vicious. Chris Jackson is his henchman, almost as worthless, if a bit more affable. Amy Bacharach's only academic experience is working at a FOR PROFIT college (Argosy), in the psychology department, which was sued for granting degrees that were not accredited (that is, worthless). Does the SFBG know this????

Mandelman looks pretty good. The rest are jokers or far worse--grandstanding identity politics retreads from the early 90s era academic scene.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 6:00 pm

San Francisco Voters:
Please vote for Rachel Norton for re-election to the Board of Education. Rachel has common sense, integrity, and has proven herself to be a tireless advocate for San Francisco’s students. She's the hardest working member of the School board and deserves another term. I urge anyone who cares about kids in San Francisco Public Schools to vote to re-elect Rachel.
http://rachelnorton.com/endorsements/

Posted by Katy on Nov. 05, 2012 @ 8:57 am

=v= We need another 3rd party in this city: Green In Name Only. It's a way to get environmental credentials without doing anything actually green. Maybe do a lackluster stint at a nonprofit known for sellouts, register Green for a while (before of course defecting to the Democratic Party at endorsement time), work to attract hundreds of cars to Golden Gate Park, stuff like that. Then you'll get the _Guardian_ D5 endorsement, easy peasy.

Posted by Jym Dyer on Nov. 05, 2012 @ 11:46 pm

Your mommy was right. There are only good people and bad people. Everything is black and white. All issues can be reduced to yes or no. If someone does something you don't like, make sure they suffer for the rest of their life.

Thank you for this insight, gifted one. I know you guys (emphasis on GUYS) are just out for a little yuck, yuck on these chatboards since you obviously don't have anything more productive to do with your time, but if you and lilli and marcos ever get together and form a bona-fide group like, "The Only Ones Literate Snarkers, United," I suspect you can conquer the world with your incessently unwitty, critical and oppressive posts. The rest of us our just mindless, idiot sheep as you GUYS keep pointing out.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 06, 2012 @ 6:08 am

Related articles

  • East Bay Endorsements 2012

    Our recommendations in key Alameda County, Berkeley and Oakland races

  • Endorsements 2012: San Francisco propositions

    Yes (sigh) on Prop B. And vote hell yes to deny corporations personhood -- that'd be Prop G

  • Endorsements 2012: State and national races

    End the death penalty -- Yes on 34. Go Barack, and vote No on 35 for sexworker justice