Mirkarimi takes the oath

|
(181)

The room was packed for the inauguration of Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, and for the most part, the crowd wasn’t talking about what Mirkarimi referred to as the “cloud” hanging over the event. He mentioned the investigation into possible domestic violence only that once, then joked that he’d managed to get a lot of press to his event.

There was music, dancing, former Mayor Art Agnos administering the oath of office, a long, long Mirkarimi speech on criminal justice policy (please, Ross, 15 minutes would have been plenty). Most of Mirkarimi’s progressive colleagues (including supervisors John Avalos, David Campos, Jane Kim, and Eric Mar, state Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblymember Tom Ammiano) were on hand. And the press conference afterward was surprisingly mild.

Mirkarimi was asked what happened the night in question, and he declined to talk about it, saying the criminal justice system would work its way through the process. Then his wife, Eliana Lopez, interrupted, took the mike, and announced that this was a “family matter” and she would have no more to say – except that she has no complaints about her husband.

That was it. No shouted questions as the sheriff walked away, no 1000-watt camera flashes in his eyes, nothing to indicate that this is the gigantic scandal that it’s become in the daily papers.

But Mirkarimi did make one statement that’s worth mentioning: He said that there were forces in the department (I think he meant the Police Department) that didn’t want to see him as sheriff. That’s absolutely true.

Let me make a few points here.

First, for the record: There’s no excuse for assaulting anyone, and there’s less excuse for assaulting your wife. Domestic violence is a serious, under-reported problem, something all too often dismissed by the authorities – with catastrophic results. Women die because batterers are not held to account. I have close friends who have been in abusive relationships, and it’s not pretty and it’s not a joke and it’s not something to take lightly.

That said: I don’t know what happened that night at Mirkarimi’s house. But I do know that the minute the cops were brought in, it became political.

See, the cops, for the most part, are not Mirkarimi fans. He beat their guy, former Police Officers Association president Chris Cunnie, in the race for sheriff. He’s demanded changes in the department (including foot patrols, which a lot of old-timers don’t like). He also beat a sheriff’s captain. He’s a civilian who is going to run a law-enforcement agency as a civilian, which means he’s not part of the Fraternity.

The news reports about the incident were clearly leaked by the SFPD. So, I’m sure, was the search warrant (that’s a public document, but I honestly don’t think the Examiner tracked it down, I think it was delivered to the paper by a source in the department). Nothing wrong with that – cops (and politicians) tip reporters to stories all the time. I’m not blaming the Chron or the Ex for doing the story – it’s news, you have to report it.

And, of course, if the cops had ignored the case or downplayed it, they would have been criticized for covering up an incident involving the new sheriff.

Again: I’m not excusing Mirkarimi’s behavior (alleged behavior -- we don’t know what actually happened). But the way the story and the details were leaked reflects the political reality that the cops don’t love the new sheriff, and a lot of them would be thrilled to take him down. That’s just political reality.

Which means Mirkarimi needs to be very, very careful – there are people watching every single move he makes, every day. And they’re not interested in policy debates.

PS: The D.A. and the cops managed to finish this particular investigation in record time. I wonder what’s happened to the investigation into possible vote fraud in the Ed Lee campaign. Months have passed. Nobody is facing any charges. There are no police leaks about anyone involved. Funny, that.

Comments

There's a huge difference between some low level cop stealing an ipod (still wrong, and if caught he/she should be prosecuted and fired) and a man physically abusing his wife.

That's why robbers who beat shopowners are treated more severely than shoplifters who take an item but don't physically hurt anyone.

Surprising that this even has to be explained.

Posted by Scott on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 2:30 pm

Maybe you're right about his legend and maybe you're throwing bs around - I don't know. But NOT ONCE has his so-called "legendary" temper made it anywhere in the Chron - not in Matier & Ross, not the Insider column, not CW Nevius's columns. No other supe has spoken about it where it was in the Chron. Willie Brown's never mentioned it in his column.

So either the Chron is covering it up (not likely), is not aware of it but should be (doubtful - they have enough connections in City Hall (with Willie Brown being a columnist) that it would get to them if it was that prominent), or his "legendary" temper is a well-kept secret.

Or you're just throwin BS around. To prove you're not, how about providing one piece of evidence about his "legendary" temper.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 2:28 pm

Up until now they had Chris Daly's temper to focus on, and Ross is so much more handsome than Chris.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 11:20 am

had a well known temper/abusive pattern that never made the news

Posted by Guest on Jan. 12, 2012 @ 11:14 am

I can attest to the temper not being a lie. Unfortunately. Not sure how bad it gets though, or how extensive it is. I respect Mirkarimi, but it seems he does have a problem in this dept. So if one can bully or yell at those in ones inner circle, it's not necessarily a stretch to hear this New Year's Eve news. That said, without knowing all the facts in this case, I hope it gets treated like any other case of DV...but most important is what seems to be a need for anger management or some other form of nonviolence training. It is sad when progressives (anyone really, but especially "progressives") are shown to be deficient in this dept. But really, it just goes to show how violence permeates/has permeated our culture. We need to reverse it. The thing is, when you act violently--whether verbally or otherwise--you are a victim yourself (of violent intent) and I'm surmising there will be a fair amount of denial around that fact, as it seems those who perpetrate may also suffer from some form of arrogance...But let me rephrase that: when you know better (say through anger management), and you perpetrate anyway, then you surely are a victim of violent intent. Without the education, when you perpetrate, you just need help. Most of us do at one time or other.

Posted by Guest#500 on Jan. 13, 2012 @ 12:31 pm

Why should we believe you when you're too cowardly to sign your name? Anyone could make make up a claim like this.

Posted by Sarah N. on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 3:42 pm

Sure. Anyone could say or make up anything in these blogs. So let me be clear: I presume innocence until proven guilty. There are varying degrees of "abuse". One could simply be raising one's voice, or one can do it and be bullying, condescending. That's a matter for those involved to divulge or not.

Most of the folks who comment on these blogs are violent in my opinion because there's so much trashing of other's opinions and of people in very disrespectful ways. It's pretty disheartening.

I've only said, based on what I know, that it *seems* like some anger management might be in order (my sincere apologies if I expressed things in a way that would make it more than that). But I can't say for sure. Whether things rise to the level of criminality is for a judge to decide. I'm also going by the supposed facts of the case that we were given: that Eliana Lopez went to a neighbor's to have a bruise documented that was given by her husband (during a fight, ostensibly, and text messaged said neighbor about it too).

I think too many in our culture have a blind spot in what's appropriate behavior when it comes to dealing with conflict. Maybe many of those think nothing of being verbally hurtful. I wanted to shine a light on that aspect, and not push it under the rug. Because I think it's important. And that's my right.

As far as keeping my name private, I have every right to do that as well. You don't have to take my word for anything. But I will speak out for those relevant issues that I think are important.

And one last thing I'd like to repeat: I respect Ross Mirkarimi for his hard work and what he stands for. I hope he will successfully stand down these charges. But I won't stay silent for issues that I think need to be faced. That would be irresponsible, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by Guest#500 on Jan. 16, 2012 @ 8:23 pm

I think I made it very clear that I'm not excusing spousal abuse. If Mirkarimi did any act of violence against his wife, he should be held accountable. That goes for anyone in town, elected official or not. As I said in my post, which clearly some of you didn't bother to read, I have good friends who have been victims of domestic violence, and I have no tolerance for it at all.

I also think that, if this were someone the cops were more friendly with, they wouldn't have leaked it to the press. That's a fact, and is very common in SF politics, going back many years.It doesn't require a conspiracy; just one cop who has access to the info and places a call to a reporter. I've been that reporter in the past; cops have called me to tip me off to info that will reflect badly on a politician they don't like. It happens.

Sometimes I wonder if the people who attack me every day even bother to think about what I'm writing.

 

Posted by tim on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 11:03 am

DSK.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 11:38 am

Tim expects for people to not play politics in response to Tim pointing out that they expect for the cops to not play politics?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 8:20 pm

What's clear is progresssives are spinning a domestic violence investigation as a political attack. You guys should simply say the truth: you don't care if a progressive beats his wife, especially if it means getting tossed from elective office.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 11:17 am

What's clear to anyone with functioning brain cells is you're using this incident to try to spread the bs notion that if anyone says, "ya know, it's not implausible that rightwing and police interests in SF govt would love to use this to take out Mirkirimi and hurt the left in general," that they are somehow defending wife-beating.

You said it yourself: "don't care if a progressive beats his wife."

What you are is the equivalent to those who, during the Vietnam War, would call anyone who was against the war, "pinko commies."

Why are you afraid of Tim making the pt that forces will use this incident in a political manner? Shit, that's EXACTLY what you're accusing Tim of so why can you not accept the notion the right or the cops would also use it in a political manner?

What you really want is for Tim to censor himself and when he won't, you can start screaming, "you're for wife-beating! you're for wife-beating."

You'd be the perfect witness / snitch for those House Un-American hearings by Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the 1950's.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 5:03 pm

"A private matter, a family matter, and that this is completely out, taken completely out of context, and this is completely wrong," the Mirkarimis said.

What a person feeds their kid isn't a private matter?

The sense of right and wrong here is that the government gets to tell you what to do when he agrees with it.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

Tim,
I think you are missing the larger point or at least not wanting to acknowledge it - San Francisco's progressives are, at a minimum, dismissive of women and at worst, well, this kinda speaks for itself.

For years, it seemed that progressives just had bigger things to do than focus on "soft issues" that are often dominated by women. The areas of SF policy that had the strongest women leaders were largely avoided, if not derided, by the progressive leaders (who have been exclusively men for the past decade). They were changing the world and didn't want to be distracted. Besides, the quality of life stuff was Newsom's tool for screwing the poor.

But my understanding is that some of the women in the progressive movement had a very different take. I remember reading an article by Sue Vaughn or Hope Johnson or someone citing a party she and some of the other progressive women had left in a huff because they weren't being treated as equals. They walked out shouting and cited a number of bs moves the "guys" had made that left the women on the sidelines. I can't find it now and don't recall if it ran on FCJ or what. But it was bold enough to have caused me to take notice.

There were other rumors but these aren't my circles so I really don't know anything except what I see and read. I'm sure Arthur Evans would have had a lot to say on this topic but I would really love to hear from Sue V or Hope J or any of the active lefty ladies reading this blog. Not about Ross. That's just a sad situation that's in the law enforcement's hands now. But about how women are viewed, treated and collaborated with in the progressive community.

I mean, ya'll certainly don't cultivate or encourage women electeds. Sophie was never really welcome on the team. Jane Kim wasn't roundly supported and now Daly's huffing and puffing that he might challenge her. Janet Reilly was supported but it seemed like that was more because of Clint's reputation and background than Janet's. There has NEVER been any serious thought to encouraging a women to take the lefty banner in a mayoral run. Sure you can point to Bierman but that was before district elections. I'm sure there's plenty of back and forth to be had here but the important thing to note is that the moderates don't have these same issues in SF.

Heck, it was our current, utterly moderate mayor who appointed a progressive woman to the BOS. Ask yourself, if Lee wasn't mayor, would Olague have been given the D5 seat? Yee would have given it to Rizzo. Avalos maybe, maybe not.

Isn't this something that should be acknowledged or at least discussed? And if the feminists in the progressive movement don't stand up now, what the heck are you doing?

Posted by BeckyBayside on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 12:22 pm

I'm really tired of hearing that women are left out of things. Then you go an mention a bunch of politically active women. What is holding any of them back? Are men somehow to blame? I'm not understanding how Hope Johnson or Susan Vaughn or Jane Kim or Christina Olague or any other women are being kept from doing anything they want to do.

And what does this have to do with alleged spousal abuse?

Posted by Matt on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 1:12 pm

we've also seen Ma and Aliota-Pier serve recently. Plus a female DA of course.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

the unforgettable words of D. Campos upon the election of David Chiu to pres of BOS over Sophie Maxwell....no matter how much work is done, it came down to 'one of our own' ??? a newbie over a lifetime of public service.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 2:20 pm

A guy named Matt doesn't see the problem here. Shocking.

Politics is the art of piecing together a variety of asks to achieve a majority. In the past, SF progressive women have not been generally been encouraged or supported by the progressive leadership comprised exclusively of men for the past decade.

It's not that anyone stopped anyone from doing anything, it's that they rarely seem to support women trying to move up the ladder. And, for the past decade, the progressive women who get onto the ladder, haven't moved up. Moderate women have been very successful but not the progressive ladies. It's worth asking why.

One more piece of data to consider. Matty G appointed Olague to Planning seven years ago or so. She toiled in that role and was involved in other things but her star didn't really begin to shine until she got involved in drafting Lee to run for a full term. Think about it. Smart, qualified, ambitious and unable to get traction from the progressives, she backed Lee and now has the D5 supe gig.

Again I'll ask, if Olague had sat out the mayor's race and simply backed Leland or Avalos as the progressive standard bearer, would she be the D5 supe today? If the honest answer is probably not, then this really is a discussion that needs to be held.

Posted by BeckyBayside on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 5:54 pm

playing the race card and any other card. It connotes the same kind of person who, if they ahd power, would discriminate.

Becky, stop seeing gender, race etc. and start seeing the truth independent of labels, stereotypes and prejudice.

And yes, Becky, of course Olague backing Lee made a difference? Do you seriously think Avalos would have backed someone who supported Lee? What's far more surprising is that Lee didn't appoint a clone. Give him credit for that while carefully cultivating your reverse-mysoginism.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 6:09 pm

Give me a break. "Start seeing the truth independent of labels, stereotypes and prejudice." Then we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya. The stereotypes and prejudice are there, pal. That's what we're talking about. Yes, there appears to be some gender prejudice among the progressive leaders or at least that's what it looks like from the outside.

And you make the point with Olague. I don't know why Olague backed Lee but if she'd backed Avalor or Yee, I really doubt she'd be the D5 supe today.

I'd still like to hear from the active lefty women on this topic. It's all fine and dandy to debate this with some dudes who don't believe in prejudice or gender bias but the folks who actually run in these circles could contribute the most to this conversation.

Posted by BeckyBayside on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 9:37 am

There are more men involved in politics than women. More men run for elected office than women. More men win elected office than women.

These are all true, in the world and here in SF. But the thing is, proportionally women are elected at roughly the same rate as men are in SF, i.e. ~10% of candidates win elected office whether they are men or women.

As far as whether or not it's easier to get somewhere as a moderate woman than a progressive woman, that's pretty subjective. There are plenty of progressive women who ran and lost, but that happens in politics. I also see Jane and Christina as progressives, not moderates. Excluding them like they don't count seems strange. They're both Greens/former Greens. Christina is a Milk Clubber. These are data points that seem to indicate that women can make it in SF politics.

Christina has been appointed by three male politicians, including both progs and moderates. That's not an easy thing to do and it shows that people like her. Good for her. She is the front-runner to win her seat in Nov at this point.

Jane Kim has run for office three times and won her second and third election. That's a better record than Matt Gonzalez has and far better than Harvey Milk. If only the progressive leadership had supported them at the same level.

Posted by Matt on Jan. 10, 2012 @ 5:10 pm

My point about Jane and Christina is not that they are moderate or ran as moderates but that they were doing the work and making very minor strides as progressive leaders until they started working with the moderates and placing themselves in the center on key votes. Then they started moving up the ladder again. Maybe another way of looking at is is whether there is a progressive glass ceiling.

I have no reason to believe Christina would have been appointed by a more progressive mayor and plenty of progressive leaders have been quite overt about their disdain of Jane. Surely, you can't be saying that the progressive leaders don't play a major role in pushing candidates? Isn't that a big reason why Peskin and Daly took over the DCCC? They clearly don't have as much clout as they'd like but a person needs friends to win elected office. I've never seen anyone do it totally on their own, not even Leland.

And if after toiling in the trenches for several years and still not being considered as a lefty standard-bearer for higher office, who can blame them for making some moderate friends and moving on? Oh, that's right. Daly. By working with the moderates and not toeing the line on every vote, they failed the progressive litmus test and Jane, at least, is marked.

All I'm saying is that smart, ambitious women seem to have trouble moving up to higher office in SF as progressives and that recent developments seem to indicate that there is indeed a misogyny in the City's progressive leadership. I've repeated suggested that some of the progressive women share their experience and either start a real discussion to address this situation or put these longtime whispers to rest.

Finally, the following seems like a silly statistic given how many hopeless, clueless, unqualified people run for office in SF: "proportionally women are elected at roughly the same rate as men are in SF, i.e. ~10% of candidates win elected office whether they are men or women." Perhaps if one is going to consider this properly, we need to establish a benchmark for real candidates who have a chance, like whether they qualified for public financing. Or maybe I just don't understand the stat.

Posted by BeckyBayside on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 10:24 am

Progressive males were amongst the strongest backers of Jane Kim and Christina Olague during their political rises to the Board of Supervisors.

It is not so much that these women were passed over by progressive males, rather that these women passed progressives by as the progressive coalition exhausted itself to collapse into a heap of smoldering wreckage.

Many of us jumped off of the progressive train because we were astute in our political analysis, we saw the professional progressives careening towards the cliff at speed. Some jumped onto another train.

It is pretty much an apples to oranges comparison, but hypothetically had Gonzalez or Mirkarimi run for mayor from the D5 seat and won this past year, I'd wager that either would have appointed Olague to replace them after she'd proven herself as Planning Commissioner.

Yes, there is sexism and misogyny across the political spectrum, including on the progressive side where we should know better. But that does not mean that sexism and misogyny determines each and every political occurrence.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 10:47 am

"Progressive males were amongst the strongest backers of Jane Kim and Christina Olague during their political rises to the Board of Supervisors."

You're forgeting how these women were pilloried by progressive males, including you marcos, during the last election cycle. Sure, Jane was fine when she was just running for school board, and Christina didn't pose much of a threat when she was on the planning commission. But as soon as these women stepped out of line -- in other words, felt empowered enough to make their own decisions -- prog males heaped ridicule, abuse and sexist remarks on their heads. Sexism and misogyny are particularly pronounced in the progressive camp, and your effort to downplay it just proves the level of insensitivity of prog males.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 2:50 pm

What I mean by the stats is that the reason why there are fewer women than men holding elected positions is that there are fewer women running for those positions, not that voters don't support them at the same rate, or even prefer women over men all things being equal.

I have supported Jane Kim every race she has been in. I could give a shit what Chris Daly thinks. Obviously if you view progressive men in SF as = Chris Daly then you're going to think we're all opinionated assholes. He is a fun guy to hang out with, but not someone I would support to run for dog catcher at this point.

Jane also was running against only female candidates in terms of the top three finishers (for D6) and Debra Walker would certainly be considered progressive, so I don't understand why you think Jane has been slighted. People complain about everyone all the time, especially on the internet. Politics is a tough business. The people with knives out for Jane are not necessarily men.

As far as encouraging women to run, that's a tricky question. You need lots of friends to win an elective office, but does that mean that folks begged men to run and didn't beg women to run? Most candidates decide to run because they want to run, then they try to get support - not the other way around. Most people who run for office have huge egos - otherwise why would you want to deal with all of the BS? (I think qualified women maybe are a little harder to recruit than men and maybe do require more encouragement, whereas there are enough men running that no one needs to encourage any more. Instead, those guys are often encouraged to help out in other ways like running the campaign, etc. Come to think of it, many if not most of the progressive women whose campaigns I've supported were recruited and didn't come up with the idea themselves. That rarely happens with men.)

Many people want to run for office, but have to put aside their run because there is someone else running and it's a conflict, or the support they need is committed elsewhere, etc. This happens to men as well as women, but maybe men don't share that info as publicly? I've also seen well-qualified progressive men get thrown to the curb by progressives when a similarly qualified progressive woman gets into a race. For whatever reason, I don't think a guy is as likely to make a big stink over that treatment, so maybe it's not seen as an issue, but I guess my point is, it's hard all over, not just for women but for everyone.

I don't keep track of stats on this, but I know Ross had a female campaign manager - Nicole Derse - when he first ran for the Board. He also had a female staffer when he was first elected - Cheryl Brodie. They have both continued on their careers, Nicole working for Obama and more recently David Chiu, Cheryl working for the mayor. Ross has had a number of other female staffers both before and after. Matt G, perennially accused of being chauvinist it seems, should get credit for putting Christina on the PC. That was huge. It seems unfair to give credit to moderates for making appointments and then say that when progressives appoint you it's because they want you to toil for them somehow.

Anyway, I'm sure you can ask a woman her opinion and she'll give you a completely different take than me about all of this. At the risk of over-generalizing, people identify with whatever group they see themselves as being in and sometimes seem to take whatever happens to them personally as a reflection of how that group is treated. Because you can't experience life as a different gender (usually) or race or whatever, it's difficult to discern how it is on the other side.

Posted by Matt on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 5:46 pm

Money, perhaps? That's what holds me back. I know some people who either have run or are getting ready to run progressive campaigns, some men, some women. They had -- or have -- money.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 9:12 pm

The white male progressive establishment is an amazing uni-mind. As you noted women who don't toe the line and get excluded from the bi-polar club.

Perhaps the women who excel at the uni-mind stay in the education and self pity fields, while the men travel off to tell people how to live in the political field?

A person would assume that since women tend to be more liberal they would be all over the progressive leadership. Maybe this being liberal keeps many women from being part of the close minded top down authoritarian and rote uni-mind of the Mirkarimi, Daly, Redmond crowd.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 2:42 pm
Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 3:51 pm

Both Matlock and Marcos make valid points here. "This could be the start of something big".
Agree with most of the points made by Becky and Lisa and commentary by other female progressives would be valuable, but most of them are probably to busy actually doing the work to wade in these murky waters.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 11:46 am

terms of appearance, gaining weight, wearing frumpy clothes and, frankly, looking like crap.

Kim, Chu, Ma and Aliota-Pier look sharp, and have no problem securing power.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 12:20 pm

and it's a crime for a woman to grow old. The moderate women you've listed are all younger women.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

why can't the SF crowd of ageing progressive women?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 2:33 pm

To my eyes, she looks every bit as 'frumpy' as the average (older) woman. And she has a weight problem. But she is wealthy enough to buy nice pants suits. I'll give you that.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 3:02 pm

thinks looks shouldn't matter, so blimps out and wears shapeless clothes.

Then they wonder why they don;t get elected or appointed.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 3:09 pm

By contrast, Debra Walker is slender and dresses very nicely. She's a beautiful woman, and more importantly, a woman of substance. But I guess that last part is lost on you. Looks are everything.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 3:36 pm

at least in Walker's case, directly led to her humiliation by Kim in the 2010 election. It's not enough for prog chicks to be politically correct. They gotta understand that looks matter even if in their world, they think they shouldn't.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 4:05 pm

why don't we hold beauty contests instead of elections? You've just proved my point that women are still being judged by sexist criteria. It's all about looks, not about substance.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

I never said it was right that SF progressive women can't get elected or appointed because they look like crap.

I just said that's the reality of the game. They don't care about their looks and so voters don't care if they gain power.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 11, 2012 @ 4:33 pm

I'm trying to understand Sue V or Hope J's qualifications for office and am drawing a blank.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 2:38 pm

At all. I'm telling you what's going on. If you honestly think that the SFPD didn't tip off reporters to this story, you're crazy.

How many times do I have to say it? If Ross Mirkarimi assaulted his wife, he should be held accountable.

Posted by tim on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

And how should he be held accountable?
Should he retain his position of Sheriff if he is found guilty?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

Reporters check the, arrest, police report records and etc... everyday.

And so what if they did?

Posted by matlock on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 2:09 pm

The amount of information that has been made public in this case is completely in line with almost every other personal scandal affecting a politician. Doesn't matter if it is Dennis Kucinich or Rick Santorum. You always get details such as the existence of videos, pictures and eyewitness accounts. Name one scandal when things DIDN'T leak out? This was NOTHING out of the ordinary, if anything it was a bit on the quiet side.

The fact that you had to try so hard to paint Mikarimi as the victim, your knee jerk reaction when a Progressive is in trouble, is another illustration of why, as a journalist, you aren't good for much besides comic relief.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 9:08 pm

cops hate Ross and yes, if he assaulted his wife he should go to jail

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

Yes, and if Lopez assaulted Ross and he bruised her arm when trying to hold her off, then Lopez should confess and be charged.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

And if Lopez assaulted Ross and he bruised her arm while trying to hold her off then Lopez should confess and be charged.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 1:37 pm

And if Lopez assaulted Ross and he bruised her arm while trying to hold her off then Lopez should confess and be charged.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 15, 2012 @ 1:39 pm

and she didn't go to jail, so I am backing off a previous coment, we don't know what happened and yes, Mirkairimi will account for it
the pollice did not hate Joanne
they do despise Ross

Posted by Guest on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 3:54 pm

I think BeckyBayside is saying something important. Domestic violence is a serious issue. But the allegations against Mirkarimi have not been proven. We don't know all the facts and until we do, we should resist the temptation to jump to conclusions. However, there is the larger issue about women's treatment in the progressive camp that deserves serious discussion (the lack of support for women leaders, dismissive attitudes, etc).

Rebecca Bowe posted a great piece on FB, questioning how we can begin to talk about this without giving amunition to our right-wing foes. While this may pose a problem, it's no reason to silence women's voices and shut out their/ our concerns. Here's what Rebecca said~

"I'm craving some collective soul-searching around this controversy -- not about what happened between Mirkarimi and Lopez on New Year's Eve, exactly -- but about how, on a broader scale, progressives can respond in a constructive, honest, and forward-thinking manner when men they are politically aligned with are publicly accused of behavior that is aggressive or disempowering toward women.

"How do S.F. progressives respond to a thorny issue like this, and in a much broader context, how do they go about crafting a narrative that emphasizes a greater commitment to gender equality on the whole?

"So far, I have been disappointed with some of the remarks I've heard progressive men make in response to news of this investigation.

"One public comment went along the lines of, everyone is innocent until proven guilty - unless they're an outspoken progressive.

"In some respects, we can take this as an acknowledgement that this event has already become extremely politicized in the media. Indeed, the cops don't seem particularly thrilled about our new sheriff, and we probably have Mirkarimi's political foes to thank for the fact that it is now impossible to discuss this at all without veering into the realm of cutthroat politics.

"Nevertheless, it also struck me as a sort of defense mechanism, casting the controversy in a purely political light without taking seriously the allegations that an extraordinarily powerful male politician might have engaged in abhorrent conduct.

"I'd love for progressives to simply respond to this by noting that, while no one can say for sure at this point what happened, it must be stated unequivocally that domestic abuse in any form is intolerable. Not okay, ever. Period.

"(To his credit, Tim Redmond does say first and foremost that domestic abuse is unacceptable in this post: http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/01/08/mirkarimi-takes-oath).

"So I'm left wondering how progressives, and particularly progressive women, will respond to these ugly accusations as news of the investigation continues to unfold. And taking things several steps farther, how do we emphasize a stronger analysis on gender equality in progressive politics in this city, and what can be done to bolster support for women who wish to ascend to progressive leadership roles?"

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=711740768&ref=ts#!/notes/rebecca-bowe/some-thoughts-on-mirkarimi-domestic-abuse-allegations/2911759120397

Posted by Lisa on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 4:05 pm

There is no "right-wing" in San Francisco politics.

Besides - it's absurd to cast this as a left vs. right issue. There was no perfidious right-wing in Ross' apartment that night forcing him to do what he allegedly did or to force his wife to go to her neighbor - they made these choices on their own. If there's nothing there then the DA will decide not to pursue a case - it's that simple.

Sounds like Rebecca Bowe is, as usual, jousting with lions of her own imagination.

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and let this work its way through the system.

Posted by H. Monk-Brown CI on Jan. 09, 2012 @ 6:06 pm