It's official: Adachi's in the race (VIDEO)

|
(117)

Public Defender Jeff Adachi filed to run for mayor of San Francisco on Aug. 12, the last possible day to enter the race.  Adachi said he'd decided to run in order to "make sure there's a voice in there that's talking about the fiscal realities of our city."

At a mayoral candidate forum Aug. 11, every single contender -- Mayor Ed Lee, Sup. John Avalos, venture capitalist Joanna Rees, Assessor Recorder Phil Ting, Board President David Chiu, City Attorney Dennis Herrera, former Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier, former Sup. Bevan Dufty, and Sen. Leland Yee -- said they would support the pension reform package that was placed on the ballot after discussion with labor unions, the mayor's office, and business interests, and not the pension reform measure authored by Adachi.

Here's a video of Adachi explaining his decision to members of the press moments after filling out the paperwork.

Video by Rebecca Bowe

Comments

Dude.

Did you learn basic mathematics in grade school?

A) The U.S. government has spent trillions of dollars on wars.

B) The U.S government has been cutting state and local supports like mad, at amounts that are huge, but are -less- than what that same U.S. government spent on the wars.

It is therefore -blitheringly- obvious that those state and local cuts would not have happened if we had not been paying for the wars.

You, are complete moron.

Please go away.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 4:28 pm

any evidence or proof that the costs of the wars would have otherwise been given to municipalities. And in fact, had those wars not happened, we would simply have a 13 trillion dollar federal debt problem instead of a 15 trillion dollar problem.

Calling anyone who disagrees with you a "moron" is about as sure a sign I know of that somebody is losing a debate.

Posted by Harry on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 4:33 pm

It is practically impossible to lose a debate against you.

Don't flatter yourself.

I call you what you are, out of complete bafflement at your profound stupidity and naivete.

Now you're saying corporations aren't destroying the world???

Must be nice to live in fantasy land.

Tell the little green currency faeries I say 'hi'...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 4:54 pm

Nonsense. Those SFERS Board members are not professional investment brokers. They depend on and utilize Wall Street firms to make those decisions.

The same bastards who screwed us are making the investment choices.

Board members only weigh in strongly when there is some political or ideological reason to channel investments away from particular targets (such as 80s South Africa).

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 2:34 pm

clearly they didn't do a very good job of due diligence in their selection. Many markets and funds have done just fine in the last few years. Indeed, my own portfolio is up nicely.

So if the guys in charge made a bad choice of investment advisors, then we should fire them and find some new ones. There's plenty of hedge funds that have been doing very nicely e.g. Paulson, SAC, Reniassance, Loeb etc.

Posted by Harry on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 2:53 pm

Ah. So you have a 'portfolio'. That indeed explains a lot about the propagandistic crap that you regularly post on these blogs.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 3:15 pm

invalidated from holding a politcal viewpoint? Maybe we should only allow people with no demonstrable net worth to vote - could that work?

And the irony is that if you, Eric, have any type of occupational pension plan or iRA, then you have a portfolio too. The banks and insurance companies you utilize also have "portfolio's".

Problem?

Posted by Harry on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 3:43 pm

The web site pensiontsunami.com which documents all the flaws in public pension systems daily was founded in 2005. Just because the media failed to cover the unsustainability of these pensions systems until the drop in 2008, doesn't mean the flaws weren't well-documented...

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 4:13 pm

which we shouldn't bame the workers or the unions. It's their job to try and secure the best possible deal for themselves regardless of whether it is affordable or reasonable. That's what unions do. It's their entire purpose.

But that begs the question of why we allow them to have any real say in this debate, given how self-serving and single-minded their motives are. We should regard the unions as being just what they are - a single-purpose organization that sees everything from just one specific point of view. Why ask them if they should get more money when that's their function?

The real problem was that we all allowed ourselves to be duped by them - the voters and the elected officials. But what's done is done and the only question now is how to reverse this? And for all the criticism that Adachi's plan has garnered, it doesn't go nearly far enough to get us out of the hole.

Either the pension entitlelemtns need to be rolled back or the workers need to contribute far more. If neither happens, then the only alternative is wholesale layoffs in the public sector, and the reduction of city services to an absolute minimum - maybe just public safety.

Ultimately even the unions know they can't cut off the hand that feeds them. Our best hope is that the collective brainwashing is now finally over. We'll get a clue about that this November, just like we got one last November. Let's make it count.

Posted by Harry on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

You're in a zone today - ha.

It's unfortunate most voters don't grasp the enormity of current and future employee benefit costs and the implications (although this seems to be changing a bit). Most of our elected officials are perfectly happy to stick to a path of least resistance, lap up labor $ and support and just pay lip service to the crisis.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 6:43 pm

I have to admit, Harry. You're a lot better than the usual Tea Party hacks who occasionally post here. You have good spelling and grammar for one thing, and you occasionally pepper your posts with assertions that you're not a conservative, to make you sound more credible to San Franciscans.

But sometimes you slip up, as with the "Democrat Party" comment. And sometimes you just can't resist, as in this comment:
"We'll get a clue about that this November, just like we got one last November. Let's make it count."

And thus your true colors come out.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 8:44 pm

With the "Tea Party Harry" namecalling, is it fair to conclude you are losing the battle of ideas...? Think so.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 9:28 pm

How is it "namecalling"?
Harry obviously strongly identifies with the Tea Party in his posts.
And where are your "ideas"?
You seem to have run into this battle unarmed.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 10:20 pm

That's where all the money disappeared to in the first place.
Let's take it back.

" the only alternative is wholesale layoffs in the public sector, and the reduction of city services to an absolute minimum "
Posted by Harry on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 6:22 pm

Corporations and the super- rich. For that you need the legal ability to tax income, gains, profits and wealth. Only the Federal Government and the States can try and do that.

So if we're discussing the Mayoral election for SF, the City's pension shortfall and the City's budget deficit, then "tax the rich" is just a simplistic bumper sticker. It's not relevant because the City has no legal means to do that effectively.

However we eventually close the funding gaps that threaten to overwhelm us, it won't be through taxes. You can only hike hotel taxes and parking fees by so much. So we're not discussing whether to make swingeing budget and pension cuts here. Only which cuts to make and how deep they will need to go. so the question is this: Which Mayoral candidate has the spine to do that?

Posted by Harry on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 2:26 pm

Warren Buffet -stop coddling the super rich.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.h...

He says a lot of sensible things. One of my favorites is discrediting the whole notion that the rich won't invest if you tax them.
"I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain."

Posted by Greg on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 7:30 am

In a provocative piece, Randy Shaw argues that Jeff Adachi's entry into the mayoral race will help Ed Lee's candidacy (link below).

If true, this is not good news for our local progressive sect. As this thread shows, they have their knives out for Adachi. But wouldn't it be an irony if all their stabbing only resulted in better odds for Lee, whom they also hate?

Their dilemma, of course, is that they have no credible candidate of their own. Not to mention their lack of social skills and their inability to form city-wide coalitions.

My own guess at this point is that Lee will win and that second-choice ballots will not even have to be counted. However, Adachi's entry into the race may propel his own pension-reform measure to success, defeating Lee's. If that happens, the dynamics of city politics will have shifted, regardless of who becomes mayor.

By the way, I haven't decided yet on whom to support for mayor.

Here's the link:

http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=9431

Okay, I'm waiting now for the ad hominem diversions from Eric Brooks and "Guest." Also, the foul-mouthed explosions from Greg Kamin.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 7:48 am

Your posts are usually quite good but I should have skipped that one. This poverty pimp obviously has a clear ulterior motives in doing big business with the City and shouldn't be taken seriously. (He's quoting Ballard for crissakes.) There are so many unintended consequences with RCV- who knows...

Adachi is in the best position to expose Lee's- weak pension reform plan (by Lee's own standards), claims to have saved taxpayers money by giving police and fire big raises, bogus pothole and sales taxes, shady back-room dealings etc. I also enjoy the false equivalency of a reporter asking Adachi if he is running for mayor and his saying "no" as somehow equivalent to Lee taking the interim mayor role on the condition that he not run; or Adachi taking on the pension issue solely as a vehicle to run for mayor as if it were not a looming financial crisis that NO ELECTED OFFICIAL was addressing or as if rising pension costs would not have the effect of slashing the PD's budget.

I am still trying to figure out Lee running on his ability to "bring people together" to get things done. Of course, he got cooperation as an apolitical caretaker mayor. I guess he expects the same cooperation IF elected mayor and legislating with the folks he stabbed in the back...??

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 8:59 am

C'mon folks. It's just the same old tried and true Divide and Conquer tactic. There is more that unites us all than divides us. Until we acknowledge and confront the root cause we are simply pissing in the wind and will continue to wither on the vine that is strangling us all.
http://www.alternet.org/story/152010/americans-dont-realize
1)AVALOS
2)ADACHI
3)BAUM
Forget the rest of the alphabet soup.
Just my 2c.
ARRIBA GIGANTES.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 9:04 am

Come on Pat. How can such a radical as you be fool enough to believe Adachi's bullshit.

Wake up man.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 2:39 pm

...more namecalling. Are you on the ropes?!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 2:57 pm

"This poverty pimp [Randy Shaw] obviously has a clear ulterior motives in doing big business with the City and shouldn't be taken seriously."

- Guest

It's true that Randy Shaw is entrenched in the nonprofit political complex and has his own vested interests at stake in this election.

Nonetheless, it's a mistake to discount everything anybody might say because of a person's life situation. To do so is the ad hominem fallacy.

The truth of a general proposition has nothing to do with the character of the person who utters it.

For example, 2 +2 = 4. This statement is true regardless of whether a rapist or a saint utters it. Likewise, our local progressive sect is anti-intellectual and lacking in social skills. This statement is true, regardless of who denies it.

Wisdom consists in being open to finding the truth in even the most unlikely of places. Folly consists in the tunnel vision that can only see what fits within narrow presuppositions.

The true implication that emerges from Randy Shaw's comments is that attacks on Jeff Adachi will likely help Ed Lee. This implication creates an ironic situation for our local progressive sect. They hate both Adachi and Lee.

They are so self-marginalizing that they have nowhere to go.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 9:36 am

"Nonetheless, it's a mistake to discount everything anybody might say because of a person's life situation. To do so is the ad hominem fallacy."

Disagree. While it is certainly folly to disagree with everything someone would say, in this case, politics is this gent's business. One should discount what he says in the sense that he has a financial stake in the outcome of the mayoral election. Sure it's quite clear is his mind which candidates are more likely to renew his contract at his terms and which are not...

Should we take the CEO of Recology's musings on the election seriously?

...Anywayss - the candidates themselves (you'd think they'd be knowledgable) told M&R they thought Adachi would take votes away from Lee. The over-arching point is this guesswork of the Ranked Choice Voting impacts and implications should not be taken seriously...

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 10:22 am

It's pretty obvious that Randy Shaw, Ed Lee, Jane Kim, and Rose Pak have been scheming together for the last year to get their financial claws locked into District 6 and City Hall as a whole.

Hence, Shaw's screeds are just as bogus as SF Chronicle and SF Examiner editorials.

Shaw is out for money, and is propagandizing to railroad the campaign toward his financial interests.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 2:44 pm

EB...I agree!

(Have not been able to say that.)

Maybe after a month we can convince you to rank Adachi #3 ...

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 3:04 pm

No man. You've gotta wake up.

Adachi is in a far higher echelon game and is -far- more dangerous to us than even Willie Brown's corrupt local manipulations.

Really. I mean this. Get Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' and read it.

You -must- wise up about this stuff.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 3:27 pm

C'mon man...wuz just jokin...

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 3:53 pm

Good to know, but we dare not joke about this. Corporations are trying to take over the world more deeply and completely than ever before. If they succeed, they will fully collapse the entire global biosphere, likely driving humans into extinction.

And they are fooling a -lot- of people who should know better.

I bumped into a Green the other day who was excited that she could vote for Adachi...

Such messed-up-ness is truly scarey.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 4:16 pm

How is Apple killing me? Verizon? 3M? Wells Fargo?

Where do you get this drivel from?

Posted by Harry on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 4:35 pm

I'm a Green and I'm excited to vote for Adachi. Whatever you think about pension reform (and seriously we are talking about a relatively minor reduction which they can handle whichever plan passes, AND it is progressively weighted to boot) I don't think Avalos or Baum on the off chance they could win have enough political wherewithal to effect the kind of policys that progressives want on every other issue. And for the love of god stop telling people to read Shock Doctrine, this is a municipal election, personally I'm more concerned with getting the crooks out of city hall than battling for the commanding heights. Oh whatever this is so moot Lee is going to win, blast.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 4:51 pm

Have you read The Shock Doctrine?

Do you understand the concept of Disaster Capitalism?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

Shaw writes propaganda to promote his business interests. He is one of the most destructive forces in SF along with Rose Pak and Willie Brown and their minions. I discount him and his org because it is just plain propaganda.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 1:56 pm

All bets are off, with the Adachi now in the race as to who will win Room 200 in my opinion. Polls can be misleading especially if they do not consider the undecideds who will be inundated by robo calls and big money, between now and November. One thing you can predict is that big money, especially for Adachi and Lee, who will not be using public financing, will pour into what I think will be one of the most expensive races in SF history, the state and possibly the nation for a mayor's race. It will be all about financing city services by slashing the wages of city workers and later, vows Adachi, their health care. Voters will see the nice guy backed by Brown/Pak, pitted against the crusading zealot backed by Moritz et all and little else.

Adachi with his own pension initiative and Lee with his measure will wind up talking about little else in this race. It won't be about jobs, our environment, affordable housing, public transportation, health care expansion and all those quality of life issues, including real solutions our most needy in SF, the homeless. Of course, both men will say their measures at least solve the money crisis but both measures still do not specifically put the salary savings slashed and gained into ear marked funds for these real human needs.

Not really convinced Adachi helps Lee or vice versa.. In fact they could both take each other down by focusing solely on their measures. If you have ever gone to a town hall meeting pension reform doesn't even make the list. Pot holes, transportation, jobs and public safety do. Schools that don't leak, access to community colleges that don't take years to complete, ideas that help homeless people with substance abuse problems do.

Posted by Guest lucretiamott on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 10:59 am

Kinda agree...who knows what's gonna happen. I have little doubt Adachi is in to go after Lee. However the budget is paramount - you can't fix potholes, transportation etc. without any money.

One nit- Adachi said he is sticking to cap, Lee is not...

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 11:22 am

"They hate both Adachi and Lee"
Typical myopic, ignorant, superficial bullshit from this troll.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 11:07 am

"Typical myopic, ignorant, superficial bullshit from this troll."

- Pat Monk, R.N.

Congrats, you're becoming as articulate as Greg Kamin!

You guys are doing to do great, reaching out to others and building broad-based coalitions.

See ya at the polls in November!

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 2:09 pm

Arthur, while I do occasionally post on this site, I don't do nearly as often as you think. Not everyone who posts as 'Greg' is the same person. Please don't lump all the Gregs together.

Posted by Greg K on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 2:30 pm

"Everywhere else in the country, everywhere else in the world, they're taking austerity measures to insure that their fiscal system is sound." ~Jeff Adachi

So, if I understand Adachi correctly, he approves of all these austerity measures which are being weilded like a knife at the throats of workers from Wisconsin to SF to Europe. All in the name of insuring a sound fiscal future. Never mind how we got here -- just "do the math", as the hecklers are so fond of telling me.

I don't know if these folks ever read what economists like Paul Krugman or Robert Reich have to say. They've been warning for some time that if you drive down wages for public sector workers, this hurts ALL workers in the long run. Private-sector workers will find that their wages and benefits are being steadily chipped away. And that pace will only accelerate if they succeed in undermining the public sector unions.

The converse is also true. Historically, when public-sector workers were doing well, this led to an upgrade in the wages and benefits of private-sector workers too (even for ununionized workers). Likewise, the economy is only able to thrive when you have a strong middle class to stimulate demand for goods and services.

So, let's say, for the sake of argument, that Jeff Adachi gets his wish. He wakes up one morning and voila(!), he is our mayor. And even though he's alienated most workers and pols across the political spectrum (none are on board for his measure), he manages to find enough support to push through all the austerity measures of his heart's desire. (Incidentally, this will include cuts to health care.) Since this does nothing to create jobs, stimulate economic spending nor protect the wages of the middle class, who's to say that he won't be back again and again to demand more spending cuts (?) -- the entire burden of which will be shouldered by workers.

Adachi flatters himself that he is some kind of maverick who is "the only one talking about this". Well, I'm sorry to inform him, but this agenda was dreamed up by conservative think tanks and organizations like ALEC long before he decided foist it on SF workers. If was Adachi was any kind of a leader, he would be using his bully pulpit to demand that the financial elites who got us into this mess in the first place pay their fair share of taxes. That's real "shared sacrifice." Instead, he's colluding with the very folks who are out to destroy the economy and any chance of a recovery. I'm sorry but that's not leadership.

Well, I can't wait to see who's funding his campaign. Should be interesting.

Posted by Lisa on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

Lack of leadership? I may nominate you for the worst post of the day but I do like your spirit.

Where were we before Adachi came along?? City Hall passed its version of "pension reform" in June of 2010 in the form of Prop D. Prop D doesn't save the general fund any real money for 25 years. It simply slightly raised the pension contribution of new hires in public safety and changed pensionable income to the average of the last two years for new hires. Talk about throwing a deck chair of the Titanic.

So Lisa, instead of demonizing Adachi as you are wont to do or referencing stalwarts Krugman and Reich, why don't you tell us your proposal for coming up with the funds to cover pension costs that will be $980 million annually by 2020? What mix of increased contributions, service reductions, layoffs, fee hikes and/or tax increases are you proposing? I am assuming you realize that Adachi's current proposal does not come close to covering the entirety of this costs...

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 4:33 pm

City workers have already given back a half-billion dollars!!! Where does it end?? At what point do you demand that the folks who are responsible for the financial meltdown pay for the mess they got us into? Or do you just keep chipping away at workers' wages and benefits until the whole economy tanks?

Listen, I'm happy to support some type of pension reform, as long as it's tied to taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals. Look, politicians are always talking about the need for "shared sacrifice". I'm all for it. However, so far, it is mainly the workers who have shouldered the ENTIRE brunt of the sacrifice-- cuts to their wages, health care and retirement. At some point, real leaders and activists are going to have to demand that the rich pay their fair share of taxes.

Adachi is not that kind of leader. Well, h. Brown once suggested that Adachi would be the only pol with the cojones to demand taxes from the rich. You believe that? Adachi's too busy rubbing elbows with folks like Mike Moritz, the corporate vulture who funded Ohio Governor John Kasich's campaign to the tune of $11,000. (Once elected, Kasich wasted no time before going after the collective bargaining rights of Ohio workers.) Adachi also took money from republican hawk Howard Leach and David Crane who wrote an op-ed challenging public workers' right to collective bargaining.

So, with all this ill-gotten money, Adachi teams up with PG&E shill Joe Nation to pen this measure. Is it demonizing someone to point out that this is hardly an inspiring example of leadership? You tell me.

Posted by Lisa on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 1:47 pm

Lisa,

The one big $230? million City worker giveback we read so much about evaporates this fiscal year.

Do you really believe City workers who are paid more, get better pensions and better health care than SF residents are "bearing the brunt?"

But I'll answer your question.

"Is it demonizing someone to point out that this is hardly an inspiring example of leadership?"

Yes. Lets see - "shill, hawk, rubbing elbows, vulture, ill-gotten..." Need I go on? But you are smart to stay away from the substance/math.

..."I'm happy to support some type of pension reform, as long as it's tied to taxes..."

Let's see we have one pension reform measure (one can pass) on the November balllot and two tax increases - so you have your mix.

Is your problem with the democratic process and that someone other than voters of SF should decide?

Peace,

Guest

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 2:28 pm

@Guest,

Temporary furloughs amount to a pay cut. Not only that, but in the process of negotiations, city employees agreed to do without a pay raise in exchange for deferred compensation. So the money they would have received in wages now goes into their pension fund. As Pulitzer-Prize-winning tax reporter David Cay Johnston explains,

"The money going into these plans belongs to the workers because it is part of the compensation of the state workers. The fact is that the state workers negotiate their total compensation, which they then divvy up between cash wages, paid vacations, health insurance and, yes, pensions. Since the ... government workers collectively bargained for their compensation, all of the compensation they have bargained for is part of their pay and thus only the workers contribute to the pension plan. This is an indisputable fact."

The voters of SF elected city officials to negotiate on their behalf. As Tim Redmond said, "You can argue that those contracts were overly generous and should be renegotiated. You can argue that the city can't afford to pay its workers as well as it once did and that they should take further pay cuts (beyond the half-billion or so they've already given back). ... But to say that city workers aren't contributing to their pension fund, or need to contribute more, is dishonest."

Now, if Michael Moritz, et al, would like to contribute more of their taxes to keep city services intact (in lieu of the ridiculously low 15% tax rate charged to hedge fund managers, the wealthy, etc), I'll gladly stop referring to them as corporate vultures, etc.

Peace to you, too.

Posted by Lisa on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 3:20 pm

@Lisa,

There is one reason why I don't buy the "no wage increase in exchange for deferred compensation" theory. In order for it to be true, City janitors, gardeners, nurses etc. would be getting paid less than their private sector equivalents when in fact, they are paid more...

Yes, furlough days are a pay cut (technically a reduction in work hours as wage rate stays the same). But they do not address chronic operating deficits- it's just typical kick the can down the road until I'm out of elected office stuff...

Guest

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 4:34 pm

The volume (in number and tone) of these posts suggests that Adachi is associated with an important issue and has incredible name recognition.

Hard to believe that anything Lee, Yee, Herrera, Dufty, Chiu, Avalos, Ting etc. could do would generate as much discussion or garner as much press as Adachi's been getting. The public's interest in this race seems to have gone way up since Adachi announced. I'm sure a candidate much prefers people to be talking about him than not and lots of people are talking about Adachi.

And the posts above from Adachi's detractors vary from unpersuasive to maniacal. No one is going to associate Adachi in this local election with "shock doctrine" capitalism, our nation's wartime spending, or corporations taking over the world to "fully collapse the entire global biosphere." I mean seriously. I have not read a single post to convince me NOT to rank Adachi #1 on the ballot.

Posted by The Commish on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 5:40 pm

Commish,

Just for the sake of argument let's dismiss the global perspective for a second (even though the SEIU totally gets this factor in Adachi) and let's just focus on the simple blatant fact that Adachi worked with Joe Nation to craft his pension 'reform' strategy.

How by any stretch of the imagination could you trust someone working with a totally corrupt slimeball like Joe Nation?

Give me a break.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 6:33 pm

outside of your tent, I don't think many others have some visceral reaction to Joe Nation, give Joe Nation much of a thought, or associate Adachi with Joe Nation. From my (admittedly outsider) perspective, I view Adachi as someone who is completely unafraid of the "city family" b.s.; I don't view him through some prism of associational politics the way I would other candidates like Dennis Herrera or Leland Yee. In other words, I don't really give a shit if Joe Nation worked on a pension reform measure.

And if you read Luke Thomas' post over on FCJ in the SEIU article, he points out that Adachi's pension reform measure is actually more progressive than the city family measure and that the city family measure hits lower paid workers harder. Sounds like you are more in favor of Ed Lee's measure that is better for police and fire.

Posted by The Commish on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 9:05 pm

Read up on Joe Nation.

For example, you can see a very cogent hit flyer against him that nails some of the basics at http://www.beyondchron.org/news/news_images/2008/northbayprog.jpg

You don't sit in a room and cook up legislation with a bastard like this by accident.

See my other post about your absurd claim that I somehow support Lee's measure.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Aug. 16, 2011 @ 2:59 pm

The arguments made in this thread (and others) by Eric Brooks are aimed at other progressives. How do we know this? Because he relies on a group of paranoid assumptions that most people in our local progressive sect share, but which most ordinary voters do not.

Brooks' behavior reflects the classic weakness of SF progressives. They only know how to preach to their own choir. And they demonize anybody who belongs to another church.

The candidates supported by Brooks will go up in flames, as usual. They will do so feeling ideologically superior to the majority of San Franciscans.

Isn't this behavior pattern an example of folly?

Wouldn't it be better to engage others with openness, understanding, and good will?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 6:56 pm

@Ruthie, just so long as I don't become as irrelevant, inarticulate and inconsequential as a limp old sock puppet like you.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 8:29 pm

@Eric. I'm not 'fooled' by Adachi or anyone. They are all 'politicians with a personal agenda'. Yes I'm a 'radical' but of my own choosing and definition informed by 50+ years of activism, I'm a 'radicalzenanarcho-yippiehumanistmofo', which means that I feel totally free to take whatever stand takes my fancy, including pragmatism.
I simply repeat my basic premise in my previous posting, we are all being screwed.
Until we confront the cause of the disease and root it out, the rest is meaningless, putting a bandaid on a supturating wound.
If only someone could put a bandaid on the mouth of that pathetic old poltroon Ruthie. Oh well, my Dad told me to suffer fools gladly, I'm trying to.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 8:44 pm