The SF Democratic Party's future
Lots of talk and some interesting action at the Harvey Milk LGBT Club meeting last night. Marc Salomon, Robert Haaland and I gave a presentation on the meaning of the June election, and what November’s going to be about, and I passed along my thoughts about the tremendous potential for a broad progressive coalition this fall.
But mostly, the discussion involved the Democratic County Central Committee.
See, in June, thanks to a well-organized slate effort, the progressives won enough seats to hold something close to a working majority on the DCCC. That matters – and this fall, it could matter a lot. Because the DCCC controls the endorsements and money for the local Democratic Party. And in some of the key local races, particularly the swing supervisorial districts, the party’s money and party support could make the difference.
And the first test for the progressive slate will be the vote in a few weeks for DCCC chair.
The chair has a considerable amount of influence -- and becomes the face of the local party. Right now, Scott Wiener, a deputy city attorney, hold that job. He’s active with the Alice B. Toklas Club, and is generally considered part of the more moderate wing of the queer community. Wiener’s a nice guy, is fair in his conduct of the DCCC, and has certainly supported some progressive ideas and initiatives, but he’s not going to be leading the push for a slate of supervisorial candidates that will maintain the left-leaning majority. He’s not supporting John Avalos in District 11. He’s still neutral in District 1, where Eric Mar is holding up the progressive banner.
He’s more of a Bevan Dufty guy; decent, hardworking, okay on some issues, but not someone you can trust to consistently defy the mayor, the developers and the local power structure. In fact, BeyondChron points out today that he’s given money to Plan C, which is a horrible group. Wiener told me that it’s unfair to judge a candidate on the basis of one contribution, which is true, and that he gives money to a lot of groups that have endorsed him.
He also told me that there are some groups he would never give money to; if for example, the Republican Party had endorsed him for an office, he wouldn’t contribute. “Of course, I wouldn’t seek their endorsement,” he said.
So Wiener is okay with Plan C; he disagrees with them on some things, and agrees with them on others, but thinks the group is overall worthy of occasional support. I think Plan C is the enemy; the group exists primarily to destroy the progressive agenda. So Wiener and I part company there.
The other candidate is Aaron Peskin.
Peskin’s president of the Board of Supervisors, and giving him control of the Democratic Party at the same time makes me nervous; that’s a lot of power for one person. But he’s termed out on the board, and has only a few more months in office. So this is a move for the future.
Lord knows, I’ve had some issues with Supervisor Peskin. I once called on him to resign the board presidency after a particularly awful vote in favor of Home Depot. (That one turned out well, huh Aaron?) He can be too quick to cut a deal, and that’s infuriated some of his colleagues on the left.
But most of the time, on most of the big ones, Peskin has been in the progressive camp. He and Ross Mirkarimi are leading the battle for public power this fall. And frankly, for all his drawbacks, he’s been a pretty good board president. I personally think he’d be a fine DCCC chair – particularly since my first choice for the job, Debra Walker, isn’t running.
Peskin is straight. Wiener is gay. Peskin supported Carole Migden; Mark Leno, who won that race and is now even more of a powerful force in queer politics, backs Weiner. There are calls being made on all sides, and there’s a lot of pressure on some of the queer progressives to keep the top slot in the local Democratic Party in the hands of a gay person.
But as Haaland and Milk Club President Rafael Mandelman pointed out last night, Peskin has done a lot to promote queer leadership in his appointments – and on the key issues, particularly the endorsements in Districts 1, 3 and 11 as well as the Housing Justice initiative, the public power Charter Amendment and the two progressive tax measures, Peskin can be counted on the take the party in the right direction.
And that’s what this ought to be about.
The progressives ran a slate of candidates with the aim of changing the local party, the local party power structure and the local party’s political direction. If they’re serious about that, they should start at the top, and change the person in charge.
We didn’t endorse the progressive slate, and I didn’t vote for these people, just because they’re all friends of mine or because I think they’re all wonderful people. This was about issues – and the folks who won as a part of that slate, with the support of those of us who care deeply about those issues, ought to remember that when the vote for chair comes up.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (1)
Perhaps I'm wrong, but there seems to be a general misconception with regard to the DCCC's financial resources. I don't expect the DCCC to have a lot of money flowing in now because progressives would have direct influence over where that money is appropriated. No money to the conservatives and moderates, no money to the DCCC. Period. Kimiko Burton got money for a reason.
Posted by expatriate | June 26, 2008 01:10 PM