Don Fisher attacks the supes
The Chron story Sunday portrayed the battle over transportation policy in San Francisco as Don Fisher vs. Aaron Peskin, but actually, Fisher is going further. He's mounting an all-out attack on the Board of Supervisors -- and a pro-Newsom campaign committee is helping out.
Fliers that went to the west side of town attack the supervisors as childish -- and attack Prop. A as "another transportation solution from the Board of Supervisors." The first flier is from the campaign against Prop. E -- that's question time, the measure that would require the mayor to appear before the board once a month. The second is from Fisher's campaign against Prop. A.
The nearly identical messages aren't a coincidence -- the fliers have the same return address (150 Post St. Suite 405, the office of campaign lawyer Jim Sutton) and both were done by Rich Schlackman, a campaign consultant who is working with both No on A and No on E.
The plan, clearly, is to make people think the supes are idiots -- then saddle Prop. A with that image. The fact that Schlackman, who is one of nation's top direct-mail experts and who also works with Nathan Nayman and the Committee on JOBS, has adopted this strategy signals downtown's continuing effort to go after the district-elected board. Expect more of this crap in the months to come.
BY THE WAY: The battle over Props. A and H is still close. Labor and environmental groups had 250 people out on the streets talking up Yes on A and No on H over the weekend, but if people don't turn out to vote, Don Fisher could get his way.
The Yes on A/No on H party is Tuesday night at El Rio.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (1)
There are a few issues that aren't taken into account when the Board of Supervisors are attacked by the usual suspects and how to respond to them:
1.) It is generally agreed that the Board of Supervisors -- taken in aggregate -- are unappealing to the body politic (at least according to the Chronicle). This is why they are attacked as a whole (as shown in the advertisement above) in an effort to build up to repealing district elections which, as far as I know, are still popular.
2.) When dissected by district, however, the Supervisors are fairly popular -- at least according to election outcomes. For example, Aaron Peskin won by something like 60% of the vote, Sandoval by 58%, Alioto-Pier by 80%, Dufty by 70%, etc. The only time that the Supervisors are unpopular in their district is when they don't properly represent it. For example, Ammiano won his election in 2004 by barely 50% because of his nonsensical and moronic ideas of taking a ruthless strategy to sell-out and become conservative, in spite of the fact that he lives in the most progressive district in a relatively progressive city ... Or when the Supervisor is making an ass out of themselves and is attacked ad hominum for it (i.e. Chris Daly).
3.) This being the case, I think that the best way to prevent a repealing of district elections is to pick out the supervisors who are popular in their district and who still support district elections and to advertise this fact purely in their own districts. For example, if the powers that be wisely try to create a city-wide elected supervisor or become too greedy and try to take it all, each district could be actively lobbied on an individual basis by their own supervisor.
4.) The fact that most supervisors support district elections could be de-emphasized on a city-wide basis. I know it sounds childish and shallow, but a lot is at stake here.
Posted by expatriate | November 6, 2007 07:36 AM