Janet Reilly should stay in the race


Now that a judge has ruled that Michela Alioto-Pier can run again for her District Two seat, a wide-open race has become a little strange. Janet Reilly had already rounded up the endorsements of Democratic Party heavies like Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, along with Gavin Newsom. Of course, Newsom has always supported Alioto-Pier in the past; he no doubt backed Reilly because he figured (as did a lot of us) that City Attorney Dennis Herrera was right and Alioto-Pier was termed out. Same goes for Feinstein and Pelosi, who won't want to be in the position of opposing an incumbent supervisor who has always sided with the downtown establishment.

So now what do all those people do?

Add in the fact that Herrera, who still thinks his position was correct, might decide to appeal, and the state Appeals Court might still intervene and kick Alioto-Pier off the ballot, and anyone who switches endorsements after this ruling might have to do it again after that one, and you've got quite a political mess.

The only thing that gets the entire power structure of the local Democratic Party off the hook is if Reilly drops out and says she doesn't want to fight Alioto-Pier. There's going to be immense pressure on her to do just that; I bet someone from Pelosi's office has already called.

But Reilly needs to hang tough. She's a good candidate who could mount a serious challenge to Alioto-Pier, who needs a challenge. District Two isn't going to elect a left-progressive, but Reilly would be a much more independent supervisor. I couldn't reach her today, but she told the Chron she was going to make up her mind this fall. My advice: Don't spend a lot of time debating (which leaves all your supporters up in the air). Announce right away that you're in the race for good, that you're in it to win and that you look forward to a lively debate on the issues facing the city. And if Pelosi and Feinstein back off from their endorsements, they look bad and you look fine.




Posted by generic on Jul. 23, 2010 @ 4:04 pm

Independent? Says who. Look who backs JR. She's not independent.

Posted by Guest LR on Jul. 23, 2010 @ 5:35 pm

What politician in this city is a trained flunky?

Posted by matlock on Jul. 23, 2010 @ 5:47 pm

Is that Janet Reilly herself would look really, really bad if she drops out. Whether or not there was some sort of a deal, it sure would look like one if she dropped out. It wouldn't pass the smell test.

If the appeals court then intervenes, and Reilly tries to get back in, her dropping out will seriously undermine her credibility if she's trying to present herself as independent. Even if it doesn't, and she tries to run in 4 years, this will still haunt her and open the door for another candidate.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 23, 2010 @ 6:46 pm

At the very least, at least you're not a product of the predominant Pacific Heights nepotism that is selling our town to the highest bidder.

Posted by Guest Patrick Monk on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 10:00 am

matlock, a better question might be who isn't a trained flunky.
#1. Daly
#2. Mar
#3. Avalos
#4. Campos (though time will tell)
#5. Mirkarimi, was a lot higher but has shown signs of defection and decline.
Probably as he has to start looking ahead and plan his next move.
The rest were bought and paid for long ago. Such is the sad state of affairs in beleaguered Baghdad By The Bay.

Posted by Guest Patrick Monk on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 11:04 am

For example Mirkarimi

He's a real go getter who turns his skills to being a servile progressive.

Graduated police academy, worked for DA, has a degree in economics...

I would never connect that resume with him and his beta personality. His servile progressiveness is amazing, you can expect that the other progressive would share the narrow uni-mind after looking at their history. The other members of the progressive club have the excuse that they spent their lives being miseryologists.

Whats so appealing to him about being more of a conformist than a born again Christian?

Posted by matlock on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 12:34 pm

having never been a 'conformist',
- as Jerry Jeff Walker sings -

"And I was contrary to the ordinary,
Even as a child,
Fast freights made me wonder,
The full moon still drives me wild
And stories do come true
If you live life in episodes
With one eye on your lady
And one eye on that open road".

- and having become a dead for life christian
as a result of my Church of England upbringing -
- I have no response and find little that is appealing.
However I assume that you consider the other six,
that I did not mention by name, to be paragons of
virtue who are dedicated to serving the public ?
Please correct me if I am being presumptious.

Posted by Guest Patrick Monk on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 4:26 pm

It puzzles me.

If a few people share a general political world view thats a party, say the democrats or republicans.

If a few people share a narrow world view where a person differing from that narrow world view is horrible, that is bordering on a cult.

The abuse that Teresa Sparks gets from the progressive cult down at the Guardian (Sparks as an ad homonym "conservative") is an example.

Posted by matlock on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 10:45 pm