Ed Lee is going to run


We might as well get used to it: Mayor Ed Lee is going to run in November.

It's not just about getting his old job back. It's about the fact that he's starting to really like being mayor -- and that his closest allies have made it clear to him that the choice is either him or State Sen. Leland Yee, and that they find Yee unacceptable.

Lee has been talking to all the people you would expect him to talk to over the past few days, my sources tell me, letting them know that he's seriously considering it and looking for support. It's a little late to be lining up big endorsements; a lot of people have already signed on with one of the other candidates. But he'll be happy with co-endorsements and second-place endorsements -- and given his connections, he'll be able to raise substantial amounts of money quickly.

Oddly enough, if he gets in, the big loser won't be Yee, who will go out and try to run a campaign as an independent outsider against the old machine (and who doens't have to worry about offending Lee's supporters, who dislike him anyway). And John Avalos will be running to the left of both of them. 


Anyone you like more than Lee, perhaps?

Posted by Walter on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 2:30 pm

The voters are the "big loser." Ed Lee is not a very good Mayor. The whole "city family" mantra is exclusionary. His pension reform deal sucks unless you work in police and fire. It's bad for taxpayers.

The other losers are the rest of the candidates. They declared, raised money, and campaigned under the impression that Ed Lee was a short term Mayor. It is fundamentally lame for Lee to reverse course and run. Everyone beats the drum that Leland Yee is a shifting sands guy who takes different positions on the same issue depending on which way the sun is shining that day. Lee is no better if he declares.

Posted by The Commish on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 9:04 pm

Nobody is going to be forced to vote for Lee, as far as I know.

Posted by Walter on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 6:55 am

More choice is usually better than less, but not when you're talking about the incumbent who can use his office to his benefit in the race after saying he wasn't going to run.

Your comment would be valid if we were talking about Phil Ting, but we're talking about someone who would be the presumed frontrunner. We don't even know if Lee's in or out after saying for months that he was not going to run. So voters don't get a clear picture of the other candidates' positions because they don't know who they're up against and whom they have to contrast themselves with. I have no idea, for example, how Chiu would be different than Herrera on the issues as everyone is playing it safe. IRV is one reason, but Lee is another. I am also in the camp who believes that it's bad for the process for a candidate--especially the presumed frontrunner--to say for months that he wasn't going to run then upset the apple cart by running.

Posted by The Commish on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 8:07 am

Lee running would gut their bases. If there's a silver lining to Lee running, it's that Traitor Chiu gets a dose of his own medicine after brown-nosing Willie and Rose all this time.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 2:46 pm

Leland Yee will lose a big portion of the identity vote in the Asian community. That's essential to Yee winning - he doesn't win without it.

Posted by Mike on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 3:15 pm

Actually Mike, with ranked-choice voting, Asian voters have the option of voting for both Yee and Lee. So I don't think this will hurt Yee that much.

The question is whether Lee would get more first-place votes than Yee will. (It's possible.)

Posted by Common Sense SF on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 5:00 pm

Tim Redmond, you say:

“We might as well get used to it: Mayor Ed Lee is going to run in November.”

Whether he runs or not remains to be seen. But he sure is having fun freaking you and the ayatollah out over the thought of a run.

Why don’t the progressives have a strong candidate in this race, so they won’t have to keep biting their fingers nails about a Lee run?

You say:

“his closest allies have made it clear to him that the choice is either him or State Sen. Leland Yee, and that they find Yee unacceptable.”

I’m still amazed to see that progressives believe that Leland Yee is a stealth progressive. Talk about wishful thinking!

And why is Yee the best that progressives can come up with?

You say:

“But he'll [Ed Lee] be happy with co-endorsements and second-place endorsements –”

If Lee runs, he’ll wipe out the opposition. There won’t even be any need to count the second and third choices.

You say:

“And John Avalos will be running to the left of both of them” [Ed Lee and Leland Yee].

John Avalos has as much chance of being elected mayor as marc salomon does of being chosen pope.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 3:49 pm

Let's be coherent, sensible and reasonable. Your thoughtless response is very uncivil and makes little sense to thinking and thoughtful people with civility.

Since you are nothing close to being a progressive, why do you care what progressives have or don't have - or what progressives do for that matter? Your psychosis displays more of your incoherency, among other things.

Let's be reasonable.

Posted by Artor Evons on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 4:08 pm

I missed one point I intended to make:

Let's be sensible. You referred to the owner of the Guardian as "ayatollah Brugmann."

Isn't that "name-calling" that you complain about and accuse others of doing? I suppose it's fine when you do it?

Please investigate the word hypocrisy. It has no place in a civil, sensible, intelligent, intellectual or coherent society.

Let's be reasonable.

Posted by Artor Evons on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 4:32 pm

ok fine. I laughed.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 7:14 pm

Come on, Arthur -- Marc would make a great pope. Although he doensn't typically wear white.

Posted by tim on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 11:13 am

It is high time for a Pope who is a Jew.

There have been French Popes, a Polish Pope and now a German Pope.

As I like to say, if God made Jesus a Jew, then I'm sure that s/he'll be comfortable with a Pope who is a Jew even though I did not "pay my dues," as it were, to the College of Cardinals as a dutiful altar boy.

If you thought that guitar mass was edgy....wait until you see a Papal Bull decreeing that it is okay for the clergy to get married, just so long as it is same sex marriage, which might evolve some day to include vanilla marriage.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 12:56 pm

"Marc would make a great pope. Although he doensn't typically wear white."

- Tim Redmond

I agree that Marc Salomon has all the ideological rancor needed for the job. I could easily see him ordering heretics to be burned at the stake.

But you can't be pope if you dress like a bum on a meth trip and regard magic-marker scrawls on bus seats as art. That would be a no-go in the Sistine Chapel.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 1:02 pm

I wish I'd composed that one-line demolition job.

Posted by Walter on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 1:27 pm

Far be it for me to debase the Papacy:

The banquet was given in Cesare's apartments in the Palazzo Apostolico. Fifty prostitutes or courtesans were in attendance for the entertainment of the banquet guests. After the food was eaten, lamp stands holding lighted candles were placed on the floor and chestnuts strewn about. The clothes of the courtesans were auctioned; then the prostitutes and the guests crawled naked among the lamp stands to pick up the chestnuts. Immediately following the spectacle, members of the clergy and other party guests together engaged with the prostitutes in sexual activity. According to Burchard, "prizes were offered--silken doublets, pairs of shoes, hats and other garments--for those men who were most successful with the prostitutes".

According to William Manchester, "Servants kept score of each man's orgasms, for the pope greatly admired virility and measured a man's machismo by his ejaculative capacity." Another source states that Pope Alexander VI was actually there and himself suggested the scorekeeping method. Manchester also refers to the use of sex toys; Burchard, however, makes no reference to this in his account of the banquet.


So long as art attracts virile young men, today's Pontiff is cool with it.

Oh, yeah:

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 2:12 pm

Well Duh. Interim mayor Lee had said he wasn't going to run, so therefore it was a given (at least to me) that he would be running. 99.5% of politicians do exactly the opposite of what they say they are going to do and they hope that no one will notice their "flip" or will have forgotten what they originally said. That's part of the reason I have zero respect for 99.5% of (career) politicians. Lies and half-truths are the majority of what comes out of their mouths. Most of them could care less about We The People (even though they pretend otherwise for PR/BS reasons and the sheep fall for it). Most are in office for themselves and for the advancement of their career and political goals (that piece of work D8 supervisor...comes to mind when I say that).

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 4:24 pm

As I have been saying elsewhere, earlier and often; "Ed Lee has the 'runs'; he is simply gonna confirm that he is just another arse-wipe pandering, opportunistic politician who is full of poop".
Quite frankly it is almost irrelevant who our next Mayor might be. There is no-one who has the cojones, committment, power or perseverance to challenge and reverse the path of corporate oligarchy and avarice that is destroying our world. We are all just pissing in the winds of inevitability.
Crotchety old farts of all stripes, from Arthur to me, will soon be worm food. We've done our best (in my case) and our worst. The only hope for salvation is if the 'young'uns', who are gonna inherit our whirlwind, emulate the courage and strength shown by their contemporaries in the 'Middle East' and elsewhere, and confront the corruption and complacency that has destroyed freedom and democracy in the Dysfunctional Dis-united Altered States of Amerika.
If link doesn't work, and you give a damn:- "Bob Dylan's Dream"

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 5:26 pm

Chiu will be the big looser, and he knows why.

Posted by Charley_sf on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 5:41 pm

I see Avalos and Yee dividing the anti-Brown vote, allowing Lee to win. That's the way Willie sees it, I'm sure.

Posted by Charley_sf on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 5:42 pm

You are still employing winner-take-all thinking.

Avalos and Yee won't be -dividing- the anti-Brown vote, they'll be -sharing- it with eachother.

Those who think of ranked choice elections in two dimensions instead of three, will simply fail in their analysis.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 8:30 pm

Other than people at The Guardian who thought they were going to have a chance to slip an extremist progressive, in the shape of John Avalos, in through the cracks.

As soon as Lee announces (if he does, a lot of this strikes me as paranoia and an attempt to exert control on the part of Tim) the progressives and The Guardian will go on an unholy jihad to make Lee's political life hell. That's what they've always done when dealing with majority-elected politicians - they're no different than the extremist right in this country in that regard. Anyone not chosen with their backing and lacking in ideological purity is considered illegitimate.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 7:00 pm

Who cares? You care. Otherwise you wouldn't come here.

In all sincerity, if you really feel that way and feel that way about the SFBG which you constantly complain, cry and whine about, why do you continue to come to this site? So you can troll and feed your many dysfunctions and write your nasties and snides? You have no place else to go? All the other sites have kicked you off or banned you?

Most sane, reasonable, sensible, grounded and well-balanced people don't go to places that they don't like or are of ill-repute, in their mind.

Why don't you go to a site that you like and where you won't have to cry about progressives and how terrible progressives are day after day. It has to wear on a person to be so miserable.

Let's be reasonable, sensible, civil, cogent, intelligent and intellectual and coherent. Or is that asking too much from someone such as yourself?

Posted by Artor Evons on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 7:30 pm

Who is this Artor Evons person? We all know. The same as Guest, Barbara Chelsai, Jorge Orwell, Aortic Aneurysm, etc., etc.

Some people are bipolar, with two personalities, but this poster is polypolar, with dozens.

My guess is that his underlying problem is short-term memory loss. He can't remember the names from his last posts, so he keeps coming up with new ones.

No matter. The message is always the same: Avoid the topic of the thread.

Are the progressives lucky to have him in their camp, or what?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 9:16 pm

Thank you for your highly intelligent, cogent and articulate reply. Two comments follow:

You wrote:

"Some people are bipolar, with two personalities"

Such as your use of the name Ruth R Snaves on Fog City Journal and Arthur Evans on this site? Why are you rushing to defend "secretia" and her vile secretions? Is Lucreatia your third name? Shall we with civility discuss this intelligently, sensibly and intellectually?

You wrote:

"No matter. The message is always the same: Avoid the topic of the thread."

Yes, your message is always the same. Repetitive and redundant which made me think there was no memory there to lose. My guess is that you don't recall what you say from one comment to the other so you keep repeating. You accused me of avoiding the topic of this thread in my post. You will notice that you avoided the topic of this thread in your comment as well! What is the term for that? Is the right-wing lucky to have Arthur in their camp, or what?

Let's be reasonable.

Posted by Artor Evons on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 10:45 pm

Yes, Aeorta, join the Troggregressive Family or git yourself a new islando.

We, The Trogressives, want to stick with our own kind, only kind. Git it now?

Posted by Marcus on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 10:04 pm

It's endlessly amusing to me. Posters like you add to that amusement.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 11:20 am

The biggest loser with a Lee run would be Herrera and Chiu. Three's a crowd for the moderate vote.

If Lee runs, then when November rolls around it'll be Lee vs. Yee for Room 200. The only thing Yee really loses with a Lee run are 2nd and 3rd place votes from Herrera and Chiu supporters.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 7:04 pm

Oh great another Dianne Feinstein for 8 years.

Posted by Mark on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 7:50 pm

He will make a great Mayor!!!!

Posted by Guest on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 8:19 pm

The big news, if you can call it that, from Dufty this week as that Stuart Milk, the nephew of Harvey who rarely misses a chance to exploit his uncle's life and legacy, has made an ad for Dufty. Stuart lives in Wilton Manors, Florida, and is highly unlikely to influence SF voters. My post on Dufty and Stuart is here:


Posted by MPetrelis on Jul. 25, 2011 @ 9:04 pm

All This propaganda of how great Ed Lee is. Why? Where is it coming from.
The Garbage company that's who . Ed Lee has given the garbage company every rate hike and pass there is. They loved him at Public Works. They loved him even more as City Administrator who sits on the rate board. However they will truly love him as mayor as he sells out his own people who scream for relief from the super high garbage rates they pay as owners of restaurants and produce and food markets.
RUN ED RUN They Scream. The only way this city will get better is when the Feds finally investigate and indite both Recology and the local teamster union on corruption charges on the RICO act. There are many insiders just waiting for the chance to bury these guys. They have it wired locally on a State level and Federal too. One day the truth will come out, Why was Susan Leal Canned at SFPUC
Susan put the sludge contract out for bid.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 12:02 am

Ed is a man with no vision, he has no idea what he will do or what to do as Mayor of San Francisco. He's nothing more than a career politician collecting a paycheck.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 2:11 am

hasn't done us much good. Maybe what we need is a practical largesly non-partisan administrator who can actually fix the streets, resolve the deficit and generally keep the lights on.

We're not trying to change the world here. We're trying to run an existing business more efficiently.

Posted by Walter on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 6:58 am

Good gawd - this is a guy who thinks money to fix potholes should be diverted to pay raises for the City's massive workforce (including himself) and residents should absorb a property tax increase in a severe recession to repair the potholes. It is a tax increase that will not pass (66%) - so no, he is not fixing our streets...He "balanced" the budget by not adequately allocating general fund dollars for street repair.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 8:35 am

Practical, I'll give you. He knows what's good for his personal bottom line, so he's very practical about following the dictates of his puppeteers. But non-partisan? Who do you think you're kidding, Walter?

As for the part about running an existing "business"... well maybe that's the problem. Government and business are two different things with two different purposes. Government is there to provide for the general welfare and serve the public. Business is there to make money. There's a real problem when the people running the government have the ideology (and make no mistake, it IS an ideology) that government should be run like a business.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 7:42 am

into much of what the City does. Operations like schools, the airport, Muni and street repairs, water aren't major ideological issues. They're just enterprises that should be run as cheaply and efficiently as possible.

Someone who is senior and has actually run major operations, sounds like a better deal that some wet-behind-the-ears "public interest" advocate with a fashionable bumper sticker and an over-developed sense of political correctness. Keep it..

Posted by Walter on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 12:56 pm

Schwarzenegger came in and said he'd run California like a business. We're still dealing with the hangover from that party.

Truth is that everything is injected with politics. "Running government like a business" is an ideology just like anything else.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 1:35 pm

He held the budget together and generally was a centrist and a moderate.

The last thing this City needs is someone who is trying to change the world. We just need a guy who can balance a budget, keep business here and fix Muni.

Posted by Walter on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 1:58 pm

Something like 80% of Californians realized by the end that he was all useless gimmicks and talking points -an empty suit with no substance, no brains, but full of pro-business dogma. The fact that you're one of his few remaining accolytes says it all.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 2:17 pm

for that ludicrous assertion?

Posted by Walter on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 2:26 pm

July 14, 2010: The Field Poll released Wednesday says just 22 percent of voters surveyed approve of Schwarzenegger's performance, while 70 percent disapprove.


Posted by marcos on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 5:30 pm

He was re-elected.

This is a tough one for true believers.

Clinton pummeled Dole.

Obama should win pulling away.

All the bitter bitching of the whiny right can't change that.

Arnold won re-election and thats the poll that matters.

Sorry, reality bags your mom again.

Posted by matlock on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 5:51 pm

He is now the most unpopular former governor in the history of California. But you just go on nursing your little delusions. They're entertaining, if nothing else.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 6:10 pm

a true follower of the Clinton Chronicles.

Posted by matlock on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 7:00 pm

My guess is that if Ed Lee runs and is elected, he'll be just another "C" mayor, like all the rest for the last 35 years or so.

But he looks big to voters now because the alternatives look so small by comparison.

John Avalos, "the progressive alternative in this race," shot himself in the foot in front of the gay community ("Queers for Avalos," ouch). He hasn't been able to expand his base beyond a small number of nonprofits and extremist ideologues.

Leland Yee, who the ayatollah Brugmann hopes will prove to be a stealth progressive, is the living embodiment of the Usual Suspect in politics. He inspires no one apart from the ayatollah.

David Chiu is now denounced as a traitor by the very progressives who first enabled his rise to power. He comes across to voters as slick and hungry.

By comparison, Ed Lee is seen as a sensible adult who goes about solving problems in a matter-of-fact way. Although this is a modest image, it wipes the other candidates off the page.

The most remarkable fact here is the failure of the city's progressive sect to come up with an inspiring, practical mayoral candidate, even though they have controlled the board of supes for ten years.

This failure will influence the course of SF politics for another eight years.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 9:00 am

My hope is Lee and Yee dilute each other to give some of the other candidates a chance. I am a property owner which means I have no seat at the table with people like Lee, Avalos, Herrera, Chiu, and Ting. That leaves me with Hall, Rees, and Alioto.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 9:29 am

Take a look at the link below. The supporters of Ed Lee are going into high gear.

What is the progressive strategy for countering Ed Lee? Is our local progressive sect even cable of thinking in strategic terms anymore?

(An army of stoners can always be defeated.)


Posted by Arthur Evans on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 10:11 am

each other to co-ordinate a party in a brewery let alone a coherent election strategy.

Remember, if they hadn't all been squabbling like spoilt children back in January, this would be a moot issue now.

But I don't know - why don't we ask Chris Daly how not to "fumble" the anyone-but-Lee strategy?

Posted by Walter on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 10:28 am

Leland Yee loses a bit of the Chinese vote if Lee runs, but I think Herrera and Dufty -- who are basically trying to occupy the center -- will suffer the most. Yee is going to try to move left (at least on the East side of town) and try to get second-place votes from the Avalos crowd. Herrera is going to talk about his experience running a major city department (which, of the current candidates, only Ting can match) -- but if Lee runs, he can cite his long history of management experience. That will force Herrera to find some other defining issues -- which, frankly, is not such a bad thing.


Posted by tim on Jul. 26, 2011 @ 11:20 am