Tim,

Gavin Newsom is a conservative on economic issues -- not a centrist. You are as fooled by labels as anyone and you are making yourself look bad (and helping the conservatives) in the process.

What expatriate said. The Heather Knight "article" was so loony it sounded like a Ken Garcia "Examiner" column on a particularly hysterical day. Mocking its lunacy is the only sane response, though I do love your typo, "is a bit miselading."

I think there's a big problem those that claim to be progressive refuse to address - the fact that San Francisco "progressives" are ultimately a straight white mail boy's club where girls, gays, transgendered people and lesbians and people of color Need Not Apply.

The biggest failure of 8 years of Anti Willie Progressivism has been the lack of development of new leadership beyond the Class of 2000. The fact that the Bay Guardian has been an accomplice in this is beyond me - but ultimately it is San Francisco that has suffered under this failure to move on beyond the Magical Matt/Gavin race of 2003 and into a modern era where we develop leadership.

Instead we have Chris Daly calling himself "de facto" leader and running the DCCC into the ground the way he's run the City into the ground. And now these fail whales want to run the electricity the way they run MUNI?

Not only is that bullsnot, it's just bad period. And the fact that Progressives can't let a non white Male in to the Boy's Club is just pathetic. You're the moral ones? Ha.

Greg,

Now you're just jousting at windmills that are not there, there are many strong women and women of color who do the work on the progressive side:

Christina Olague.
Jane Kim.
Sarah Lipson.
Sandra Fewer whom I met last night and really gets it.
Bobbie Lopez.
Sue Hestor.
Kathryn Mohr
Jazzie Collins.
Kim-Shree Maufas.
April Veneracion
Chris Durazo

Even Debra Walker has her moments.

The last time I checked, Mark Sanchez, John Avalos, Ross Mirkarimi, Tom Ammiano and Erics Quesada and Mar were not SWM. I don't think anyone's going to accuse my white ass of heterosexuality.

Can we do better at promoting diversity, of course we can. Is there too much alpha male ego in politics in general, sure, we can all afford to be more zen-like. But we cannot command women to run, only provide support, nurture and cultivate to make that choice more viable. Progressives cannot package instant candidates like Newsom's side packaged Carmen Chu.

But I'd rather have a principled progressive SWM in office who is right on the issues and has personal issues than a politically squishy woman or person of color who folds like a chair. Remember Willie Brown's mistress board? It was one of the most demographically diverse yet politically homogeneous imaginable.

Are you saying that it makes people feel better to know that the people who are screwing them on behalf of corporate San Francisco look like them?

There is a difference between fawning ritualistically to the courtiers on an issue to prove one's fealty and doing what it takes to marshal a coalition to move an agenda. On the Newsom side, its all about ass-kissing. On the progressive side, much of the DCCC stuff approaches that but the independents and Greens organize otherwise and that has been the source of our strength in the face of a much more meager resource base.

So many times, the rituals of court take precedence over actually doing something that we resemble the People's Front of Judea fighting the Judean People's Front (splitters) rather than building variable, unlikely coalitions. It is even more difficult to build coalitions when labor or a nonprofit has a sellout price point and will pull the plug.

Say what you would about the folks I mentioned above, and I've been critical when needed, but given the immense resources being spent to stop our agenda, we're holding our own enough of the time to make a difference.

-marc

Not that progressives need to respond to Greg Dewar, who has become increasingly reactionary, but I'd like to add a few names to the list.

Candidate for School Board Chris Jackson

Candidates for Supervisor...
Eileen Hansen
Alix Rosenthal
Marie Harrison
Christine Linnenbach
Jaynry Mak
Robert Haaland
Julian Davis
Bill Barnes

DCCC...
Rafael Mandelman
Michael Goldstein
Joe Julian
Gerry Crowley

Commissioners...
Criss Romero
Theresa Sparks
Petra DeJesus
Robin Levitt
Bill Sugaya
Kathrin Moore
Victor Hwang
Cecilia Chung
Kendall Goh
Randall Knox

I forgot to mention Renee Saucedo and probably many others.

One more point. While there are currently 4 straight white men on the Board of Supervisors, it's likely that there will be only 2 next year. This is due to progressives' strong candidates of color in this cycle. If progressives hold my seat in 2010, the Board could be down to 1 straight white man.

While there are only 3 female Supervisors and few strong candidates in this cycle, the future of women at the Board is very bright. Debra Walker, Jane Kim, Christina Olague, Marie Harrison, Kim-Shree Maufas, Jaynry Mak, London Breed, April Veneracion, and Rachel Redondiez could each hold a seat in the next decade.

who but me could forget sonya mehta and alicia schwartz?

-marc

marc,
While this is water under the brige, i will resurrect the recent mayoral campaign. Greg makes an extremely troubling and valid point. It was pretty obvious from the outset that Newscum's coronation was a foregone conclusion. 'The Rest' had a variety of motivations, but a few ran campaigns focused on critical issues and spoke out in opposition not only to the policies of our current corrupt corporatised administration, but also the generally feeble attempts by the Board to stand up for progressive causes and principles. I contend that the strongest candidate was Dr Ahimsa Porter-Sumchai, an articulate, strong, well-informed principled and progressive woman of color, with a long and distinguished record of fighting for human rights and equality. A strong demonstration of support for such a candidate could have sent a powerful message that we're mad as hell and not going to take it any more. A few of our 'progressive leaders' privately said they would endorse her, but when the time came to walk the walk, they shuffled back into their incestuous little inner circle and dug up another 'good ole white boy' to be the sacrificial banner bearer for their clique. Is it any wonder that monies have been allocated to retrofit marinas for fancy yachts and golf courses, while regular folks are deprived of basic essential health and human services. The prevailng attitude seems to be "Fuck 'em - let 'em starve, we want all the cake", reprehensible.
It will be interesting to see the positions these pandering party politicos take in the upcoming District 8 Congressional contest. To the best of my knowledge the only current 'elected' or candidate who has publicly endorsed Cindy Sheehan is Mark Sanchez, I assume this means the rest will endorse, either by default or acclamation, the re-election of Madame Pelosi. That pretty accurately reflects the size of their cojones and their committment to progressive principles.

Chris,
Espanola Jackson
Alicia Schwarz
Krissy Keefer
Dr Ahimsa Sumchai
........etc, etc.

It's funny to see the argument here turn into a bitch-fest about "diversity." It feels like I've entered a time warp from the 1990's. It also makes sense that Chris Daly would be joining in and listing the po' people of color he hangs with to prove his "progressive" credentials, since that's the era in which he dropped out of Duke and failed to earn his BA - it's clear he hasn't moved on from that time.

No one votes for seats on the DCCC other than hardcore political activists and they're usually pretty far left. I'm a political person and even I didn't vote for a slate - a mistake I won't make again after seeing the mess the self-declared "progressives" are making of the local Democratic party.

Ya know, folks, it's really easy to bash the left. There's always something we're doing wrong. Not diverse enough, not tough enough, not effective enough, not PC enough, not organized enough, too organized, not powerful enough, too powerful ... and this time, it's not enough woman and people of color.

First, as some of the others have pointed out, that's factually wrong. Second: Take a moment to look at all the Class of 2000 has accomplished, how this city has gone from one where politics was totally controlled by a machine and money ran everything to one where there's both the possiblity and often, the reality of real progressive change.

I know we all have our faults, and the left isn't perfect. But Jesus -- I've been here sinced 1981 and we've come a VERY long way in the past few years.

"...controlled by a machine and money...".
Redevelopment of SE Sector. Lennar enabled by vast majority of "civic leaders". Massive speculator profits. Gentrification and ethnic cleansing.
Prop F funding approx $10,000.
Prop G funding approx $5,000,000.
Fillmore deja vu !!.
Reparations half a century after the fact !!.
More "live work lofts" anyone ?.
Gimme a break Tim.
The more things change the more history repeats itself, the politicians make deals with downtown to ensure future backing as they slither up the greasy pole to higher office, or for eventual private sector payback, the rich get richer while we get screwed again.

Tim, the problem is that after 8 years of the blessed class of 2000, they've morphed into the same kind of machine you and the Guardian attacked under the Brown era, the only difference being that now it's your guys who don't like public input, and don't like anyone getting in the way of their personal ambitions, people be darned.

More to the point - the Class of 2000 and allied activists had 8 years to use the power of incumbency (and all that brings with it) to build a lasting progressive movement and recruit better, and more diverse candidates to take over once term limits kicked in. That did NOT happen, and as such we now have the spectacle of the DCCC being taken over by sitting and soon-to-be-sitting politicians, with all the trouble that entails.

None of this would have mattered had the progressives spent less time on symbolic measures and ballot arguments, and more time on helping more of San Francisco that has been harmed by some of the changes in our City.

Instead they focus on the extremely poor, their own political allies, and thier parochial interests, and those of us who work every day and are getting squeezed by taxes, rent, mortgages or other costs find ourselves with no one sticking up for us - and endure the gloating of progressives who enjoy seeing us get screwed over. SF is a Third World city of the very rich, the very poor, and no one in between. Progressives talked a lot about this issue, but have nothing to show for it - and they've had 8 years.

Finally, Greg cuts to the nub of the bait an switch of San Francisco's current political deadlock, that the professional progressives are paid by government and donors to address the needs of the most needy while the moderate/conservatives are only out for the enrichment of themselves and their corporate patrons.

The power of the incumbency is much less when it is divided by 11 and reduced by the Charter to a marginal branch of government.

Given the crappy choices, I'll still side with those who ignore the needs of the middle to help the poor when the other choice is to ignore the needs of the poor to and lie to the middle that they care while not and only helping the rich.

The problem is that both the corporate hacks AND the professional progressives guard the political terrain they assert control over jealously and would sooner fight interests generally aligned with them rather than fight their common enemy.

For the corporate hacks, this is a wise strategy, as if we do nothing they win. For the side of the non-rich, it is suicidal.

-marc

We have a winner!

Marc, thank you. You've finally said out loud what I suspected for a long time - progressives dislike the middle class, and don't give a damn about 'em.

If you can't see just how foolish a strategy that is, either for the City's well being, or for "progressives," well then I think we see loud and clear what the problem is.

No side has all the answers. But it is now very very clear that progressives have made a choice, which includes basically abandoning a tremendous number of people who work very hard for a living, and get not a damned thing from "progressive" control. Aside from that being stupid from a moral point of view, it's foolish politically - it means progressives have decided to target a growing segment of voters and attack them. How on earth is that productive?

There was nothing stopping progressive Supervisors from using their incumbency to raise money for organizations that would institutionalize their gains. But that didn't happen. Instead, they chose another route, and Marc's babbling just reinforces what I'd suspected for a while - excuses gain more traction with Progressives than action.

And now we're supposed to trust guys like Marc and his second-string progressives with the power system? Sorry, no dice. If I'd just had a sense that I and my friends who want our City to be a great place to live for everyone did not have a progressive target on our backs because we dont' live in squalor or own a pot club, then maybe. But as of now, no way.

Greg, have you joined Plan C?

You say:

"progressives dislike the middle class, and don't give a damn about 'em."

That's not what I said at all. The ultra left of the progressive coalition hates the middle class as if they were the rich. In many cases, this is a projection of their loathing of their own suburban middle class roots. The nonprofit segment of the progressive coalition is not paid to care about the middle class. Thus, the people who get rabid and organize and the people who have the organizational capacity have no place for the middle class in their politics. The rest of us are just too busy working to pay the bills for this cavalcade to be able to change anything.

That approach is a prescription for losing citywide elections for the duration.

Your assertion of progressive control is overstated when compared to the bloated executive branch and a downtown with enough money to quash almost whatever they want. Given the structural impediments progressives face, its a wonder we beat them more than half the time when we run against the moderate, downtown clique.

But that should not be surprising. They are united by more money than any of us will ever conceive of while we are united by warm and fuzzy ideals. Progressives are damned if we allow those paid to do the work to take charge as they can be bought off and we are damned if there is no funded infrastructure.

-marc

campers,

Why are there no women posting here? Tim, do you consider women Spam?

h.

Marc and Chris,
Which one of you is Romy and which is Michelle?

I am a woman. In fact, I'm a little old lady, not an "ultra Liberal", but a true Eleanor Roosevelt Liberal. I am also straight.

When you write that "the fact that San Francisco "progressives" are ultimately a straight white mail boy's club where girls, gays, transgendered people and lesbians and people of color Need Not Apply" you are wrong. Look at the people who ran for DCCC with the HOPE slate. Count the straight white males.

Moreover, that is only the first of your many errors in your postings, Greg. However, I am sure others have and will weigh in on these!