Sounds to me like you're not facing reality, which is par for the course for this leftist rag and its brain-dead columnists.

Newsom has now won almost 75% of the vote. The Republican candidate has almost as many votes as the candidate your newspaper endorsed! Prop E has been defeated and it wasn't long ago you were saying that if Newsom had "any political coattails" Prop E would have to go down, and it has.

Any way you cut it - this election spells the beginning of the end of the leftist shakedown mafia which "progressives" in San Francisco have degenerated into. Your patron saint - Chris Daly - has been bitch-slapped by the voters twice now, almost any proposition or candidate he backs is going to be tainted by the political poison he's become.

The next four years are going to give us a chance to take back our city from the narrow-minded ideological stranglehold "progressives" have placed San Francisco under for years. This election was only the beginning. I can't wait.

And still a black kid was killed at the goddamn Metreon theater on a Sunday night at 7PM because he wasn't walking fast enough down the escalator...Meanwhile, the SFBG continues to look for a pretty pony in a losing measure because it got 45% of the vote. Meanwhile, this crowd couldn't even field a candidate, saw their arch enemy Newsom run up the score at near 75%, and still they try to spin Newsom as some type of Bush incarnate....Meanwhile, the blood of yet another black teen bleeds.....And silence abounds.......

The Guardian doesn't care about African-Americans other than to pimp them out when it suits the newspaper's interests. It's an old-line "what will the blacks think" kinda rag which professes love for the black man while at the same time clinging tightly to its collective purse every time a person of color walks by. The Guardian likes the image of African-Americans as quaint, oppressed-by-the-man victims of white privilege because this is what their white readers like to think of "the blacks" as. Anything that doesn't fit into their tired lefty paradigm of "oppressed communities of color" isn't welcome in this echo chamber.

In June 2006, I placed Proposition A, the Homicide Prevention Charter Amendment, on the ballot. With no explanation, Gavin Newsom opposed the measure. Then the Police Officers Association sent out last minute mailers against the measure. In another low turnout election, the measure lost by 1.5 points.

Shortly thereafter, I co-sponsored Supervisor Mirkarimi's legislation to mandate foot patrols in certain police precincts. Newsom opposed, sending his beleaguered Police Chief to the Board to run interference.

The Bay Guardian as there on each of these issue, with solid reporting and advocacy for these common sense proposals. Unfortunately, Newsom was not.

Proposition I, asking the Mayor to attend one meeting of the Board a month to engage in formal policy discussion, was supported by many more voters than Newsom was for reelection. With the money being even, voters think the formal policy discussions is a good idea. And it is an issue that is most definitely related to all of the pressing issues that face our City.

Why no mention of Ben Tulchin polling for the Yes on A and No on H campaigns? Seems like a glaring omission given Stearns billing. Or his past client Jake McGoldrick? Or any of his other progressive clients? Perhaps because it doesn't fit into your mold of what you wanted the story to be. So much for balanced reporting...

People don't like your propositions Chris, they fail repeatedly. Perhaps it would be better to stop the grandstanding and work more quietly behind the scenes if you really care about the issue.

Prop I was advisory, whereas Prop E was not. The voters of San Francisco aren't dumb, they knew exactly what you were trying to do when you put Prop E on the ballot and they voted it down. The political theater you've turned

Well, at least Chris Daly has SOMETHING to say about the black teen killed at the Metreon on Sunday at 7PM for not walking down the escalator fast enough...I am not sure what your measures would have done, but at least it was something. And, for what it is worth, Chris, you seem to care when poor black kids are gunned down for no reason. Your legislative efforts fail, of course, due to your own self-inflicted wounds that you alone are to blamed for; but, my criticism was about the SFBG (not you) staying totally silent about it, while always crying wolf about all things Newsom. And yet it is totally silent about the totally senseless killing at the Metreon during one of the city's biggest conventions of the year....Isn't it worth a mention of some sort?

Shane writes, "People don't like your propositions Chris, they fail repeatedly."

Saying this over and over may provide comfort to Newsom sycophants, but it doesn't make it true.

In 7 years, I have been the main author of 21 measures on the ballot. Sixteen passed. Two lost by less than 5 points. And only the Sales Tax for Transportation Projects measure had any significant money behind it (it received 74.8% of the vote). One of the measures that I count losing, Taxi Permitholder Disability, I was actually the fourth signature even though my name appeared on the top line (the other 3 Supes left the top line open.) The other four measures I authored that did not pass had significant campaigns against them that included mail, advertising, signs, and even television commercials.

Even when I don't win on the ballot (less than 24% of the time), I empty the bad guys pockets.

Cheers!

Let me just address a couple points:
Hank, we're a weekly newspaper with a small news hole and stretched resources, so we try to focus on larger trends and not individual breaking news events, which we leave to the daily newspapers and television stations. But we have spent considerable time, space, and resources highlighting the epidemic of homicides in San Francisco and urging solutions like Prop. A, police reform, the economic empowerment of low-income communities, and creating more affordable housing (which we need to stop the African-American exodus from this city), all issues on which we have, unfortunately, ended up on the wrong side of this mayor. That isn't tokenism, Shane, but a genuine concern for the future of SF and its diversity and sense of social justice. We were also the only paper in town to endorse one of the black mayoral candidates (and to highlight the shared concerns of both black candidates and other candidates on the issue of race), so I'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusions.
Laurie, as for why I didn't mention that your husband Ben sometimes does polling for the good guys like the Yes on A/No on H, I was focused more on his Newsom comments because that was the subject of this post and I didn't think it was relevant, although I understand your point and perhaps I should have mentioned it. But my intent was to place his comments about Newsom in context. I know that the two of you have very close personal and professional ties to the Newsom Administration and its allies, so close that you got the mayor to challenge and delay Johnny Mosley's Icer Air ski jump competition in Pacific Heights a few years ago simply because it affected your wedding in the neighborhood. I don't begrudge you or Ben that kind of political pull, but it's just not honest for Ben to stand up at this meeting and make a big point about his independence from the mayor. I just didn't think it was honest, and I don't think he offered good support for his conclusions, something I challenged him on at the meeting and got answers that I (and others in the audience) just didn't buy.

Steve you made a world class ass of yourself at the SPUR event with your consistent denial of reality, Your constant spinning may be great if you're a paid political hack for the left, but you claim to be a journalist (which you are NOT).

Ms. Beijen nailed it on the head - you twist and turn facts to make them into what YOU want, and fail as a journalist.

Do us all a favor, and quit the pretense of jouralism and put yourself on the line as a political hack for the left. You've done a great job shredding what crediblity the BG had, and shoving it down the toilet. And your performances on City Desk just reinforce what many people think - this paper is a joke, and your "reporting" is just Fox News for the left. I can't believe you've been allowed to shit all over the BG's legacy like you have.

At least I take responsibility for the things I write and say, rather than launching anonymous personal attacks using fake e-mail addresses. If you were at the SPUR event, you're probably involved in politics, but clearly too much of a coward to confront me directly.

Come on, "bg_is_lame" -- you're using a nonworking email address and a really, uh, lame pseudonym. I'm all for the anonymity of the web, but if you want to level personal insults, you ought to be willing to stand up for yourself and quit hiding.

It does seem somewhat disingenuous that a campaign consultant for a campaign would be the presenter at SPUR.

Prop A polled initially at 50+-2. A few hundred thousand dollars pushed it a few points.

Prop H polled initially at 70-30 for. It is remarkable that Prop H failed 58% in early absentees, which trend conservative, and astounding that it failed 2:1 overall.

There is no way that a campaign that spend disproportionately for Yes on A could have done 2:1 damage on Prop H. That was an organic expression of San Franciscans across the political spectrum that the rapid pace of condo development and change, with the impacts it portends such as parking and traffic, is not acceptable in its current or expanded form.

The failure of Prop H is a rebuke of Newsom's housing policy.

And with low-turnout elections, voter expression can easily skew given that the sample size is smaller, which is what happened on Prop E.

Maybe now that Newsom has disrespected the Chinese community by abruptly changing his mind about traveling to China, the stage will be set for his recall next fall. Given his ease of reelection, he can only overplay his hand out of haughtiness or underplay it out of timidity.