Hey, D2 voters: BOO!!!!

|
(19)
Watch out, D2 voters, the progressives want to eat your babies and drink your best wine. Boo!

Why are the rich people in District 2 so scared of Chris Daly, Aaron Peskin, and other progressives? Just the hint that a supervisorial candidate like Janet Reilly might have some vague, tangential connection to a (gasp!) progressive is enough send trembles of fear through their delicate nervous systems, and to fill mailboxes with alarmist warnings of dark progressive plots.

“I eat small children,” Daly deadpanned when I asked him about the campaign by candidate Mark Farrell and some of his wealthy venture capitalist buddies – along with moneyed socialite Dede Wilsey, the yacht-loving, renter-hating Thomas Coates, and their Common Sense Voters SF front group – to hurt frontrunner Reilly's chances by inaccurately claiming she's somehow Daly's puppet.

Nevermind the fact that Daly doesn't support Reilly, and that he wouldn't even endorse Reilly a few year ago during her Assembly campaign against Fiona Ma when the Guardian and many progressives were supporting Reilly. “Fiona was a better supervisor than Reilly is going to be,” Daly told us, a prediction that I don't agree with, but one that shows how ridiculous the website, mailers, and doorhangers that claim Daly is “behind Janet Reilly's agenda” are.

Nonetheless, Mayor Gavin Newsom, who supports Reilly, has sent out two press releases in the last two days claiming that “Janet Reilly opposes Chris Daly's agenda as much as I do. She has the full support of our city's greatest moderate leaders and she will be a strong moderate voice on the board.”

Daly, who is amused by this fearful battle of the rich people, couldn't agree more. “There is no bigger opponent of Daly's agenda to build more affordable housing in San Francisco than Gavin Newsom and Janet Reilly. Because that's my biggest issue,” Daly told us. “Apparently they are afraid of affordable housing in D2.”

But Daly isn't the only boogeyman who strikes terror into the hearts of the residents of Sea Cliff, Pacific Heights, and other wealthy D2 enclaves. Farrell and his ilk also made such a big deal of Reilly's association with Peskin, who actually is supporting Reilly, that she announced that if Newsom leaves for Sacramento in January, her vote for interim mayor would only go to a moderate who had never served on the Board of Supervisors with any current members, thus eliminating the chance of supporting Peskin.

Although we at the Guardian held our noses and endorsed Reilly as the best of a bunch of bad choices in San Francisco's most conservative district, we were appalled during her endorsement interview at just how myopically conservative she had become since her Assembly run, when universal health care was her big issue. Listen for yourself here and decide whether she's planning to be Daly's minion.

Geez, what exactly are these people so scared of? Perhaps it's as simple as Lewis Lapham put it a couple weeks ago, when we discussed the political dynamics of big cities: “The rich are afraid of the poor.”

Comments

Of more concern is the fact that Janet Reilly is endorsed and supported by Robo calls from the REPUBLICAN party!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 5:07 pm

But mentioning the word "republican" is cause for getting all worked up?

I mean "REPUBLICAN" oops.

Posted by tragicomic on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 7:23 pm

It has nothing to do with D2 voters being scared of progressives. Rather, D2 voters don't want yet another candidate who is beholden to the public employee unions. Pensions and benefits to city workers are sinking the general fund. Reilly will be impotent to address those problems because she is endorsed by, and beholden to, the major unions.

The candidates whom the SFBG endorse are often not "progressives" anymore. They are just votes for labor. (See, e.g., Debra Walker, Janet Reilly). Money for basic city services (healthcare, parks, seniors, potholes, transit, etc.) is being siphoned-away to ever-increasing pension and benefit costs for city employees. That's not progressive. The SFBG is not a progressive paper anymore because it won't even address the anchor that pensions and benefits are on the general fund. The paper constantly clamors for more revenue and taxes to solve the structural deficit without acknowledging the elephant in the room--the reason we have a structural deficit is pensions, benefits, and an oversized public workforce suck the money away.

Don't vote for Reilly.

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 7:22 pm

We are afraid of progressives and their $500 million deficits and $5 billion unfunded health care liability- the little things like that...

Posted by CJ Flowers on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

How the heck is she beholden to labor when she's endorsed by some of the most anti-labor, conservative politicians in the city? Like Dianne Feinstein, Frank Jordan, and Gavin Newsom?

Honestly, with the amount of both liberal and moderate support she's gotten, I don't think she'll be beholden to either side. Neither side will be able to count on her vote, making her the first independent supervisor D2 has ever had.

And that's just what the right is afraid of. I don't think anyone seriously considers Janet Reilly to be a Chris Daly progressive. But she's also not likely to be a downtown call-in vote like Alioto-Pier was. Truth is, they WANT someone who is beholden... just beholden to them.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 8:49 pm

Gavin Newsom is not anti-labor. He is backed by every major union in the state in his bid for Lt. Governor.

Reilly is further endorsed by the San Francisco Labor Council, San Francisco Firefighters, Local 798, Laborers’ Union, Local 261, Teamsters Union, Local 350, Carpenters Union, Local 22, SEIU, Local 87, among others.

Reilly is backed by Nancy Pelosi (supported by Labor), Leland Yee (who attended a rally against Prop B and exclaimed "How dare you take this from the backs of our workers"), and Mark Leno (pushing a state law to require cities to get approval from a union-backed commission before they can file bankruptcy where union contracts render cities insolvent.)

Reilly has come forward with no answers to solve the pension problem or address the $4 billion unfunded healthcare liability the city faces. Her solution to the city's budget problem is "save more." Anyone backed by the major unions in town won't be able to solve the pension mess, much less save more.

Posted by The Commish on Oct. 30, 2010 @ 12:43 pm

...the guy actually posted "Newsom is anti-labor." Should Newsom win he will be leaving behind employee benefit debt of $65,000 per San Francisco household. He has basically handed labor the store before departing...

Posted by CJ Flowers on Oct. 30, 2010 @ 3:02 pm

Chris Daly,
you are a 'rich person'.
get over it or dismiss your trust fund now.

Posted by guest on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 9:51 pm

What about Dianne Feinstein, Frank Jordan, Quentin Kopp? Are they in the pockets of unions too? Because these really conservative politicians have endorsed her candidacy.

What about BOMA? Is the Building Owners and Managers Association a tool of the unions?

Don't be disingenuous Commish. If you look at Reilly's entire endorsement list, what jumps out at you is how much support she has received from all different sides.

Look, I'm a progressive. Janet Reilly is not a progressive, so she's not exactly my ideal candidate. But with this kind of support from all sides, I think she's demonstrated that she can be a bridge between different factions in city government. Maybe the city can use someone like that.

We've certainly tried the alternative. Michaela Alioto Pier has sat there for 7 years (when she bothers to show up for work). She votes the ideological party line, but she's also gotten nothing done for her district in all that time. Maybe it's time we tried something different, rather than looking for the next MAP clone who will sit there like a sheep and bleat the party line.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 30, 2010 @ 11:45 pm

view of the political spectrum and what constitutes ideological party line.

Posted by tragicomic on Oct. 31, 2010 @ 1:42 am

From my perspective, the D2 seat has been a consistent opposition vote for the past 10 years since district elections have been in effect.

Both Newsome and Alioto-Pier represented quite well the highly concentrated wealty real estate interests that live in D2 since SF property prices still remain about 300% hiigher than what they were in the mid-90's (and wages haven't kept up for about 80% of us working stiffs), and rental income streams and tax-free government interest income have never been higher for the wealthy. (There's nothing better than being a creditor in a deflationary economy, even if the interest rate is low. At least this shows the government can create some winners during the current economic malaise.)

The Reilly's are one of the most politically connected couples in SF politics - money and being a very successful campaign manager for powerful politicians helps - and I suspect they will have an important influence on the choice for a new interim mayor.

But since I think the only way one of the "progressive" candidates I support for mayor could be elected next year (June?) - Ammiano, Gonzalez or Peskin (they all have a long and solid history working in government with the progressive community) - is if they were starting from the "interim mayor" position. It seems Ms. Reilly has ruled out any of these candidates for interim mayor, so from my world perspective one of her most important first votes would help maintain the status quo, for the continued benefit of the wealthy real estate interests who have made so many billions from SF real estate over the decades.

Another Robert

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2010 @ 12:31 pm

Janet is a nice woman, looks and acts the part and easily could have coasted to victory. However, she has made a series of mistakes (surprising given her husband's core competency) that opened up the door for Farrell to drive a tank through:

1) She went out and courted the union vote in a high profile manner- with the usual characters like Paulsen and O'Connor (the guy going around telling everyone the unions need to sit down and work with the City on budget problems while Fire is taking 6% more in raises this year) attending her campaign kickoff party in high spirits. She campaigned like she was running in District 6. This is District 2- we know why are streets are falling apart. She gave the "appearance" of being the union candidate in a District that will pass Prop B handily.

2) As has been posted, she said nothing substantive in the two major D2 debates about how to fix the City's massive budget problems. Instead, she said the City needed to "save more" and a "scalpel" was more approriate to fix things like the City's $5 billion unfunded health care liability. No substance here made her "appear" like a union pushover. Farrell ran circles around her on the topic of the budget deficit.

3) In the second debate, all other candidates picked a moderate as their choice for interim Mayor except for Janet who coyly withheld her choice- again making her appear like a progressive puppet. This was such a mistake she had to issue a subsequent press release changing her position.

Janet would be an okay pick but she unnecessarily opened the door for Farrell who is clearly gaining ground...Should be interesting tomorrow.

Posted by CJ Flowers on Nov. 01, 2010 @ 1:15 pm

So the wealthy wife of a wealthy real estate mogul and political operative is the "clean" choice for San Francisco?

Think again. Janet is just another wealthy housewife in need of something to do, who will suck up to all the establishment interests, only with her it'll be BOTH overpaid public employees and their managers AND the developers.

FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL by the white male over 40 crew at the Guardian.

Posted by Propaganda Beat on Nov. 01, 2010 @ 4:20 pm

Who would suck up to developers and corporate lobbyists?

Would that have been a "success" for the crew at the Guardian?

Posted by Greg on Nov. 01, 2010 @ 10:36 pm

Love how you run ads from Micro$soft on your site claiming to protect "union jobs." Take the cash, kids and spend it well. The blood on those dollars are those of the children that will die because a wealthy Redmond(!) WA company needed a tax break.

FAILURE !

Posted by Propaganda Beat on Nov. 01, 2010 @ 4:21 pm

Regarding D8 and Wiener....I received a letter from Wiener with the envelope labeled "TENANTS UNION ALERT." That was a lie. It was a sleazy tactic used by Wiener to get me to open the envelope. The letter inside was not from the Tenants Union. It was from Wiener. He wrote: You may have received mailings telling you that I accepted a massive contribution from Thomas Coates, a Republican landlord working to end rent control. That is a bald-faced lie. I have never received a contribution from Mr. Coates - not a penny, let alone a massive contribution....More important, I support rent control and will fight any attempt to end it. Period."...............Never received a contribution from Coates?...

Bay Citizen article: SF Moderates Get Late Windfall from Investor
Real-estate mogul showers San Francisco races with $200,000
http://tinyurl.com/2g258me

From Baycitizen article..."On Monday and Tuesday, Coates wrote checks totaling more than $200,000 to third-party expenditure committees for Proposition G, the initiative to reform pay for Muni workers, as well as supervisorial candidates Scott Wiener, Mark Farrell, Steve Moss and Theresa Sparks, disclosure forms filed Oct. 20 show."

Put these keywords in your search engine: wiener, thomas coates

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Nov. 01, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
U R

Fucking NUTS

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2010 @ 9:24 am
Posted by CJ Flowers on Nov. 02, 2010 @ 6:39 am

Nobody's afraid of them - we just don't like their egos. I'm not even close to rich, and I think they're both publicity-seeking twerps, one of whom drinks too much and the other of whom can't think before opening his mouth. And thanks, Giants, for taking my mind off politics as usual.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2010 @ 1:25 pm