Chronicle pushes fake campaign to "draft" Ed Lee

|
(83)
Power brokers are peddling the myth that SF somehow needs Ed Lee to remain in the Mayor's Office.
Steven T. Jones

Downtown is clearly nervous about not having a reliable horse in the mayor's race, so much so that a few power brokers are using the Chronicle to drum up a fake “campaign” to convince Mayor Ed Lee to break his word and run to keep the job. And the fact that these liars – those who just six months ago earnestly argued we need a caretaker mayor who won't run for the office – are pushing this with a front-page, above-the-fold “news” story shows just how shameless they are.

Say what you will about this year's field of mayoral candidates, but they do represent a broad range of constituencies and they include several seasoned politicians who are well-qualified to be mayor. Sen. Leland Yee has served in a variety of public offices for decades, Sup. John Avalos is a reliable progressive intimately familiar with the workings of City Hall, Dennis Herrera and Phil Ting each hold citywide offices to which the Mayor's Office is the logical next step, Michela Alioto-Pier is a consistent supporter of ruling class interests, and David Chiu has proven his political skills by engineering his reelection as board president and installing Lee as mayor.

So why exactly do people want to convince Lee to go back on his word, as well as giving up the city administrator position that the board just cleared the way for him to return to with an ethics exemption? Well, the Chronicle article doesn't really make that clear, all it makes clear is that's what Willie Brown and Rose Pak – as well as their errand boys, former Sup. Michael Yaki and downtown consultant Jim Ross – want.

And why do they want Lee to remain in the Mayor's Office? Because they're the ones who put him there and he has done nothing to challenge the corrupt status quo at City Hall, where corporate desires trump people's needs every time. Chief-of-staff Steve Kawa is still calling the shots, Brown's clients and developer buddies are still getting what they want, and Pak still gets to be the de facto leader of Chinese-American interests in City Hall.

They desperately fear that Yee will win the mayor's race and clean house, kicking out Kawa and all of the Brown and Pak cronies, greatly reducing their power in San Francisco. And the rest of the candidates are too independent and broad-based to guarantee the continued power of Brown and Pak and the downtown interests they represent. Their only hope is that they can cut some kind of deal with Chiu to maintain their influence in the next administration by applying pressure through this article and the others likely to follow in this fake draft-Lee campaign.

To his credit, Sup. Sean Elsbernd isn't taking part in this shameless charade, instead sticking by the statements he made when he nominated Lee to be mayor, telling the Chronicle that in a year with tough political decisions on the budget, pension reform, and other pressing issues, “this city desperately needed someone who wasn't going to play election-year politics,” and that, “if he files papers to run for mayor, all that goes away.”

That's true, along with any illusions that Lee and those who back him have any integrity.

Comments

Steven T. Jones,

You say:

“Downtown is clearly nervous about not having a reliable horse in the mayor's race …”

Your evidence for this claim?

You say:

“a few power brokers are using the Chronicle to drum up a fake ‘campaign’ to convince Mayor Ed Lee to break his word and run to keep the job.”

Who are these mysterious “power brokers”? Michael Yaki?!

You say:

“Say what you will about this year's field of mayoral candidates, but they do represent a broad range of constituencies and they include several seasoned politicians who are well-qualified to be mayor.”

I love watching people who call themselves “progressives” defend mediocrity.

You say:

“David Chiu has proven his political skills…”

I’ll say! He outfoxed Chris Daly and betrayed his progressive colleagues in order to advance his own career.

Very skillful, indeed.

You say:

“And why do they want Lee to remain in the Mayor's Office? Because they're the ones who put him there and he has done nothing to challenge the corrupt status quo at City Hall ..”

It’s all a big conspiracy, by gum!

* * * *

Yes, folks, this sophomoric venting now passes as professional journalism at The Guardian.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 19, 2011 @ 6:51 pm

Earlier this year weren't you saying "the more the merrier?"

And if the best you can say about Avalos is that he's "a reliable progressive" then he's not going to get very far in this campaign. You can't win on 17% of the vote - which is about the percentage represented by the "progressive movement."

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 19, 2011 @ 8:54 pm

We have seen this theater over and over going back at least to the Roman emperor Tiberius.

I bet at some point Lee even groans out loud in public in pretend anguish like Tiberius did in the senate when he received 2/3 of Augustus assets in his will.

"Though Tiberius did not hesitate at once to assume and to exercise the imperial authority, surrounding himself with a guard of soldiers, that is, with the actual power and the outward sign of sovereignty, yet he refused the title for a long time, with barefaced hypocrisy now upbraiding his friends who urged him to accept it, saying that they did not realise what a monster the empire was, and now by evasive answers and calculating hesitancy keeping the senators in suspense when they implored him to yield, and fell at his feet. Finally, some lost patience, and one man cried out in the confusion: "Let him take it or leave it." Another openly voiced the taunt that others were slow in doing what they promised, but that he was slow to promise what he was already doing. At last, as though on compulsion, and complaining that a wretched and burdensome slavery was being forced upon him, he accepted the empire."

-- Seutonius

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2011 @ 9:34 pm

He sucks.

I realize it's the Bay Guardian and you have a very left, progressive approach - cool. But did you have to go with the the dumbest uber-lefty you could find?

"Alioto-Pier is a consistent supporter of ruling class interests..."

That just sounds dumb. "Ruling class interests"?... uggghhh.

Posted by Longtime-Lurker on May. 19, 2011 @ 9:58 pm

Understanding Marx - Red Shadow ( The economics Rock & Roll Band )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz6c6kaFG5E

Posted by matlock on May. 19, 2011 @ 10:21 pm

I don't like Alioto-Pier either, but that line was really lame. Makes it sound like this is Feudal England.

Posted by The Commish on May. 20, 2011 @ 6:28 am

You can complain all you want, but the fact is that this is an accurate description of Alioto-Pier's politics. Are you going to argue that there is no ruling class in San Francisco? It may sound like old lefty rhetoric, but it's factually accurate -- there is, indeed, a class struggle in this city and Alioto-Pier is consistently on one side of it.

Posted by tim on May. 20, 2011 @ 9:30 am

His column still sucks.

You're a guy who thinks property owners should be forced to rent out their properties at reduced rates or face criminal charges, so I realize I'm not dealing with the most rational, open minded guy. You're still a better writer than Steven.

Anyway - no, I don't think "ruling class" is an accurate description. We have a politically connected class. If we had a ruling class, and this scary ruling class was anything like you describe them to be, I don't think we'd have the nations highest homeless per capita rate, or sex change benefits for City employees. It's hyperbole, and it doesn't resonate with people just a few inches in from deep left field.

Here's a quick hint... if a guy like you think that something "may sound like old lefty rhetoric" then IT DOES sound like old lefty rhetoric. If you want your columns to speak to anybody beyond yourselves, try to think a little beyond your drum circle. Or maybe you can Steven can just get a blog and share thoughts with each other that way.

Posted by Longtime-Lurker on May. 20, 2011 @ 2:05 pm

Are you really so naive to think class doesn't matter in this country. We have an obscene concentration of wealth and power in very few hands, and two major political parties that have become more and more beholden to that narrow set of powerful interests that it's absolutely correct to call the ruling class. Almost every member of the US Senate comes from that class, and President Obama will be tapping that class for most of the record-breaking fundraising he's now starting. Do some research into wealth distribution and the history of class politics, Lurker, instead of clinging to right-wing talking points about "class warfare"

Posted by steven on May. 23, 2011 @ 10:04 am

That would include Redmond and his monkeys on the board of supes.

Right wingers complained all through the 00's that they were victims while they had a hold on; the legislature, the executive, and judicial branch's of government. It was high comedy and insulting.

progressive types brag about having narrow minded home team players like; Ammiano, Daly, Avalos, Mirkirimi, Campos, Mar, and the rest of the head injury club for men gang in various levels of office. Then here we are whining about the establishment, when the establishment and ruling class is represented by the Bay Guardianbots in SF.

There is NO ONE in SF that represents the establishment and ruling class more than Tim Redmond. He is like Rush Limbaugh complaining about being an outsider when he was having lunch with George Bush off and on.

It's so interesting to see the Guardianbot victim mentality as they claim to speak for everyone. They claim at various times

non profit groups
various "rights" groups
anyone with a job who isn't a CEO
black people
Latinos
whites
Asian's
illegal aliens
natives
carpetbaggers
the poor
the middle class
working class
the unemployed
the employed
bike riders
walkers
drivers
teachers
students

etc...

What a mixed up world. The class struggle is claimed by the Tim Redmond's while his team has taken over much of the city government... and run it into the shit house.

Posted by matlock on May. 21, 2011 @ 12:08 am

as Chris Daly is to social skills.

The difference is that Daly was eventually termed out. Bad journalists go on forever.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 19, 2011 @ 10:17 pm

With that said, all of the other reporting on this has been even lazier... as if the reporters have been fooled into believing that this is some kind of grassroots major effort from every day san francisco residents.

To an observer the following appers to be true.

I think this is happening because Lee wants to run for mayor. He can not come out right now and say that because the only reason he holds the position that he does now was based on the fact that he would not run for mayor. Therefore, scumbags like michael yaki are creating very expensive and professional looking websites to astroturf a 'grassroots effort' to get lee to run. If the media keeps pushing this story, they may eventually succeed in convincing many voters that Lee is not a liar, but rather a courageous man who answered the call of the people. People like Yaki are called political operatives, not because they are passionate people, but because they are sneaky. I would bet anyone a lot of money that lee will enter the race

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2011 @ 10:37 pm

Lazy commenting as well.

I took a minute to check out the web hosting site - www.weebly .com You can easily create a domain and website with no html knowledge for $40-$50 bucks. It's pretty cool really - very easy to use. You just drag and drop the components you want and voila - you have created a "very expensive and professional looking website".

Posted by Guest on May. 20, 2011 @ 8:56 am

Its pro looking. Obviously buying a web address is cheap. I doubt that it is something that michael yaki made on his free time.

Posted by Guest on May. 20, 2011 @ 2:42 pm

The Chronicle's headline story about a "grassroots effort" for a Lee run led by a couple of political operatives was a joke.

Posted by Guest on May. 19, 2011 @ 11:29 pm

So is the Democratic Party; but that never stops Steve or anyone else at The Guardian from endorsing them.

Posted by Michael Worrall on May. 20, 2011 @ 12:27 am

Okay, in this scene we've got Downtown, in the person of King Arthur, and Steven T. Jones, in the person of Dennis.

You'll also see a cameo by "Guest," in the person of the woman in the mud pit, with the opening line: "There's lovely filth down here."

Is this a familiar scene, or what? -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 20, 2011 @ 7:53 am

Hi Arthur, Instead of being patronizing and throwing the same old set of wobbly rubber spears at the same people you love to obsess over,
why don't you explain why you think Ed Lee would make a good Mayor?

Is an open and honest debate not something that interests you?

Posted by G on May. 20, 2011 @ 8:31 am

"why don't you explain why you think Ed Lee would make a good Mayor?"

- G

I don't think Ed Lee should run for mayor, and I doubt that he will. However, it's amusing to see all the speculation on this question across the political spectrum.

Ed Lee is doing a good job now as a sensible administrator under special circumstances. He also acts like an adult, which is unusual for a San Francisco politician.

His most outstanding characteristic is his sensibleness. That's why I don't think he'll run in November.

The sensible thing for him to do is to continue as a good administrator for the remainder of this year, leave office with accolades, and then go back to being the city administrator. Leave the acrimony and dysfunctionality for the next occupant of Room 200.

As to the existing mayoral candidates, I don't feel enthusiastic about any of them. I may not vote.

The city's two most gifted politicians - Jeff Adachi and Mark Leno - have indicated they won't run. Whether Leno suddenly charges out of the gate in August, remains to be seen. It could still happen. He's a crafty tactician.

Adachi is likely to stay out of the game. He has smarts, guts, and integrity. But his time is not now.

In any case, the next mayor will not be Ed Lee. He will be succeeded by one of the usual mediocrities.

The city will survive. Luckily, its people are better than its governing class.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 20, 2011 @ 10:29 am

It is true that the quality of Jones' writing is consistently lousy. Even we uber-lefties recognize that. Some of the most poorly crafted phraseology put out by any Bay Area media outlet comes from his hand. It's also true that Jones regularly over-simplifies the issues. For example, it's pushing the bounds of wisdom to assert that a mayoral administration of Dennis Herrera or David Chiu would mean exile for Willie Brown and Rose Pak. Willie and Rose are (unfortunately) bright enough to hedge their bets. And let's not forget what we know from history. Chiu threw in with Willie and Rose when he voted for Ed Lee for interim mayor. Dennis didn't exactly gnaw on Willie's ass when Willie was still in Room 200. And Leland and Willie have cut deals before. But it is undoubtedly true that Ed Lee is Willie and Rose's (and probably the downtown crew's) first choice. And it also true that this "Run Ed Run" campaign is being orchestrated by folks close to downtown. So Jones' article did not stray from the mark by much. He just isn't capable of any kind of deeper or more sophisticated analysis. He wouldn't, for example, understand that Willie and Rose can have more than one plan going at a time.

Posted by Guest on May. 20, 2011 @ 5:30 pm

I didn't catch the part where Steve says claims that Herrera or Chiu would mean exile for Rose Pak and Willie Brown. In fact, he does mention that they're trying to forge some kind of deal with Chiu. And while this went unmentioned, Herrera is awful cozy with them and their cronies. Herrera may not be Willie's first choice, but I think he'd be more than happy. In fact, during the 2001 city attorney's race, Willie even said that he'd be happy with either Jim Lazarus or Dennis Herrera.

But this half-assed astroturf campaign is sinking fast. Take a look at the comments to that article. People understand more than we give them credit for. The folks who comment there aren't progressives, and they don't want progressives to run the city. But they too are sick of the cronyism, and the last thing they want is another extension of the Willie Brown adminstration.

So who are the candidates Willie and Rose fear most? John Avalos and Leland Yee. Downtown has tried to screw Leland Yee every single election cycle, and don't think for a minute that Yee won't remember that. And they know there's no way they'll be able to buy off Avalos either.

Just that fact alone should tell folks that Avalos and Yee should be at the top of the IRV list. After that... well, the field gets pretty thin if you want good government.

Posted by Greg on May. 20, 2011 @ 11:35 pm

is progressive cronyism. That makes sense.

Posted by matlock on May. 21, 2011 @ 12:12 am

Hmm, it's awfully strange that I keep winning awards for my writing and analysis then, including two over the weekend from the Peninsula Press Club, as well as several national awards. But perhaps anonymous blog commenters with an obvious agenda to undercut the Guardian's work know more about journalism than the country's top journalism associations.

Posted by steven on May. 23, 2011 @ 10:08 am

Greg,

I have no inside info but I'm betting that either Adachi or Gonzalez or both will get into this soon. Jeff got 199,000 votes 5 months ago and Matt got around 140,000 in his 2003 run. I'm a contributor to Avalos because he's the only Prog in the race.

Leland Yee? He was Willie's go-fer and has changed his votes after-the-fact in Sacramento more than anyone in the legislature. Over 100 times. I'm betting he got paid for every move.

Giants up 1-0 in the third with Lincecum on the hill.

65 minutes til the earthquake is scheduled to hit SF?

Odd, but a reader noted that the last time we had a major earthquake ('89), the A's were playing the Giants.

Coincidence?

badda-boom!!

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on May. 21, 2011 @ 4:00 pm

That whole post is so off base I don't even know where to begin. Willie Brown hates Leland Yee. Every single election he's done something to try to screw with Yee. Your statement is just completely divorced from reality. And Rose Pak stated point blank "Anyone but Leland Yee." Can you think of a better reason to support someone?

As for Adachi/Gonzalez... give it up h. This isn't 2003.

Jeff Adachi ruined his good name with his ill-advised alliance with wealthy special interests to rob working people of their healthcare and pensions. He's still the best public defender we've ever had, and people recognize that. But he'll never be anything more now.

He's shattered his reputation with his progressive base, and the mods and conservatives who embraced him on pension reform will abandon him so fast his head will spin when he tries to run for mayor. Those billionaires will laugh in his face when he asks them for money for a mayoral run. He has no base. Progressives will never trust him again, and mods still know he's not on their side on most issues.

Gonzalez has the same problem -to a lesser degree because he wasn't as much in the forefront, but it will come out, and he won't have the kind of support he had in '03. But I wouldn't mind if he jumped into the DAs race. He wouldn't win, but he could change the debate in the race, like he did the first time he ran, and in the process he could help the least noxious candidate win. Right now, that seems to be Onek, but I'm still hoping Jim Hammer changes his mind.

Posted by Greg on May. 21, 2011 @ 10:08 pm

According to this morning's Matier and Ross in the Chron, Mayor Ed Lee has reaffirmed his decision not to run for mayor and distanced himself from the committee that is promoting a mayoral run by him.

As I expected he would do. A sensible move on his part.

Posted by Arthur Evans on May. 22, 2011 @ 6:21 am

Then my respect for him just went up a notch. Although I think the swift and sure backlash had something to do with it.

Honesty and integrity matters. It may or may not matter to Ed Lee (I'm not entirely convinced), but it sure as hell matters to the voters. At least Ed Lee is smart enough to understand that.

Posted by Greg on May. 22, 2011 @ 9:07 am

I don't see it as a sensible move, it is more of a practical move.

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

Greg,

Before the Class of 2000 was elected Leland voted more often than not with Ammiano and Sue Bierman in what was a 3 deep Progressive Block. As soon as the Class of 2000 was elected, Yee flipped. He could literally be seen running back and forth from Willie's office to the Board and back (thus, 'Go-fer'). Willie commented at the time: "Who would have thought that leland Yee would be our best contact on the Board."

Maybe it had something to do with Willie digging up that mug shot of Leland.

I don't understand why you and Salomon and the Bay Guardian are willing to overlook Yee's anti-rent control stance and his constant changing of votes and positions as the wind blows.

Adachi for Mayor!

Gonzalez for Mayor!

Avalos for Mayor!

Go Giants!

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on May. 22, 2011 @ 7:49 am

You're talking about ancient history, h. Gee, if you want to be that inflexible, then once upon a time in the Assembly, Willie Brown was a progressive, and maybe we should always support Willie because once upon a time, when dinosaurs walked the earth, Willie Brown did some good things?

Fact of the matter is, people do change. Leland Yee has forged broader coalitions and has been educated on the issues a lot more. Take a look at his record on the DCCC. The guy votes the right way virtually 100% of the time. Take a look at his record in the legislature. He's been phenomenal on the environment -that's why the Sierra Club just gave him their #1 endorsement -above John Avalos! He's been *uniquely* good on health care, singlehandedly stopping a health care disaster that Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democractic leadership wanted to impose on California, because he listened to the California Nurses Association. He supports Ammiano's marijuana legislation, he's against the death penalty, very strong on civil liberties, and he refused to vote for an all cuts budget even when the Democratic leadership caved. And importantly, he has said that he would do the same in San Francisco.

And h, if I thought for a minute that he was going to screw our rent control, I would never, ever support him.

I'm not saying don't vote for John Avalos. I love John Avalos, and I think he'd be a fantastic mayor. But nobody's going to get 50% on the first round, and with IRV we need to be thinking about coalitions. Hoping for a savior to jump in at the last minute is pure fantasy, so we're left with the candidates we have. And as a second choice for progressives who are supporting Avalos, there is no one better to ensure an a City Hall that is open to us, than Leland Yee. Not Dennis Herrera, who shills for PG&E, doesn't believe in fundamental civil liberties, and invalidates the democratic process because of his own ideological considerations. Not David Chiu, who has been screwing progressives the entire last 2 years since he's been elected (not back in the last century, but right now). Who else is there, h?

Posted by Greg on May. 22, 2011 @ 8:19 am

Leland Yee just wants to be a union mafia don and hand over what little is left of the City treasury to its employees. He'd be an unmitigated disaster if you want potholes being fixed...As for Adachi, sure he's hated by City employees as he is the only elected official who stood up to their insatiable greed - his name is gold to many...Given the City's mad scramble to institute the reforms he FIRST advocated, Adachi has been proven correct...

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2011 @ 9:12 am

Just to be clear I am not involved in any effort to "draft" Ed Lee to run for Mayor. While I think he is doing a good job, he has said repeatedly that he is not interested in running for mayor and I see no reason to try and pressure him into running.

Also, I have not spoken with Willie Brown or Rose Pak in years. And while I do work for businesses in San Francisco, I have never worked for or have I been a "errand boy" for either Mayor Brown or Rose Pak. Next time you have question about my involvement in something please feel free to contact me.

Jim Ross

Posted by Jim Ross on May. 22, 2011 @ 1:35 pm

greg,

"Ancient history"? How do you explain the over 100 times that Leland changed his vote after-the-fact in Sacramento?

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on May. 22, 2011 @ 2:11 pm

How exactly does one change their vote "after the fact?" After the fact of what? It really depends what you're referring to. A lot of legislators change their votes for any one of a number of legitimate reasons. Just a few I can think of off the top of my head include:
1. Changing your vote when the legislation is amended to include something you support/oppose
2. Changing your vote from committee to the floor because of strategic considerations
3. Legitimately changing your mind because of being educated on an issue (and unless this involves money changing hands, being open to new ideas is generally a GOOD thing)

Besides that, I'm not sure where you got that figure, and unless I really have a breakdown, I can't blindly accept it as accurate. The truth can be stretched in very creative ways when you're trying to score a political point. I remember when the Committee on Jobs was putting out those pieces skewering Jake McGoldrick for "missing 8000 votes." Sounds terrible, doesn't it? But when you examined the record, the 8000 number included a lot of perfunctory stuff and Jake's attendance record was actually among the best. Plus the number wasn't even accurate, even when you take the most liberal definition of "missed vote."

I suspect the "100 vote change" is a similar situation: it's probably similar to what every legislator does, it probably includes a lot of petty perfunctory stuff, and I suspect it isn't entirely accurate when you do the actual count, even if you take the most liberal view of what constitutes a "change of a vote."

It's a nice soundbite, and I'm sure downtown will put out a piece with that soundbite on it, but it won't likely hold up to scrutiny. But hey, when Alex Tourk or Eric Jaye or whomever uses your soundbite, make sure you get a cut for coming up with it first.

Posted by Greg on May. 22, 2011 @ 2:58 pm

You never did answer the most important question. Who do you think progressives should pick as a backup?

I get it that you're for Avalos. That's great. Good choice. But I think you would agree that an IRV strategy would be prudent. So who should it be?
David Chiu, who double crosses progressives every chance he gets?
Dennis Herrera? Who shills for PG&E, invalidates democratically gathered election petitions on technicalities because he doesn't agree with their objective, and engages in the worst right wing attacks on civil liberties for political expediency?
Maybe Tony Hall, Matt Gonzalez's right wing friend?

Seriously, who? I don't want to hear some fantasy about a white knight in shining armor jumping in to save the day at the last minute. I want to hear a realistic strategy for progressives given the candidates that we have.

Posted by Greg on May. 22, 2011 @ 3:10 pm

If State Senator Leland Yee had changed his vote that many times I seriously doubt the California Nurses Association, the Sierra Club or Equalty California would have e given their endorsement or a 100 percent rating to them. Leland co authored Lenos "Marriage equality act" a feat for those who donT get out beyond their districts enough to know that d4 has a lot of Christian churches and a Morman ward to boot.

Old paradigms in political strategy given irv in SF ask progressive voters to put aside the notion of winner take all races and work together in not trashing the candidates or candidate most like them in policy. We have less time and less resources as voters to fend off nasty attacks among like minded candidates.

I for one agree with Greg that it's Yee and Avalos. State Senator Leland Yee along with many of his campaign staff.came to Supervisor Avalos kick.off today, to wish him well. That smart and classy in my book and something new in this jaded town where all too often political hacks sling mud but little else.

Posted by Guest lucretiamott on May. 22, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

If State Senator Leland Yee had changed his vote that many times I seriously doubt the California Nurses Association, the Sierra Club or Equalty California would have e given their endorsement or a 100 percent rating to them. Leland co authored Lenos "Marriage equality act" a feat for those who donT get out beyond their districts enough to know that d4 has a lot of Christian churches and a Morman ward to boot.

Old paradigms in political strategy given irv in SF ask progressive voters to put aside the notion of winner take all races and work together in not trashing the candidates or candidate most like them in policy. We have less time and less resources as voters to fend off nasty attacks among like minded candidates.

I for one agree with Greg that it's Yee and Avalos. State Senator Leland Yee along with many of his campaign staff.came to Supervisor Avalos kick.off today, to wish him well. That smart and classy in my book and something new in this jaded town where all too often political hacks sling mud but little else.

Posted by Guest lucretiamott on May. 22, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

as well as "a lot of Christian churches." The real conservatism in Lee's former district comes from the fact that it has a large number of homeowners. It's not a rent control welfare district like Campos' or Avalos' districts.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 22, 2011 @ 4:37 pm

Actually, Avalos's district has the highest percentage of homeownership in San Francisco -70%. But I guess they don't count in your world because they don't vote for your favored cronies.

Posted by Greg on May. 22, 2011 @ 6:20 pm

I like it.

Wrong - Elsbernd's district does.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on May. 22, 2011 @ 7:32 pm

http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=1224

Elsbernd's district has a 61% homeownership rate.
Avalos's district is 70%.

The difference is that Elsbernd's homeowners are priveledged white people, and they vote like priveledged white people. D11 is much more diverse (with Asians holding a plurality).

Posted by Greg on May. 22, 2011 @ 8:10 pm

OK - you win. Avalos has a higher home ownership rate.

This is fascinating data BTW - I wonder if it will change much with the new census?

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on May. 23, 2011 @ 12:59 pm

Rose and Willie's "only hope is to cut a deal with Chiu" is really naive. It's Rose and Willie who wear the pants in that relationship. Chiu's just hoping they don't completely kick him to the curb. Without Rose's Chinatown forces and fundraising and support from progressives whom Chiu totally burned in the interim mayor vote, Chiu is out in the cold. Jones' analysis that Chiu is "independent and broad based" is just silly. Peskin gave his base to Chiu in 2008 to get him on the board. Then Chiu gave Peskin and his neighborhood supporters the finger when he voted for Ed Lee -- thinking it would serve him better to thrown in with Rose and Willie. And we know that Willie and Rose prefer Ed Lee. So where does that leave Chiu? Hoping to be Willie and Rose's #2.

Steve's analysis of the situation is overly simplistic in that he doesn't really grasp (because he lacks the historical knowledge) of how Rose and Willie work and how far their tentacles can reach. Herrera, Chiu --either would be grateful if Rose makes him her second choice. That means some money and many Chinese voters giving him their #2 vote (though historically, most haven't voted an IRV slate). And don't assume Willie and Rose will always be together on every level of strategy. They're together on Ed Lee. But they might hedge their bets differently on second, third choices.

What's off base about Steve's analysis is that it says that the "Run Ed Run" campaign shows that Willie and Rose are desperate and deeply fear a win by any of the other front runners. (No, it just shows that Lee is their first choice in terms of having the most influence on room 200.)

With respect to Rose, she is hell-bent on avoiding a Leland mayorship. But the idea that she's "deeply fears" a successful campaign by Herrera or Chiu is pure fantasy. Willie is probably pretty close to where Rose is on Leland. But again, to suggest he "deeply fears" a Herrera or Chiu win is folly. It's just not as simple to characterize what's going on as Steve suggests. ...

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2011 @ 4:18 pm

The above is probably more accurate on the fine points than the original article. So basically it comes down to this:

If you want right wing government, it's Alioto-Pier, Dufty, Rees, or Hall (though at least Hall would be honest).

Chiu and Herrera are for sale to the highest bidder, which in this case means Willie and Rose's friends in the downtown business establishment.

If you want a clean break from all that, that leaves Avalos and Yee.

Posted by Greg on May. 22, 2011 @ 4:35 pm

"What's off base about Steve's analysis is that it says that the "Run Ed Run" campaign shows that Willie and Rose are desperate and deeply fear a win by any of the other front runners. (No, it just shows that Lee is their first choice in terms of having the most influence on room 200.) "

Actually, Rose and Willie know they can't win with Chiu, hence the need to get Lee into the race. Leland Yee is the biggest threat to Rose and WIllie for a number of reasons, but it all comes down to big money and control of Room 200.

Herrera and Dufty will play ball with Rose and Willie if they had half a chance to win, but Yee represents a changing of the guard and, with it, the end of the Willie Brown era.

Posted by Guest on May. 22, 2011 @ 7:07 pm

It seems odd that the Sierra Club, the California Nurses Association and Equality California would give their endorsements and a 100 percent score, respectively to State Senator Yee if he changes his vote after the fact as has been asserted.
I agree with Greg. Yee and Avalos are good picks with Irv in play in the mayors race. In addition, State Senator Yee and some of his supporters showed some grace and class today by coming to the Avalos kick off to wish him well.With Irv in play, candidates most alike in policy must avoid the nasty, bitter divisiveness of past "winner take all" elections where progressives spent too much time and energy tearing down candidates most like them to, in the end, get a fourth, third or second place finish.

Progressives not only lose elections but spend years trying mend fences later. Yee and Avalos are solid candidates with good records to run on.

As a voter, I get so tired of watching the same old rerun of last years election. Progressives who do the nasty campaigns turn off core Supporters of their second ranked choice vote ensuring defeat at the polls in November.

The old paradigm is shifting. Irv changed that. Leland showed grace today to a fellow progressive running in the same race. It s a relay race to the finish line in November.
With tough economic times, politicians and political hacks who trade in divisive campaigns are going to leave themselves more isolated.

Posted by Guest lucretiamott on May. 22, 2011 @ 6:56 pm

@Greg. 'secretia' - I like that !! how did I not think of it before you.
'secretia' > secretions > an apt description of what spews out of it's lame-brain.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on May. 22, 2011 @ 7:42 pm

Which would be Marc Solomon, who came up with it before I did. But I like it too.

Posted by Greg on May. 22, 2011 @ 8:13 pm

Greg,

There is no second Progressive running. Right now the only person I'm voting for in the Mayor's race is John Avalos. Whom, sadly, I don't believe has a prayer.

Giants win again in extra innings.

At least something's going right.

Here's an 'up' for y'all.

Like this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIugOkgtEiU

Have a good week campers.

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on May. 22, 2011 @ 8:02 pm

All along you've been advocating an IRV strategy. Remember how you lambasted anyone who didn't endorse 3 candidates for D6 supe? And now you're sticking your head in the sand waiting for a savior on a white horse, and if none comes, then you're just going to bullet vote... even though you think your candidate doesn't have a chance!

Wow. I just can't wrap my head around the absurdity of this argument.

Posted by Greg on May. 22, 2011 @ 8:22 pm