Keep in mind that Eric Quezada said that he would vote for either Chris Daly or Ross Mirkarimi as Board President, Mark Sanchez said he would vote for Ross, and David Campos expressed interest in possibly voting for Bevan Dufty.

I've spoken directly to David Campos about this. He told me for the record that he has NOT said he would support Bevan Dufty for board president and that he expects to support a progressive candidate for that job if he wins.

The Guardian wrote: "...and he's given millions of Americans a chance to hope that Washington can once again be a friend, not an enemy, to progressive values at home and abroad."

Really? What about Obama calling China an "enemy"? Has Obama's position on the following changed since he made the statements or are liberals going to claim Obama is only taking this position until he gets into the White House? Will he, or do you expect him to, someone how change his position? (I would really appreciate a response from one of the editors of The Guardian, being that you have asserted that anyone who lives in San Francisco and does not vote for Obama is being either "clueless or soporific". )

From Reuters: "Tough Talk on Pakistan from Obama" Wed. August 1, 2007

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

I'm disappointed to see that the Guardian is following in the Comical's footsteps by endorsing a 'No' vote on Prop R. All the more because of the reason given: that it would insult the plant (which is inanimate) and the workers (whose local union endorsed the measure http://tinyurl.com/3u2gzw).

Most workers at what is now unimaginatively known as the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant understand that this initiative is in no way a condemnation of their effort, or of wastewater treatment in general, and many support the initative.

Indeed, there are many reasons to support the initiative that I'm sure the Guardian would recognize. History is written by those who take the time to write it and Bush's ideological supporters will be working tirelessly to cast him in a flattering light, just as the same crowd has re-branded Reagan as a well-loved, effective leader that he never was.

David Campos respects Bevan Dufty, so do I! Dufty voted to save John Swett Elementary and endorsed Kim-Shree Maufas but when David says he will vote for a progressive for board president and does not categorize Dufty as a "progressive", then where is the confusion? Campos will vote for a progressive and he named Daly or Mirkarimi as who he considered progressive;the other progressives currently on the board are termed out.
Tim, I know you set the record straight but I was a witness to THE VERY CONVERSATION(or one EXACTLY like it)that this false accusation stemmed from so I am commenting to validate the premise of your post and let you know what David told you is EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID to the person who made the inquiry THEN!
As far as I am concerned,running a clean campaign is crucial and the mud-slinging by the other candidates' supporters is a sad commentary on the state of the progressives. It is only necessary to praise the candidate you support without deriding their opponent!

Hey Redmond,

You didn't publish my response and it looks like you're not publishing any responses. You're telling us that you only got 5 people responding?

Hey guy, the SF Weekly did the same thing to me. They attacked me then refused to print any of my response. You sunk below them?

You're censoring your mail?

h.

The Guardian says vote No on R re sewage plant rename for Bush. I thought the SFBG was *against* the War-on-Fun?

Am I reading the Guardian or the Chronicle's endorsements?

Vote Yes on R! Guardian eds are seriously out of touch on this one... parroting Howard Epstein's talking points :-/

There are so many things that greatly disturb me about your District 3 endorsements. First of all this quote is based on lies that Aaron Peskin has been telling everyone: "Tony Gantner … is running well behind the others in the polls." Can you please tell me which polls you are referring to? Really, I want to know, because you mentioned them in an article for Chiu last week as well. I over heard David Chiu say that he had not done polls because “only the big money candidates can do polls” - which is strange because he did one himself. I know of two polls in D3. Claudine Cheng said that Tony Gantner got the most votes from her poll. Secondly, my good friend was called and asked who she was supporting for District 3 Supervisor. She said "Tony Gantner". The woman doing the poll, said "He is not one of your choices" and then read the four choices. My friend again said "Tony Gantner" and the woman said "he is not an option so I will put you down as an undecided voter". Many others had this exact same experience. Aaron Peskin is trying to make everyone believe that David Chiu, Denise McCarthy, and Joe Alioto are the only candidates "according to these polls" that could win. He is trying to scare all progressives into putting Chiu as their number one choice and McCarthy as number two by saying only they could beat Alioto, according to polls where Tony Gantner is not an option. Apparently that scare tactic worked well with the SFBG.

Chiu co-founded a huge company that gives political campaign advice to Republicans and PG&E and he is a progressive? Republicans gave his company which he founded $300,000 to help the Bush-Cheney ticket in 2004 and he is a progressive? What are you Fox News? At least Joe Alioto says what he means and does not hide how he makes his money. Any true progressive would have left Chiu's company long ago, instead of being paid by and helping these right wing groups. This is how Chiu makes his money and then he calls himself the clean money candidate.

Also, Tony Gantner is a more viable candidate than Denise McCarthy, but Peskin wants everyone to believe that his two candidates – Chiu and McCarthy – are in the lead. Gantner has greater ties to the community as he has lived here and served the community here his entire life. It is all hype that she is doing well with voters. She has raised a tremendous amount of money because she is funded mostly by rich right wingers who can all give the maximum amount. Please look at who has funded her. I think McCarthy is a nice lady who has done a lot for the community. However, I think Gantner knows more about the issues and has a better chance of winning. Gantner has a big base, but Aaron Peskin wants everyone to believe that Chiu and McCarthy are "winning in the polls" even though Gantner isn't even an option in their own push polls. Their goal is to minimize Gantner as a progressive candidate by not making him an option in their push polls. Please don't just refer to polls without explaining exactly how these push polls are performed. It is impossible to do well in the polls if people are not allowed to choose you. I am bothered by your lack of research into what the polls are asking and who they are pushing for.

I am obviously voting for Tony Gantner. He is a true progressive. All he wants to do with the festivals is block off streets and have the festivals on the streets instead of on the grass as it ruins Washington Square Park. This makes him an environmentalist, not a “law and order” guy. Gantner is the most progressive candidate and I am not going to let Peskin scare me by make up polling results that are inaccurate. If you have any of these polls, I would love to see them. But, I have a feeling you have never seen these polls that you are referring to. Maybe you should check Peskin's motives before believing his statistics.

I think that the SFBG is dead wrong on it's support for the Veteran's Bond/Boondoggle. Using your own logic regarding SF housing, it gives 80% of the money to millionaires and 20% to some undefinable group. It also puts other small, family-run farms that are scraping to get by on the defensive against larger agricultural interests that have been raking in the cash during this commodity boom. It might even go towards the bio-fuel industy.

It's simply a public giveaway to big farms that happen to be owned by anyone who happened to be in the army at some point (most likely Republicans) that is cynically disguised to pluck at the heartstrings of a war-weary public. And let's be real: how many farmers out there are veterans or veterans who are interested in starting a farm? It's totally arbitrary. Why not donate this money to VA hospitals and post-traumatic-stress wards and a modern-day G.I. bill that would give veterans the opportunity to pull themselves up in the first place (afterall the poor go into the army because they have no other options). At least this would offer them a REAL way out. You guys should have done your homework.

Tim:
If Campos told you flat out that he would not support Dufty for BoS president, then that is a lot more than he's said about it to other voters. In the D9 debate earlier this week, he refused to be pinned down on this question and then used his closing statement to praise the job Dufty has done as a Supe.
The Guardian has generally good recommendations, but in the D9 race, you missed the mark.

So much to comment on. Fist of all, h. Brown: What is your response? I don't have it. You can post it here, you seem able to do that. Always happy to hear from you.

Prop. R? Man, I wanted to vote for it, but I think we need to name something rally nasty after Bush. If you wanted a sewage plant, you should have picked the southeast one, which stinks and drops raw sewage into the Bay, not the one by Ocean Beach which is actually pretty good.

D9? You can argue this one forever. We liked all the candidates. I wish they could all win. For people who are playing this "Campos-is-not-progressive-enough" game, I can only say: We've watched all of these candidates for a long time. They're all progressives. They'd all be good supervisors.

The veteran's bonds? You have a good point, Expat. I'm still going to vote for it, but I get what you say.

I was also at the D9 debate the other day, and made up my mind to vote Sanchez, Quezada, Valtin. In addition to praising Dufty, Campos said he wanted to spend more money on police and that "they're doing a great job." He's either really out of touch, or he was playing for Storey's #2 votes.

Maybe criminals are too lazy to climb up that hill you all live on, but I can tell you they're busy here in the Mission, and the cops here aren't doing a damn thing other than harassing homeless.

Campos is playing both sides--he boasts about how much the POA hates him, but (like Tom and Bevan) he'll roll over when it's time to approve the next police contract. Talk is cheap, as our Mayor proves every day.

Ridiculous how you don't endorse Rachel Norton for San Francisco Board of Education, just because of her stance on JROTC, but you endorse Norman Yee and Kimberly Wicoff, BOTH of whom are NOW saying that they, if elected, would vote to extend the JROTC program in SFUSD schools.

What's wrong with you guys at the Guardian these days? Have you not been following the campaigns?

I am against proposition V myself, but still urge everyone who cares about our kids in San Francisco's public schools to:

VOTE FOR RACHEL NORTON FOR SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF EDUCATION

The problem with crime is the lack of resources to prevent it. Chief Fong once said on the news, to paraphrase, that "crime can occur as soon as the police turn the corner." I am unimpressed with "police" as the solution-by then you have the victim of the crime, frequently a young man of color gone forever-and the perpetrator, frequently a young man of color, who if caught, his life is effectively over. Imagine a city that offered real crime prevention solutions to the community-job training for GOOD paying jobs, mental health and addiction services,affordable housing, education support for those that are unengaged in school. I resent,those that do not risk the wrath of the POA, deriding David Campos! He has supported foot patrols, wants to civilianize the desk jobs that the high paid officers are performing. He may have supported cameras; so did my Supervisor Mirkarimi,who also supported the raise even as Delagnes called the BoS clowns! David is committed to preserving the Sanctuary City status that is under attack from Newsom and his cronies. When I met some of David's supporters they knew him from his work on PUBLIC SAFETY. To the best of my knowledge he is involved with the folks at Alemany, so it is not all about "up on the hill."
As for crime, in 2005 each one of my children knew a homicide victim. We had a 6 pm double homicide in my parking lot. Last year three young Black men died a block from my back door. My co-worker's brother was shot and now another Black family fled San Francisco. Last month, my co-worker and my husband's friend were murdered 3 days apart.The police cannot be everywhere all at once so prevention is the key! I believe that Mirkarimi and Campos will make great allies-committed to ending (drastically reducing to be realistic)the senseless and heart wrenching violence with a comprehensive plan that includes the police angle but goes much further-which is to reduce the root causes of crime. I have personally spoke to the police chief and my local captain, raising my support for foot patrols,etc. Right now my neighbor and I are in the infancy stages of a plan to address the violence in a community-based solution modeled on what was done in the lower Haight.
I am sure that JMC posts David comments out of context. He was probably referring to the rank-n-file officers who are just following orders from an often ineffectual leadership.I was not there, but I have been to Police Commission meetings and I know David has taken stands that have infuriated the POA, that means he has taken a risk to do the right thing.

Hello everyone. Thanks for all your comments. I wanted to take this opportunity to set the record straight about my position on a couple of things.

As far as the Board Presidency is concerned, as I have noted before, I haven't decided which individual I would support if I'm fortunate enough to be elected. As a progressive, I will be voting for one of the progressive Supervisors to be Board President; and from the progressive Supervisors serving on the Board, I will be choosing someone who is able to bring people together.

As far as the issue of public safety is concerned, while I believe that it is critical to address the root causes of crime, I also believe that policing (the kind policing that is community-based, transparent, and accountable) must also be part of the equation. In terms of my comments about the performance of the police, I have praised and will continue to praise the work done by many police officers; but that comment is not inconsistent with saying, as I have also said, that we need police reform, including more cultural competency training, openness for police disciplinary hearings, and protecting our sanctuary status.

Finally, let me say that I have praised Supervisor Bevan Dufty's focus on making sure that the knots and bolts of government are done well in the neighborhoods in his District. Even though we don't always agree, I respect and appreciate his approach. Personally, I don't have a problem acknowledging when someone does something well even if we have political differences. Thanks again for your comments.

Hello everyone. Thanks for your comments. I wanted to take this opportunity to set the record straight about my position on a couple of matters.

First of all, as I have noted before, as a progressive, if elected, I will be voting for a progressive Supervisor to be the next Board President. I have not decided which one of the progressive Supervisors that would be; but it would be someone who is able to bring people together, and move our progressive agenda forward.

As far as the issue of public safety goes, I have repeatedly stated that while I believe strongly that we need to address the root causes of crime, policing (the right kind of policing that is connected to our communities, that is transparent and accountable) must be part of the equation. I did say and will continue to say that there are police officers who do a great job by San Francisco; but, in my view, that is consistent with my belief that we need real police reform, including, among many things, more cultural competency for police officers, a working Early Intervention System, and maintaining police disciplinary hearings open to the public.

Finally, it is true that I have previously praised Supervisor Dufty for his efforts to make sure that the knots and bolts of government are done well in the neighborhoods in his District. While I don't agree with him on some issues, as a progressive, I don't see a problem with recognizing the good work he has done on that front. Thanks again for your comments.

David

To David Campos,

Following the September 10 article I wrote entitled, "The Battle for the 2009 Board Presidency, District 9 forum reveal candidate preferences," Bevan Dufty called me to say he's "never considered himself a Progressive."

Surely this admission eliminates Dufty from your consideration for the board presidency should you be elected to the District 9 seat?

Why not state for the record that you will not vote for Dufty? By not doing so, your candidacy will continues to make Progressives nervous.

Luke Thomas
FogCityJournal.com

I agree with what Luke said. In addition, I don't like how David seems to be playing both sides against the middle. I get the sense that he is intentionally obfuscating, being ungenuine and is overly self-conscious about what he is saying in order to get elected. I'm used to people like Newsom and Pelosi and Clinton doing that shit but I expect more from someone who wants to be elected in the most progressive district in the city. It reaches the point where he cynically thinks he is pleasing everyone but, in reality, people are just turned off, see through the charade, and think he is being fake.

I'm with Luke here on the David Campos/Board Presidency issue.
David, everyone knows that there are only 2 progressive incumbents on the Board of Supervisors: Daly and Mirkarimi. If a true progressive is the next Board President, it will be one of them. Perhaps you haven't decided which one of them you will back first, and that is fine. But to simply keep saying "I'll vote for a progressive" means that you either:
a) are intentionally ducking the question so as to leave the door open to support Dufty for Board President
b) you are so uninformed that you don't know the names of the incumbents on the Board of Supervisors.
Quezada always answers the question "Daly or Mirkarimi". Why can't you just say that? Sanchez has made it clear Mirkarimi is his first choice.
David, your rivals are naming names, why can't you?
And on the crime issue, many people, including myself, have been crime victims in District 9. We crime victims know that the police refuse to investigate anything, regardless of evidence. So when we listen to you talk about how great of a job the police are doing, it is a little hard for crime survivors to take. Have the police you know who are "doing a great job" actually caught any criminals?
We can use restorative justice/non-punitive approaches to rehabilitate criminals, but no one should be able to commit felonies with impunity. Criminals know better than anyone that in SF they can commit crimes with impunity, and we need political leaders who recognize that.

Tim Redmond wrote: "So much to comment on"

You did not comment on my post, in which I asked you to back up your assertion that Obama is "a friend, not an enemy, to progressive values at home and abroad" in spite of what he has said about Pakistan, along with the claim that anyone who lives in San Francisco and does not vote for Obama is being either "clueless or soporific".

If you do not reply, I guess I have very good reason to believe that you cannot support your claims. If Obama does indeed elected, I will be sure to send you statements made by Obama during the election --statements that you seem to ignore-- when the editors of The Guardian start to complain or express disbelief when Obama serves the purposes and upholds the power of the ruling class.