DCCC endorsements -- how the hell did this happen?

|
(35)

Everyone knew that the DCCC, the endorsing arm of the San Francisco Democratic Party, would have trouble choosing candidates in the heavily contested D. 10 race. After all, the member decided at the August endorsement meeting to punt the D. 10 decision for four weeks.

But the DCCC’s September 8 endorsement of civil rights attorney Dewitt Lacy, former Newsom staffer Malia Cohen, and biodiesel activist Eric Smith, in that order, was somewhat mind-boggling. It left the San Francisco Democratic Party in the position of endorsing a candidate who is utterly unreliable on tenant issues and passing over perhaps the most progressive contender in the race.

D. 10 candidate Tony Kelly, who has a long history of progressive involvement in the district and who thought he had strong support on the DCCC, felt as if he'd been thrown under the endorsement bus. And it left fellow progressive Chris Jackson feeling that the DCCC endorsement process didn’t take the community’s wishes into consideration.

It’s common knowledge that DCCC members felt they had to endorse an African American in this district, since it contains the city’s largest remaining black community, and since it's unlikely that a black candidate will get elected from any other district this fall, potentially leaving the board with no African American representation.

But that does not explain why the DCCC, after giving Lacy its first place endorsement, gave its second slot to Cohen, a moderate who told the Guardian in a recent endorsement interview that she doesn’t support further controls on evictions and condo conversions because that would infringe on property owners’ rights.

And in the end, you have to wonder: Does this end up helping Steve Moss, the candidate most progressives on the DCCC most fear?

Insiders point to two hidden plays that worked against Kelly, and for Cohen, in terms of getting the DCCC’s nod.

The first was a push by downtown interests to have their representatives on the DCCC make no endorsements in the race. The idea was to keep Kelly off the slate, so that downtown’s preferred D. 10 candidate Steve Moss would have a better chance of sewing up the vote on Potrero Hill, where Kelly is expected to do well.

The other play was a push among some DCCC members to put a black woman on the slate. This made Cohen, despite her moderate stance on some progressive issues, their choice, since she was born and raised in the district and has raised enough money to run a competitive campaign.

DCCC chair Aaron Peskin told the Guardian that he wanted Kelly to get one of the slots.

“My failure to do so proves that the DCCC isn’t a machine,” Peskin said. “I wanted Tony on there somewhere, and for a while it was looking like he might get second or third place.”

Kelly told the Guardian that he was surprised not to get the DCCC endorsement—and that he has received 8 phone calls from DCCC members apologizing for what happened.

“Nobody wanted those three candidates, except perhaps Scott Wiener,” Kelly said.

“At the same time, there have been so many gyrations around this in the last week. I’ve had more than half of the DCCC members tell me directly, ‘You’ll make the best supervisor—and I’m supporting someone else.’ But now they don’t even have three progressives in the slate.”

Kelly added: “This is a weak moment for the Democratic Party. This is not a machine, it’s not something that has strength or relevance to the district. This is the most clueless endorsement possible.”

Jackson believes that what happened last night was purely politics.

“This was a very political process and they made a political decision,” Jackson said. “But ultimately, it’ll be up to the neighborhoods and community to make their own choice.”

 “Unbelievable,” is how Smith described the DCCC’s D. 10 slate. “Right before this vote started, Eric Quezada told me, no matter what happens, there are better things in life than this. But now I feel great. It’s given my campaign a big boost.”

“I’m close to Tony Kelly, I consider him as a friend,” Smith added. “But in some ridiculous karmic way, the stars aligned, and I’m one lucky bro.”

Lacy for his part was clearly elated at getting the DCCC’s top slot.

“I’m really excited,” Lacy said.  “I believe this means D. 10 has a strong opportunity to get its fair share of good things and the Democratic Party will take part in making that happen.”

It also means Lacy -- whose campaign has been a little slow and underfunded -- is really going to have to ramp up his efforts in the next few weeks to take advantage of the DCCC nod. And it means Moss will get a boost, since Kelly could take Potrero Hill votes away from him. Kelly's the only candidate who got the Potrero Hill Democratic Club endorsement.

 






Comments

Not much free time to squander on the neanderthals here, wanna talk seriously with 'progs;' on FCJ. Would love a strong black progressive female for D10 ( I fought for one for Mayor a few years ago), but am afraid Nyese left it too little too late for this year. Gonna seek counsel and guidance from my BVHP 'elders', but right now it seems like beter a honk y from the hill with some heart, than another Auntie Tom from the 'hood with a mouthful of gimme and a handful of much obliged.
Consensus time companeros. Better get it together (even if its the lesser of ideals),
question, confirm and compromise (ugh), or risk getting finally displaced and discarded by the massas who have no use for you any more, and the privileged, primarily pale faced arrivistas who pay you minimum wage for your many services, with no bennies, but expect you to commute from out of the city by unreliable 'public transportation' because you can not afford to live in the city that many of you, including my wife, were born in.
IT SUCKS.
VOTE>VOTE>VOTE
VOTE EARLY>"VOTE OFTEN".
More at some later date. But PLEASE dont just go along with the Demonstrably Dysfunctional and Dubious Democratic Daddys.
Hey, that needs a little tweaking, but we now have the D Quintuple D.

Posted by Guest Patrick Monk on Sep. 09, 2010 @ 8:13 pm

Pat,
I've known you as a friend for 25 years, but from your comfortable Noe Valley roost you are in NO position to dictate these endless and angry diatribes with respect to my district, from Potrero to Bayview to Visitacion Valley.
Come and visit to understand the positives that exist here, and understand that this election is about the leaders who live and work here and cannot afford to have someone simply toss an incendiary critique from across town. Relationships and the leadership which follows take time and effort. Show us your compassion and support. Make the time and do the work. Anything less is just showtime and feeds the least common denominator nonsense that I know you are smart enough to rise above. Do it.
Dan Dodt

Posted by Dan Dodt on Sep. 09, 2010 @ 9:31 pm
Posted by matlock on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 11:08 am

I think progressives just forfeited D10. Congratulations.

I wasn't there for this one -thought the meeting was later in the day. Otherwise I might have written another piece for FCJ. No matter what the excuse, and there are plenty, but at the end of the day someone had to cast those bad votes for that set of people to get the endorsement. And some of the people casting those votes had to be progressives.

I heard today that among the people voting for Malia Cohen were Aaron Peskin, David Chiu, and Alix Rosenthal. Whoever they were, they screwed up.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 09, 2010 @ 9:03 pm

4 September 2010

Democratic County Central Committee, San Francisco

Dear Fellow Democrats,

District 10 residents will witness significant pressures on population growth and land-use options in the coming decades. There are accomplished, dedicated, intellectually and emotionally mature local community leaders who have, for years, advocated for smart development, safe neighborhoods, healthy families, strong schools, and support for local employment, and who have earned the respect of the varied and vibrant residents in Bayview, Potrero and Visitacion Valley. These are not new subjects or fresh ideas to those who have done the real and effective work in keeping this district vibrant.
What I’ve have heard throughout the district over the past number of weeks is a sobering reaction to the promotion of candidates with no community experience in this election cycle for District 10. Your fellow San Franciscans, living in District 10, recognize and support those candidates with the ‘institutional memory’ of the decades long planning and development process, the familiarity and working relationship with various stakeholders within our neighborhoods, and for those who can be relied upon to modulate the disparate and valued hopes and desires for our future. Time and again, I have heard "the DCCC should stay out of District 10 and let the voters decide”.
I respectfully urge the DCCC to withhold an endorsement for District 10. The voters will properly vet our candidates, and those citizens will decide the outcome.
With respect to the District 10 election for 2010, I am requesting a position of No Endorsement for the DCCC.
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Dan Dodt
Bayview Resident
1980.present

Posted by Dan Dodt on Sep. 09, 2010 @ 9:18 pm

In San Francisco development parlance, the term "vibrant" is cliche for "more people than live here now who make more money than the people who live here now."

-marc

Posted by marcos on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 10:31 am

marc,
i'd suggest a review of the vibrancy of Bayview from 1870 - 1974. Many of the VIBRANT families living here want the neighborhood back. history trumps cliche.
dodt

Posted by Dan Dodt on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 11:52 am

Really - who cares?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 6:54 am

Dan, posted a response on FCJ.
Long time no see. Hope all is well.
Pat

Posted by Guest Patrick Monk on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 8:49 am

the D10 DCCC endorsements are of course a farce. #1's & 2 without an accomplishment to their names and a stunning ability to fail in public fora. #3 a good guy but with a short D10 history and a propensity to obscure through pontification. its as if the DCCC wanted its recommendation to be so throughout trashed that the electorate was made to feel free to ignore it; a stunning display of poor judgement, strategic blindness, and eating one's own.

the shutout of jackson & kelly is an even bigger crime. CJ is the only person in the field who both has been elected AND has a progressive track record. he may be young but he's got more experience as a public official than anyone on the above list put together and multiplied by 100. the guy has room for growth and should be groomed rather than kicked to the curb. TK a longtime activist with whom people may disagree but whose sincerity, commitment, and record are without doubt may be wrong on various things (sounding authoritative does not make you authoritative) but he's a far more legitimate candidate than the DCCC picks. some of his positions may be out of step for the district but that does not negate his years of service to his community.

the sidebar kvetching about moss misses the fundamental fact about D10 - that for all the despair and poverty that is concentrated in the southeast, the District has a large working class and lower middle class population that is aspirational in its outlook and occasionally conservative (by SF standards) in its politics. the klatche of activists notwithstanding, high and mighty ideological battles don't sell down here - as witnessed by the broad rejection of prop F a few years back and the general embrace of redevelopment. and with that the really stupid thing is for pwogs to make moss - a wonky policy dude who appears to be relatively mild mannered and thoughtful out on the stump - out to be some neo-corporate alien and drive him and his allies into the waiting arms of the downtown wrecking crew.

Posted by sf_anon on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 10:49 am

This is the kind of thing that pisses me off ... and I heard of candidates in District 6 hearing a similar cowardly tale: ‘You’ll make the best supervisor—and I’m supporting someone else.’

WTF?!?

No wonder us LGBTs don't have shit to show since 2009 for a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

Posted by Jamie Whitaker on Sep. 10, 2010 @ 10:52 pm

I'm surprised that some progressives are supporting Chris Jackson in this race. He ducked most of the tough questions on the SFGP's endorsement questionnaire: http://www.sfgreenparty.org/campaigns/jackson_d10.html

Some people might be OK with him not taking a position on issues that aren't "local" (such as abortion rights and Prop 8), but he also didn't take stands on a number of local issues such as Care not Cash, minimum wage, and a number of transportation issues. Personally, I see failure to take a stand on human rights issues as a red flag for any candidate, regardless of what they're running for.

Posted by JMC on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 8:59 am

I want to take a closer look at that, because some of those answers are a little bit baffling. At first I thought that maybe he mistook the "maybe" in the third column for "no" and took the second column for maybe... but then no, that wouldn't make sense either given some of his other answers.

I've been supporting Chris because he was good on the issues on the College Board, he's always been supportive of local progressive initiatives, and I was under the impression that he was good on development.

But some of those answers give me reason to pause for a second look. Do you have links for other candidates, both in this district and others? It's a good questionairre, and people would do well to look at candidates' answers in every district.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 10:36 am

Hi Greg,

All the questionnaires we got back are linked from our endorsements page--just scroll down to the bottom:
http://www.sfgreenparty.org/campaigns/campaigns.psp

Posted by JMC on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 1:09 pm

I just talked to Chris, and he says that this was only the first draft of the questionairre. Interns tend to do these things and then the candidate looks them over. In this case, he says it's a case of the campaign screwing up and not sending them the updated questionairre in time.

But for the record, I just talked to him, and he assures me that he's strong on rent control, minimum wage, and other progressive issues, so don't take everything in that questionairre at face value

Posted by Greg on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 11:03 am

I do my own questionnaires, and so do almost all the candidates i know.

Posted by Tony Kelly on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 2:44 pm

All, but one candidate, do their own questionnaires

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 11:17 am

There are umpteen questionairres that each candidate has to deal with, and it's hard to keep up with it all. It's kind of a waste of the candidate's time to do it, but that's what you have to do if you have no real campaign operation. Don't get me wrong -I did it myself when I ran for DCCC, but that was a DCCC race (and I didn't win). But if it's a higher office, and you actually have a serious operation going and you have a choice, you're going to delegate some of that stuff out and then look it over. Otherwise, you're going to be doing nothing but questionairres. The serious campaigns that I've worked on have all done it this way. But minor candidates generally don't have that luxury.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 1:07 pm

Most of the questionnaires ask the same questions with only a couple of different questions. The different questions are mostly in regards to the the group that sent out the questionnaire. So you would only need to copy paste your answers. but I could see how Jackson needs some help filling out forms considering he needed homeless people to hold signs for him at the DCCC endorsement meeting.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
UH

@Greg, that should all go without saying, but not saying it when asked raises eyebrows.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Sep. 11, 2010 @ 4:53 pm

The majority of the candidate lived in the peninsula (Kristine) or other parts of the City and do not understand what D10 ways and to help you must understand the community. DeWitt Lacy will work and stand up for local hire and understands the community. The DCCC had reasons for the endorsement and in history and most people that are upset have endoresed a specific candidate and have an invested interest.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 6:43 pm

if we go by longetivity then the race is between tony kelly and lynette sweet. dewitt lacy drops to the middle of the pack. he's done nothing to inspire confidence of his ability to understand or perform so its hard to figure out where this comment is coming from.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 12:21 pm

Hello D10 voters! Residency has become a big issue in this race, so I'd like to let you know my history.

I first moved to San Francisco after graduating from college in 1988. I've lived in the Marina, Lower Pac Heights, Inner Sunset, Nob Hill, Lower Haight-ish (Fell & Pierce), and now Hunters Point. I can tell you that there's no other place I've lived in San Francisco that has felt like home. Also no other place I've lived where a city sidewalk inspector would tell you that it would be too expensive to fix your sidewalks so you should just walk on the other side of the street, or 311 would say that the reason it takes more than a month to respond to your complaints is because you live in a marginal community and you should just get used to it.

I did spend about eighteen months back in Los Altos, where I grew up, before I bought my house in Hunters Point in Feb 2005. I moved here to live and I'm here to stay. It's coming up on six years that I've been intensely involved with the redevelopment of Bayview, the Hunters Point Shipyard, and the India Basin Shoreline, and this experience has taught me everything there is to know about land use policies in San Francisco and D10. With a bullet still lodged in my garage door and shooters once hiding in my backyard, believe me, I feel the urgent need for change as much as anyone. That change will come through investment in safe neighborhoods, strong schools and smart development.

D10 is full of amazing people with a promising future ahead of us. I'm not surprised that so many outsiders suddenly want a piece of it. But I urge voters to elect a true community candidate with the skills, experience and fortitude to form alliances and make a real difference for our community.

Vote Kristine Enea on November 2!

Posted by Kristine Enea on Sep. 14, 2010 @ 1:17 am

Chris sould be on top of these things, what else will slip through with him????? Do your own writing, who's words is he using? What are those his real thought? Do we want a good supervisor or a puppet?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2010 @ 6:47 pm

lets step back here...a lot of us came from other places and if we disqualify people based on their prior residence then we'll be stuck with a pretty shallow pool to choose from. the question for me is whether a person moved into the District specifically to advance their political ambitions. lets look at the major candidates...

Kristine Enea has lived down the street from Hunters Point Shipyard for at least 4 years and has been involved in a slew of community activities long before contemplating a run for office.

Chris Jackson claims Bayview roots through his extended family and while growing up. Although he recently moved into the neighborhood, this and his work on the college board very much mitigate the concern.

Malia Cohen grew up in the Portola neighborhood. Assuming she grew up in the house her parents currently live in then she's actually a born and raised District 9 resident. Although she appears to have owned her Executive Park condo for about 4 years, the same length of time as Enea, she has not been nearly as active in the neighoborhood. I'm still trying to figure out what exactly she's accomplished

Love him or hate him, Tony Kelly's neighborhood bona fides are without question.

We've already read the info about Steve Moss and pretty much know that he will leave D10 if he doesn't win.

Eric Smith was an Alamo Square homeowner who moved to a rental unit in Dogpatch. He's been somewhat active but I doubt anyone will argue that he moved in order to run for offce and, like Moss, will move away if he is not victorious.

Dewitt Lacy's been in Potrero for about 5 years but doesn't exactly have a distinguished record of community involvement. Its hard to see what he's done in his time on the Hill, which undoubtedly led the Hill's Dem Club, of which he was an officer, to endorse Kelly.

Lynette Sweet's owned her Bayview since 1994 so her residential credibility is without question. The fact is thoigh, she's a banker and the bankers have done enough damage to the country; it should be notedthat Union Bank, her employer, has a pretty good record as far as the Community Reinvestment Act goes. Moreover, her advocacy as a BART Board member on behalf of a project (Oakland Airport Connector) that will drain funds from Muni, AC Transit, and other transit agencies that serve lower income communities does raise the question of who's priorities she is most likely to defend once in office.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 13, 2010 @ 11:58 am

Thanks @Guest! I've lived on Innes Avenue since Feb 2005 (see comment above) and yes, have been volunteering in the community for a good five+ years now. And I fill out my own questionnaires. ;->

Posted by Kristine Enea on Sep. 14, 2010 @ 1:32 am

My three choices in the Ranked System we use in San Francisco:

#1 Eric Smith - because of his work with ACORN and Years in our Community.

#2 Chris Jackson - because of his great work with the SFCC District

#3 Dewitt Lacy - because he asked for my vote.

Any of the three would be great. Eric has the seniority of years that I believe would add to the Board of Supervisors. Wisdom does not usually court youth. Chris has proven himself on the San Francisco Community College District Board. And Dewitt has the heart of the community had hand. Kelley is a great guy - but the political facts of life also include the facts that the Bayview, Hunters Point, Double Rock parts of town are our last primarily black communities and a Black Supervisor is my choice. We are not so progressive in San Francisco that a Board of Supervisors with no Black American Representation is acceptable. My first nod to my brother Eric!

Posted by Paul Currier on Sep. 14, 2010 @ 12:02 am

Bad strategy. As I said in the other blog thread, Smith is being highly deceptive in how he presents himself, the most outrageous instance of which is his totally bogus claim that he has been 'doing battle' with Lennar corporation. Anyone who really has been doing battle with Lennar can tell you that this claim on Smith's part is a complete fairytale. If he's lying to us already, what will he do when he gets in office...

And touting his working with ACORN (now ACCE) is a huge negative, not a positive. ACORN jumped into the Lennar battle uninvited (without working at all with anti-Lennar organizers) and made a deal with Lennar that totally -screwed- the Bayview in return for ACORN getting big money from Lennar out of the deal. At least in San Francisco, ACORN has become a completely corporate bought joke. Smith supports their disaster 'Community Benefits' deal as well.

The only viable candidates who really have helped fight Lennar are Nyese Joshua and Tony Kelly.

And both Joshua and Kelly have done a huge amount of real work on local district issues.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 16, 2010 @ 6:31 pm

Dearest Eric Brooks,

Mr. Brooks, we have gone over your relevance in progressive politics and, based on your inability to organize, develop leaders, or have concrete winnable demand, it is overwhelmingly apparent that you are irrelevant.

Your public support for candidates such as Nyese Josuha and Tony Kelly only do them a disservice because they then become connected to you. Your faux political authority and online "organizing" (constant presences on the SFBG comments) are obvious rantings of a contrived individual grasping at relevancy in a district that you 1) do not live in 2) have no base in 3) and therefore have no right to speak on behalf of.

Your public statements that connect you to SLAM also do SLAM a disservice. It gives the illusion that you were somehow instrumental in any success or traction they were able to make in their campaign. However, as you spend more time here making comments than learning to organize in the community (as I have suggested before), I doubt you were useful or influential in anyway. You probably just attended meetings, turned no one out to events, and said things that you thought were smart but were gently disregarded.

Your opposition of ACORN makes me want to revive them and side on whatever position they take. Having followed the BVHP Lennar project closely, as well as the obvious players (and, unfortunately, the more corrupt and back ground players), I know your claims are yet again another grasp at relevance through shock value and name dropping.

I suggest again, rather than creating the self illusion of relevancy, you actually learn and practice organizing skills.

Original Post below
Eric Brooks is Irrelevant

I have re-posted an earlier post. For those that are reading this, it will give you context

Eric Brooks,

Your claims and positions on matters in a district that you are not a part of are disingenuous.

You claim you're a community organizer, yet have no base or have any visible developed leadership. You represent yourself. You are not an organizer.

You insert yourself into arguments and issues only to create an illusion of your own relevance. By insulting, discrediting through conspiracy theory style "proof", and name dropping, I sure you actually believe that you are relevant. And that's fine. However, it's misleading to readers. You are doing SF Guardian readers a disservice.

Your claims against Lennar, Bayview Hunters Point, groups that have supported the project....

You have no interest in pushing working class family issues nor respect for the process that working class families undergo to come to a solution.
Your politics are a position of privilege and a not a necessity and that's why you have a blatant disregard for people who actually have put the effort, developed the talent, and reached the people to push an issue. You are bitter because you have none of these abilities.

I see that you have repeatedly posted comments in the Guardian. Your time would be better spent learning to organize and learning the impacts of policies on people and not just your lofty ideology.

Posted by Guest 1 on Sep. 16, 2010 @ 9:40 pm

Mr. Brooks, we have gone over your relevance in progressive politics and, based on your inability to organize, develop leaders, or have concrete winnable demand, it is overwhelmingly apparent that you are irrelevant.

Your public support for candidates such as Nyese Josuha and Tony Kelly only do them a disservice because they then become connected to you. Your faux political authority and online "organizing" (constant presences on the SFBG comments) are obvious rantings of a contrived individual grasping at relevancy in a district that you 1) do not live in 2) have no base in 3) and therefore have no right to speak on behalf of.

Your public statements that connect you to SLAM also do SLAM a disservice. It gives the illusion that you were somehow instrumental in any success or traction they were able to make in their campaign. However, as you spend more time here making comments than learning to organize in the community (as I have suggested before), I doubt you were useful or influential in anyway. You probably just attended meetings, turned no one out to events, and said things that you thought were smart but were gently disregarded.

Your opposition of ACORN makes me want to revive them and side on whatever position they take. Having followed the BVHP Lennar project closely, as well as the obvious players (and, unfortunately, the more corrupt and back ground players), I know your claims are yet again another grasp at relevance through shock value and name dropping.

I suggest again, rather than creating the self illusion of relevancy, you actually learn and practice organizing skills.

Original Post below
Eric Brooks is Irrelevant

I have re-posted an earlier post. For those that are reading this, it will give you context

Eric Brooks,

Your claims and positions on matters in a district that you are not a part of are disingenuous.

You claim you're a community organizer, yet have no base or have any visible developed leadership. You represent yourself. You are not an organizer.

You insert yourself into arguments and issues only to create an illusion of your own relevance. By insulting, discrediting through conspiracy theory style "proof", and name dropping, I sure you actually believe that you are relevant. And that's fine. However, it's misleading to readers. You are doing SF Guardian readers a disservice.

Your claims against Lennar, Bayview Hunters Point, groups that have supported the project....

You have no interest in pushing working class family issues nor respect for the process that working class families undergo to come to a solution.
Your politics are a position of privilege and a not a necessity and that's why you have a blatant disregard for people who actually have put the effort, developed the talent, and reached the people to push an issue. You are bitter because you have none of these abilities.

I see that you have repeatedly posted comments in the Guardian. Your time would be better spent learning to organize and learning the impacts of policies on people and not just your lofty ideology.

Posted by Guest 1 on Sep. 16, 2010 @ 9:44 pm

Eric SMith ONLY RENTS in Dogpatch to run for supervisor. You must live in D10 for years or life time to understand the issues and represent the community. Why Eric, he has no policies and only deals with bio-diesel. How can he help D10?!!!! Carpetbagger!!!!!! Eric is NOT the future of D10.

Chris has done so little and lives in the Mission. If you want no effort or progress vote for Chris.

Tony, is not proactive. What has he done for D10.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2010 @ 7:34 pm

As a general answer to your question above, "What has he done for D10", I believe most, if not all, of the candidates have websites which would be a good place at least to start checking out their accomplishments. Also, the sfbg's endorsement interviews are a good place to hear candidates discuss their accomplishments...

Posted by Guest on Sep. 15, 2010 @ 7:58 pm

let's have the D10 candidates and their supporters talk about something other than who may be worse than someone else. get with the program. an election is 45 days away.

Posted by sf citizen on Sep. 16, 2010 @ 6:01 pm

Dearest Eric Brooks,

Mr. Brooks, we have gone over your relevance in progressive politics and, based on your inability to organize, develop leaders, or have concrete winnable demand, it is overwhelmingly apparent that you are irrelevant.

Your public support for candidates such as Nyese Josuha and Tony Kelly only do them a disservice because they then become connected to you. Your faux political authority and online "organizing" (constant presences on the SFBG comments) are obvious rantings of a contrived individual grasping at relevancy in a district that you 1) do not live in 2) have no base in 3) and therefore have no right to speak on behalf of.

Your public statements that connect you to SLAM also do SLAM a disservice. It gives the illusion that you were somehow instrumental in any success or traction they were able to make in their campaign. However, as you spend more time here making comments than learning to organize in the community (as I have suggested before), I doubt you were useful or influential in anyway. You probably just attended meetings, turned no one out to events, and said things that you thought were smart but were gently disregarded.

Your opposition of ACORN makes me want to revive them and side on whatever position they take. Having followed the BVHP Lennar project closely, as well as the obvious players (and, unfortunately, the more corrupt and back ground players), I know your claims are yet again another grasp at relevance through shock value and name dropping.

I suggest again, rather than creating the self illusion of relevancy, you actually learn and practice organizing skills.

Original Post below
Eric Brooks is Irrelevant

I have re-posted an earlier post. For those that are reading this, it will give you context

Eric Brooks,

Your claims and positions on matters in a district that you are not a part of are disingenuous.

You claim you're a community organizer, yet have no base or have any visible developed leadership. You represent yourself. You are not an organizer.

You insert yourself into arguments and issues only to create an illusion of your own relevance. By insulting, discrediting through conspiracy theory style "proof", and name dropping, I sure you actually believe that you are relevant. And that's fine. However, it's misleading to readers. You are doing SF Guardian readers a disservice.

Your claims against Lennar, Bayview Hunters Point, groups that have supported the project....

You have no interest in pushing working class family issues nor respect for the process that working class families undergo to come to a solution.
Your politics are a position of privilege and a not a necessity and that's why you have a blatant disregard for people who actually have put the effort, developed the talent, and reached the people to push an issue. You are bitter because you have none of these abilities.

I see that you have repeatedly posted comments in the Guardian. Your time would be better spent learning to organize and learning the impacts of policies on people and not just your lofty ideology.

Posted by Guest 1 on Sep. 16, 2010 @ 9:39 pm

Mr. Brooks, we have gone over your relevance in progressive politics and, based on your inability to organize, develop leaders, or have concrete winnable demand, it is overwhelmingly apparent that you are irrelevant.

Your public support for candidates such as Nyese Josuha and Tony Kelly only do them a disservice because they then become connected to you. Your faux political authority and online "organizing" (constant presences on the SFBG comments) are obvious rantings of a contrived individual grasping at relevancy in a district that you 1) do not live in 2) have no base in 3) and therefore have no right to speak on behalf of.

Your public statements that connect you to SLAM also do SLAM a disservice. It gives the illusion that you were somehow instrumental in any success or traction they were able to make in their campaign. However, as you spend more time here making comments than learning to organize in the community (as I have suggested before), I doubt you were useful or influential in anyway. You probably just attended meetings, turned no one out to events, and said things that you thought were smart but were gently disregarded.

Your opposition of ACORN makes me want to revive them and side on whatever position they take. Having followed the BVHP Lennar project closely, as well as the obvious players (and, unfortunately, the more corrupt and back ground players), I know your claims are yet again another grasp at relevance through shock value and name dropping.

I suggest again, rather than creating the self illusion of relevancy, you actually learn and practice organizing skills.

Original Post below
Eric Brooks is Irrelevant

I have re-posted an earlier post. For those that are reading this, it will give you context

Eric Brooks,

Your claims and positions on matters in a district that you are not a part of are disingenuous.

You claim you're a community organizer, yet have no base or have any visible developed leadership. You represent yourself. You are not an organizer.

You insert yourself into arguments and issues only to create an illusion of your own relevance. By insulting, discrediting through conspiracy theory style "proof", and name dropping, I sure you actually believe that you are relevant. And that's fine. However, it's misleading to readers. You are doing SF Guardian readers a disservice.

Your claims against Lennar, Bayview Hunters Point, groups that have supported the project....

You have no interest in pushing working class family issues nor respect for the process that working class families undergo to come to a solution.
Your politics are a position of privilege and a not a necessity and that's why you have a blatant disregard for people who actually have put the effort, developed the talent, and reached the people to push an issue. You are bitter because you have none of these abilities.

I see that you have repeatedly posted comments in the Guardian. Your time would be better spent learning to organize and learning the impacts of policies on people and not just your lofty ideology.

Posted by Guest 1 on Sep. 16, 2010 @ 9:41 pm