Adachi video attacks public financing


This is odd: An eight-minute video narrated by Matt Gonzalez in support of Jeff Adachi devotes a considerable amount of time to attacking public campaign financing -- something Gonzalez always supported as a supervisor.

The video claims that the $4 million that "politicians" are taking to pay for their mayoral campaigns could have helped the city avoid cancelling summer school and cutting school bus routes.

Actually, the city doesn't pay for summer school or for school buses; the school district does. But I suppose the city could have scrapped public financing and given the money to SFUSD. Unlikely, but possible. (The city actually does share some money with SFUDS, under a measure that Gonzalez opposed.)

The thing about public financing, of course, is that it allows candidates like John Avalos, who won't get big business support, to run a competitive campaign. If it prevents special interests from buying elections, it saves the city far more than it costs. Public financing has always been a central part of the progressive agenda, nationally and locally.

The rest of the message is about what you'd expect -- pension reform, Recology's franchise fee, giveaways to the police and fire unions. All stuff that Adachi has made part of his campaign. It's nicely (if inexpensively) produced, and, as always, Gonzalez is a great presenter.

But what's up with the attack on public finance?

(UPDATE: Gonzalez emailed me to say that Adachi doesn't oppose public financing but thinks this is a bad year to accept it. He also said when he chaired the Budget Commitee the city sent a lot of money to the schools. But he did oppose the measure that guarantees some city funding to SFUSD.)


won re-election and is vice-Gov of CA. Brown beat Jordan and got re-elected. And Feinstien, well, is a US senator.

And against that, we have - what? Some sad old gay in a filthy rent-controlled studio apartment. Hmm, who should we believe?.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 1:25 pm

The only reason Newsom was able to pull disaster out of the fire in the race against Gonzalez, is that the National Democratic Party sent Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, and Nancy Pelosi -to- San Francisco, to campaign for Newsom and save both him, and the Democratic Party, from what would otherwise have been a profound defeat at the hands of the Green Party; which would have had deep national implications for the Democrats.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 1:56 pm

He quit the Greens shortly afterwards, as did Ross, as does anyone with real ambition.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 2:09 pm

...and got more live votes on election night than Newsom. It was only the intervention of the National Democratic Party that secured more absentees for Newsom and kept his leaking ship from sinking.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 3:47 pm

ahead in the polls at any point in time.

As I recall, Gavin got about 10% more votes, which was a comfortable victory.

And of course the Democratic party would support a Democrat!! What else would you expect?

In 2011, the elft have no comparable candidiate, and the Greens don't have anyone credible at all. How so much changes in just a few years . .

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 4:18 pm

As I recall, Gonzo actually did hold a small lead in a poll published in the Chronicle 1-2 weeks before the election and he lost the election by about 5-6% overall and I believe may have won narrowly among votes cast on election day.

Also, I thought the video was fantastic. Go Adachi! Go Matt!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 7:29 pm

The Democratic party didn't "send" her here - she's been the representative here since 1987.

As for the rest - Newsom was a Democrat while Gonzalez was not. Of course the national party was going to do what it had to do to win the race.

You act as if party support were somehow unfair - as if it skewed the election. You sound like a Republican bitching about Democrats in San Francisco.

Posted by guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 2:10 pm

You're a gpod guy,

I still have never believed that you aren't a front for PG&E since Bowe broke that story of your getting 40k from them to start your business. That doesn't mean you can't be a nice person.

And, bragging about CCA is kinda lame since it began as Public Power lite and now is at how many potential customers and you have no provider?

Only way SFPUC is gonna ever launch the tiny CCA program is if Adachi is elected Mayor.

If I recall, you finally provided your 990 after a year and it said that you fund 80% of the budget from a personal loan to yourself?

Didn't you represent A. Philip Randolph too?

Sorry, guy. Again, you're an affable person but all of these non-profits with links to PG&E funding are suspect to me. I know, for instance, that PG&E contributes to a fund that helps support Livable Cities and the SF Bicycle Coalition. I'm not saying that this help accounts for the bike folk's giving their #2 endorsement to Ed Lee but I'm cynical enough to wonder.

Best to you and your family.

Go Niners!


Posted by h. brown on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

@Eric, gonna leave the ignorant little troll to your tender mercies, he's pathetic and laughable. Got bigger fish to fry.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 2:10 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 2:51 pm


That's a promise. I've had plans to retire to finish a novel, play and comedy routine I've toyed with for years. I would have quit when the Class of 2011 took office but I'd promised myself that if Matt or Jeff got in the race I'd lurk on sites like this for the duration and defend them. Lord knows why I figured they might be unreasonably attacked.

Anyway, Marcos and all, put up with my defenses of Adachi and my other friends for another 6 days and the field is yours.

And, what does, "going medieval" on someone entail?

Go Niners!


Posted by h. brown on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 2:19 pm

I, for one, can't wait for the myriad lies and slander of h Brown to be put to rest.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 2:28 pm

As we close out on the amusing, yet libelous, run of H. Brown's looney tunes conspiracies, homophobic writings, sexist musings, racist rants, and destructive attacks on progressives, I wanted to post my favorite video of H. Brown in action.

Kudos to whoever had the wherewithal to film H. Brown in the middle of what he does best on the blogosphere:

Thanks for the memories!

Posted by Thanks H Brown! on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

In your list of adjectives for the H. Brown vomit-fest that is his blogging body of work, you forgot to mention his rampant anti-semitism!

And I didn't know what you meant about "sexist" so I went to H's website. Wow, now I get it:

Happy trails Mr. Brown!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 8:19 pm

I couldn't find it in there.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 8:47 pm

AGAIN. This has some pictures and a diagram so even you might be able to understand.
ALSO. May be a bit challenging for you, but also has pictures.
Oh, by the way doofus, thanks for giving me the excuse to keep reposting these, increases the chances of them being read and redistributed.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 5:08 pm

And don't let the door hit you on the ass as you exit.

Posted by guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 5:59 pm

Start preparing Mr Ed Recall.
Correction to link above.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 9:34 am
Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 1:21 pm

Your friday treat,

I used to smoke joints at the Harcourt Residence Club on Larkin back in the early to mid 80's with the guy who made this video.

Pat Monahan of Train ... dig his video of, 'Save me San Francisco' with Monahan as Dustin Hoffman in, 'The Graduate'.

Now, for the red meat ...

boys and girls,

The Chinese communists are heavily involved
in this year's SF Mayoral contest and here's
just one facet of their work.

First, they have taken to stealing copies of
the Falun Gong paper, Epoch Times from newsracks
around the City. To see why, read a copy of
this story which came out in yesterday's edition
of Epoch Times ...

Second, the commies began to put their own rag,
China Daily in newsracks around the City as soon
as Ed Lee (their candidate) entered the race for
Mayor. You can recognize the commie's paper
boxes right away. They're in the multi-unit
pedestal boxes and they'll be the only one with
a big colorful padlock on it (never seen another
newspaper do that. On the back of the padlock
is stamped: 'Removing this lock is considered
breaking and entering'.

I caught wind of this today when I went to the
Muni/BART station at 7th and Market to get my
morning copy of the Chron. When I came up the
escalator into UN Plaza there was an affable
little Falun Gong lady handing out copies of the
Epoch Times. When I asked her why she was
handing them out she said that the Ed Lee people
were stealing them from their boxes.

Ah, gotta make Gary Delugnuts heart soar.

Bulldog picks ...

Baum for Mayor!
Adachi for Mayor!
Avalos for Mayor!

Trinh for DA!
Gascon for DA!
Onek for DA!

Miyamoto for Sheriff!!
Cunnie for Sheriff!
Wong for Sheriff!

Yes on D and H and NO on everything else!

And, of course, Go Niners!


Delete & Prev | Delete & Next

Posted by h. brown on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 9:40 am

Hey, I heard that the KKK is supporting Herrera. And that the Russiands are funding Yee.

Isn't this fun?

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 10:06 am

boys and girls,

But, there is plenty of evidence of the Lee/Pak/Beijing connection

I am interested in your sources on the Herrera KKK connections though.

Forget Yee, he's toast anyway. Hell, the shoplifting mugshot hasn't even arrived in my mailbox yet.

Ed Lee is a pawn of the Chinese Communist governement.


And, as always, Go Niners!


Posted by h. brown on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 11:15 am

but I guarantee you they are all based on self-interest and not on any concern for the people of this city. That's why I ignore all the muck and dirt, and focus on the key issues, like attracting jobs and investment

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 11:45 am

This is how I think (not hope) it comes out.

First choice ballots only:
1. Ed Lee
2. Avalos
3. Herrera
4. Yee
And that's about it for first tier

Adachi comes in 5th. Eric's right -he's not even running for mayor. He's running to pass Prop D (which will fail, btw).

After that it gets tougher
I think we'll see Alioto-Pier, Chiu, and maybe Dufty bunched up in the 5% range.
Then Hall, Ting, and Rees barely registering low single digits.
Not sure if Baum will get even 1%.

The only candidates who have a chance of catching Lee are Avalos, Herrera and Yee. And incidentally, Yee always does better than the polls show. Whether anyone actually catches Lee in the IRV depends on how close they are. On election day, I think Lee loses when the IRV votes are counted. The question is whether he has enough absentees in the bag before all the negative publicity came out (and whether his IEs have committed enough voter fraud).

If you want the best chance of beating Lee, the best strategy is ranking Avalos, Yee, and Herrera in some order. Personally, I still can't bring myself to rank Herrera though. I feel he's no less corrupt than Ed Lee.

And by the way, I think we have enough of a shot to beat Lee, that I'm willing to take the risk of losing D5 and voting for Ross for Sheriff. We could have a lot of people going through our jails in the next few months if the cops decide to crack down on Occupy, and Ross is the *only* candidate we can feel safe with. Cunnie is going to be the runner-up here, and he'll be cracking skulls with gusto (not that Miyamoto is much better, if at all). Think the sheriffs won't be out there? Think again. If something big goes down, the SFPD will call in assistance from every agency, like they did in Oakland. Just ask Occupy Oakland, and they'll tell you that Alameda County Sheriffs were worse than OPD. The only reason we haven't seen brutality from the SF Sheriffs department is that Hennessy has been at the helm for 30 years. And the only candidate who will carry on Hennessy's legacy is well... the only candidate who Hennessy has endorsed.

And that would be Ross.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 12:01 pm

if anyhting, I'd expect to see a late burst for the incumbent based on the fact that many people fear change.

The muck-slinging is unlikely to sway many voters since it is unproven, unsubstantiated and self-serving. Voters have clearly stated that jobs are a bigger issue and Lee walks it on that issue.

My prediction is that Lee will win fairly easily, with the others in this sequence:


Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 12:38 pm

There's no way Adachi comes in second, and Dufty and Chiu above Avalos?

C'mon... I'm trying to be objective here, and I think you're engaging in wishful thinking. But we'll see.

As for Yee, the evidence is based on his past history. When he ran for Assembly against against Dan Kelly, and when he ran for Senate against Mike Nevin, those races were supposed to be close. They were blow-outs. Much ink has been expended on why Yee always seems to come out better than expected. Some speculate that it's because his base among older Chinese voters on the West Side is hard to poll. There's some truth to that, and I suspect the same people who have been voting for him for years are going to come out and vote for him again, though of course some of them are going to vote for Lee this time. Keep in mind, though, Ed Lee and Rose Pak's base is Chinatown; Yee's is on the West Side.

And this explanation doesn't account for why he did much better in San Mateo County, where he didn't have much of a base. It was widely expected that Nevin would carry the San Mateo County portion of the district handily, but when the votes were counted, Yee not only did better than expected, but he actually won in San Mateo as well.

I think the reason is simple actually. Nobody works harder than Yee. The guy knows how to put together a good operation. Will it be enough to carry the day this time around? I don't know. But just watch -I think you're in for a bit of a surprise.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 1:12 pm

I worked hard on elections during the pre-public financing era. Since Agnos, were absolutely NO mayors who could remotely be called progressive. The cost of running a citywide campaign meant that only rich candidates or those who had their hands firmly in the pockets of the rich could compete. Candidates had to spend more time raising funds instead of talking with voters that, even if they could gain a financial foothold in the race, they'd lost precious time with voters. The deck was stacked against all but the rich or rich-friendly.

Public campaign finance (which by the way, h., wasn't invented by matt) was conceived as a way to ensure SF could run diverse candidates, without money being the determining factor.

Enter Jeff Adachi who I previously believed was an advocate of the dispossessed. For him to suggest that Avalos should not accept public financing is hypocritical at best, and self-serving at worst. Is it better that Avalos NOT run and only let those with money run for such an important office? Isn't it rather convenient and hypocritical for him to suggest Avalos shouldn't utilize the very progressive measure and process that allows the non-wealthy to run?

How nice that Jeff has a benefactor. Knowing that only makes me question what arrangement he made to get these funds...the rich don't stay rich by aribitrarily financing progressive candidates for the hell of it!

As for whether public financing is taking away money from other important city needs, I question that as well. Prop. O stipulated that a fund be established for the purpose of public financing. I don't believe these funds are commingled with others if not used, as Matt's video implies.

I've lived under SF mayors who didn't care about the poor or working class of the city. Average citizens would be well represented and have much greater access to resources under Mayor Avalos. It's a small price to pay for a democratic process that could reap the best results possible for San Franciscans.

Posted by Guest of Color on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 2:40 pm

at the very least, they should commit to not fritter that money on negative ad's and muck-spreading. Use the money to publicize your policies by all means. But don't get nasty and vicious on the public dime.

Got it?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 2:45 pm

Who and what nastiness are you referring to?

Posted by Guest of Color on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 2:56 pm

Can you be more specific about who and what negative ads you're referring to?

And while I'm not a fan of negative ads, what is "negative" is often in the eye of the campaign. Would it be negative or factual if I produced an ad that said Ed Lee promised transparency and open government but has been all but silent on his appointments and calendar?

Posted by Guest of Color on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 3:02 pm

"Average citizens would be well represented and have much greater access to resources under Mayor Avalos. It's a small price to pay for a democratic process that could reap the best results possible for San Franciscans."

@Guest of Color

I agree with you, and thank you for saying this. It IS a small price to pay to elect representatives who are truly representative of the people, rather than downtown corporate interests.

I believe that the ad will backfire on Adachi. Progressives will be turned off by the attack on Avalos and the negative messaging around public financing. What is the alternative? Do we really want to have billionaires buying our elections, as George Hume, Michael Moritz, Warren Hellman and Ron Conway are attempting to do?

As Oliver Luby and Marc Solomon blogged, "As everyone knows, rich campaign contributors exhibit an enormous impact on elections. In an age of massive wealth disparities, the democratic process becomes susceptible to being bought. This behooves the voting public to find out who is paying for the election propaganda they are subjected to."

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 4:30 pm

Any influence that money has on elections is counter-balanced by the ability of the left to put feet on the ground, and to intimidate voters who are poor or scared.

Avalos would be a disaster as Mayor because he demonstrably cannot reach out to anyone outside his cosy, left-wing base of support. We need a Mayor who can really speak to all of us, inclusing business people and those who aren't pity-poor.

And that means Lee, Adachi, Chui and Dufty.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 4:46 pm

Avalos HAS reached out to every San Franciscan with a legitimate stake in this city, from small business people to the most vulnerable communities. The only folks he hasn't reached out to are the downtown corporate players. But you keep pushing that meme...

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 4:55 pm

To people who complain about government getting too involved in peoples lives but don't mind when its them doing it.

Thats the progressive way.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

A month ago, a very public question was put to him, here and elsewhere, about exactly what were his top three ideas for encouraging private-sector investment in new jobs in SF. He has failed to respond in any meaningful way to that question, but rather just drones on endlessly about the non-job creating "local hire" and otherwise totally ignores inward investment.

He voted against keeping dynamic employers like Twitter in SF.

A vote for Avalos is a vote for an economically moribund city. Luckily for all of us, he has zero chance of winning. The voters quite simply aren't that stupid and self-sacrificial.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 5:13 pm

We don't more Twitter deals.What we need is greater investment in our communities. We need to get behind small enterprises like worker-owned co-ops and businesses that provide needed services to our communities.

I agree with Greg's assessment. John Avalos is one of the only candidates who can overtake Lee. The other two are Herrera and Yee, who have been slinging so much mud that it could well backfire on them

Adachi will never rise above single digits. But he's scared enough to attack Avalos in that lame ad. Do you think he would bother to attack a candidate who wasn't doing well? I think it shows that Avalos is a real contender in this race.

I wouldn't be so smug. Anything can happen with IRV. And John Avalos just might be your next mayor.

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 6:08 pm

SF progressives bemoan that there tax dollars go to things they hate, JROTC, foreign wars, enforcement of immigration laws, just to name a few.

But I'm forced to help finance the campaigns of progressives.

It's an interesting opportunistic world that progressives have willed into existence for themselves.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 5:11 pm

One thing I want, is fair elections.

I realize that it costs money. My money.

I realize that some of my money will be going to conservative candidates under any public financing system.

And I'm OK with that. Because I realize that if the citizens don't pay for their elections, then the corporations will. And whoever pays for it, owns it.

Posted by Greg on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 6:37 pm

"For him to suggest that Avalos should not accept public financing is hypocritical at best, and self-serving at worst."

Lie. Gonzales suggested it not Adachi.

"How nice that Jeff has a benefactor. Knowing that only makes me question what arrangement he made to get these funds."

Lie. What are you talking about - what mayoral funds and/or benefactor are you talking about? Where is this huge IE expenditure coming in on Adachi's mayoral campaign's behalf like Yee (unions) and Lee (business) are getting? Adachi is funding his entire campaign with no IEs on about $100,000. You might not like Gonzales' video and its criticism of public financing but you are conflating it with this silly notion that Adachi is privately taking in big bucks for his mayoral campaign. Wrong.

"As for whether public financing is taking away money from other important city needs, I question that as well."

Do you think the $5 million, or wherever it ends up, was printed by elves in City Hall? The money comes from the general fund- the same fund that ostensibly funds pothole repair.

I think in principle most in the City support public financing - but this is a giant clusterfu*k. Why do I think it was written behind closed doors by all the consultants who are benefitting. The fact that people like a Phil Ting, or MAP, or a Tony Hall is STILL spending public money because they can't pull out of the race (or pay the money back) even though they can't win - is just incredibly stupid and wasteful. This is not to mention that if ONE candidate goes nuts with fundraising, taxpayers have to come out of pocket to keep pace for ALL candidates. The law should be amended and Gonzales was right to highlight the absurdity of it.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 05, 2011 @ 9:37 pm

Can you be more specific about who you're referring to and what nastiness you mean?

Posted by Guest of Color on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 2:55 pm

Can you be more specific about who and what nastiness you're referring to?

Posted by Guest of Color on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 2:55 pm

snide, self-serving attack ad's from Yee and Herrera.

Have you been sleeping your colored way through this campaign?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 4:38 pm

@Guest of Color, welcome, don't think I've read your posts before. Word of advice, don't waste your time, or expect a substantive response from the majority of those who post here as guests, or anonymous, they tend to have limited intellect, low IQ and poor command of the language.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 4:49 pm

forcing them to post as "Guest" or "Anon", then discredits them for not posting with a handle.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

that was me.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 5:46 pm

Is that you, the 'real' matlock, I've been wondering if someone else has been posting as 'you' because we seem to be more in agreement lately.
@CG. You're smart enough to figure it out. I've been posting here and elsewhere for years, always using my own name. Except for a couple of months ago when I one time posted as PaulT, as many of us were just sick of his constant prevarication and inability to respond intelligently. Shortly after I posted a couple of items that were attributed to "Guest" as I hadn't logged back in correctly, when I realised what had happened I immediately posted a couple of corrections. This particular 'guest' sounds like a PaulT wannabe, but stupid. Hope you keep posting. Stick to your handle, it helps keep conversation going, though some nameless dipshit may try and appropriate it.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 6:55 pm

If you think Avalos has not been reaching out all over the city, you have just not been paying attention. 'Local Hire' is an excellent concept, the problem is, as I found out in my conversations with a few labor organisers, that the City is doing nothing to oversee or enforce it's implementation.
"Inward Investment". WTF have you been smoking!! The vast majority of our civic 'leaders' are in one way or another committed to "Outward Divestment". They are inextricably bound and beholden to the Big Banks, Mega Corporations, Out of State Speculators and Developers,etc. All of whom transfer most of their profit out of state and invest comparatively nothing back into the community. For example there is one large development under way out in BVHP right now and the developer is hiring virtually no-one locally, despite the large pool of available experienced construction workers. Instead they are importing an outside workforce, paying them minimum wage, at best, and using them to perform the work of skilled tradeswo/men.
Apart from his years of working to better the lives of poor and middle class folks, Avalos is working for the creation of a Municipal Bank, and encouraging people to transfer their business to local Credit Unions. This would be a positive step towards real 'Inward Investment', as the majority of profit would be retained and invested in projects that would stimulate and benefit our local economy, instead of the crooks that you kow-tow to.
Just my 2c.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 7:28 pm

That's what I was trying to say, rather badly. As I said, John has reached out to every constituency in the City. I think he understands the need to encourage small, home-grown businesses. You are right~ we need real 'inward investment'. We don't need more Twitter-type deals or big development projects. We need companies who have a stake in our communities, and who are prepared to give something back (taxes). John's local hire law is something he can be proud of. But I do think it needs some teeth.

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 05, 2011 @ 4:15 pm

Oh yeah,

I've told that to Gonzalez over and over again that attacking public financing was a major fuck up. Otherwise the rich would have no credible opponents cause you'd never hear about them. And, you especially need public financing when the City is in deep financial trouble for the same reason. Otherwise, you only get the rich or their pawns to address a problem they've created.

Matt's a good friend and we agreed to disagree but I think you're right, Guest.

Also, Adachi is no sell out. You'll see that when he turned down Public Financing that he made himself the lowest funded of all the major campaigns. Everyone else is gonna spend at least a million. I'd be surprised if Jeff's outlay exceeds a hundred grand. He walks the walk and does what he says he will and is beholden to no one.

"his independence is unassailable" (Chron)

In my opinion, you're right, Guest of Color ...


Posted by h. brown on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 11:01 pm

Both C & D are abominations, placing even more of a burden on the backs of those who can least afford to bear them, and a further assault on the rights of workers to organise; with the help of their to often co-opted and craven union leadership.
Until there is a concentrated effort to root out the rot at the core of our plutocracy, address the non-payment of taxes by mega business, rebalance the criminal unequal distribution of wealth and resources,etc; any smokescreens like C&D are just pissing in the wind.
That being said I believe Adachi is being unjustly vilified. He just happened to be the first one with the cojones to publicly raise the 'pension problem', now all the players are putting out their own marginally modified proposals. The charge that he has big money backers and special interests behind him may be true, but it is a red herring, who the fuck do you think is backing Prop D, Santa Klaus!!
#1) AVALOS..The People's Choice.
Just my 2c.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 05, 2011 @ 9:39 am