Politics and sausage
Last night, I was reminded of the old joke that people who like sausage and appreciate politics shouldn't watch either one being made.
Less than a week after winning a majority of the seats on the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee, the progressive-minded “Hope Slate” candidates (all of which were endorsed by the Guardian) descended into bitter infighting over who to back for the powerful chair of the DCCC.
The acrimony began when Board of Supervisors president Aaron Peskin, whose 23,049 DCCC votes was second only to David Campos (whose run for supervisor this fall would conflict with running the DCCC), resisted calls to run for the chair, much to the consternation of progressive stalwarts such as Chris Daly and Robert Haaland.
Some Hope Slate candidates, such as Laura Spanjian, were apparently supporting a play by Assembly member turned Senator-to-be Mark Leno to have moderate Scott Wiener continue as the DCCC chair, despite the fact that he wasn’t part of the winning slate and he finished in 10th place in the DCCC District 13 race.
And for awhile there, Peskin seemed to be going along the Leno’s play, arguing that progressives should adopt a conciliatory posture. So the candidates gathered together last night at the 500 Club to hash out their differences, and I had a front row seat for a discussion that turned nasty – with Daly shouting at Peskin and Spanjian and then storming out of the room.
But today, as cooler heads prevailed, Peskin has decided to run, telling me, “Yes, it is true, I am running.”
The crowd included Peskin, Daly, Spanjian, Haaland, Michael Borenstein, Debra Walker, Rafael Mandelman, Jane Morrison, Hene Kelly, Michael Goldstein, and Joe Julian, almost all of whom urged Peskin to run.
“I don’t know that we need to gloat,” Peskin responded, also citing personal issues that made taking such a demanding post unattractive, telling the group, “I’m not deciding that for our committee, but for me and my life.”
Haaland noted how important it was for progressives to coalesce around a candidate early, lest they lose the moment: “The first week after the election is the most critical time for securing the chair.”
Borenstein, who ran the DCCC campaign on the westside, said it’s important for progressives to seize this opportunity to take control of the party and steer it away for its safe centrism of recent years.
“On the day that Barack Obama secured the nomination, we won with our people,” he said. “They’ve had their time, this is our time now.”
Borenstein said this could be the start of a long political shift, with the DCCC helping San Francisco set an example for the rest of the country. And he made clear who was best capable of leading that switch: “Aaron Peskin must be chair.”
Daly argued that Peskin could take the job now and give it up after the election, citing parliamentary moves that Spanjian didn’t agree with and the two began a heated argument, with Daly becoming steadily louder and more belligerent.
“If we don’t use this victory to win the board race,” Daly said, referring to the power the DCCC chair has to steer party resources toward favored supervisorial candidates, “it’s over, it’s done, it’s kaput.”
Peskin pointed out that most of those in the room backed Carole Migden, “but Carole Migden lost.” He argued the group should acknowledge that reality and start working more closely with Leno. But Daly said that just because Leno likes Wiener, that doesn’t mean he’s a good choice for chair.
“Who gives a shit about Scott Wiener? He came in 10th after spending $35,000,” Daly said, referring to Wiener’s pricey effort to get more votes that he did.
“Aaron is the only, only person who could become the chair,” Julian said.
Spanjian argued that the DCCC under Wiener was hardly a conservative body, defying the group to identify votes they didn’t agree with. But Daly drew the line and issued an ultimatum: “Every one of you who votes for Scott Wiener, I’m going to try to take you out. I’m going to make it my business.”
There was some talk about Debra Walker running for chair if Peskin won’t, but doubts were raised about whether she had the votes to win. Indeed, both Morrison and Kelly later told me that they weren’t inclined to support her.
“We won this, and now we’re all falling apart, like progressives do,” Walker told the group, turning to Peskin and saying, “I will do it if you won’t do it, but I won’t support Scott Wiener.”
Finally, Daly started to berate Peskin, telling him, “Get your shit together for six months.” They exchanged words back and forth as other side discussions started up, and before I could figure out exactly what escalated things, Daly was into a full-throated tirade against Peskin.
Daly called Peskin “a moron” and “fucking idiot,” and told him, “fuck you, you piece of shit!” Peskin pushed back: “Take your fucking medication!” Finally, Peskin had enough. “Get the fuck out of here!” he told Daly, who stormed out of the room.
Nobody was happy with how ugly things had turned, and a few tried to cajole me into not writing about it. Other fretted how the infighting would affect the things the left cares about. “What we saw here is why people are turned away from progressives,” Walker said.
Peskin sized it up this way: “You have to make the party look sane.”
But with Daly gone, the others quietly and diplomatically worked on Peskin, who started to thaw in his resistance to running. “I don’t want to be the chair of the Democratic Party,” he told me at one point. “But I didn’t want to be the president of the Board of Supervisors either. But I did it.”
Ultimately, Peskin decided that it was indeed important to have a progressive chair and that he was the best one for the job. The vote for chair will take place shortly after the election is certified next month.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (7)
Doesn't anyone care about the moral implications of giving Peskin additional power? So many of his 'constituents' are breathing a sign of relief that he is being termed out after eight years of pushing his very personal agendas and violating so many norms of decency and integrity.
And now we want to give the same person additional back room power?
Posted by Art Klecko | June 12, 2008 06:43 AM
This is what happens when politics prioritizes the ratification of kinship networks over keeping eyes on the task at hand.
Of course Chris is correct. If progressives can't figure out a way to fight against our common opponents instead of each other, even as we contest seats against each other like in D9 and D11, when we will have to own responsibility for the acceleration of gentrification that will condemn progressive politics in San Francisco to the dustbin of history.
The record of many "progressives" on the DCCC as respects development speaks for itself. Peskin has done as much damage in allowing luxury development on the east side to proceed apace as he's done well in promoting progressive candidates--a wash.
As these individuals seek promotions from the DCCC and commissions to the board of supervisors, progressives would do well to evaluate their accomplishments with respect to preserving progressive power in the face of luxury development induced gentrification.
It remains to be seen if the winning record of the DCCC is due to it being more moderate and endorses in sync with campaign money that wins elections, or if the brand itself sways the votes.
If Peskin did not want to be president of the Board of Supervisors, then why did he run against Gonzalez and Maxwell in 2003 and uncontested in 2005 and '07?
-marc
Posted by marc salomon | June 12, 2008 07:40 AM
Steve, I don't know if you had trouble hearing with all the loud music, but your account has inaccuracies... for example, Joe Julian said that Aaron WASN'T the only progressive who could be Chair, and I specifically said that I would not go after Jane Morrison for voting for Scott (she'd previously committed to him).
In the end, the progressive caretakers did what we needed to do to advance progressive politics. Peskin has sold out progressive causes for political convenience before (Home Depot, Comcast, Lennar) -- it was time to let him know, in no uncertain terms, never again. It wasn't pretty, but we should all be very relieved with the outcome.
Thanks for being there, by the way. I don't think it would have worked out as well without you.
Posted by Chris Daly | June 12, 2008 09:56 AM
Update: Mark Leno returned my call last night after he was stuck in budget hearings all day, and he denied instigating the move to stay with Wiener, saying that was Peskin's idea: "This play to have Scott continue as chair is not attributable to me. It was Aaron's doing. And apparently it went south."
Posted by Steven T. Jones | June 12, 2008 01:14 PM
Second update: I followed up again with Leno to clarify whether he is indeed supporting Wiener for chair, and he confirmed that he is. "I think Scott has done the job as central committee chair very well these last few years," Leno told me, citing increased fundraising and voter registration efforts. He also said the two have been friends for 10 years, and Leno is widely understood to be Wiener's main political benefactor.
So whether or not Leno influenced Peskin's initial idea of supporting Wiener, Peskin certainly knew that Leno wanted Wiener as chair. The question now being bandied about among progressives is what kind of deal Peskin cut to back Wiener, a move that appears dead for now. Yet politics being what it is, I'll hold off on pronouncing who the next chair will be for a few more weeks.
Posted by Steven T. Jones | June 12, 2008 02:51 PM
Clarification: I implied in a comment (which I've since removed) who Bevan Dufty is likely to back for chair and to succeed him, and he called to say he hasn't made either of those decisions yet.
Posted by Steven T. Jones | June 13, 2008 01:27 PM
"two have been friends for 10 years"
The courtiers fawn at each other while the city devolves into an unrecognizable shadow of its former self.
-marc
Posted by marc salomon | June 15, 2008 10:22 AM