There goes the SF Democratic Party


We all knew that the progressives didn't win a majority on the Democratic County Central Committee, but for a while there it looked as if there might still be a chance to elect someone who isn't one of the most conservative members of the panel as the chair. But no: Mary Jung, who works for PG&E, now controls the San Francisco Democratic Party.

Jung was elected unanimously July 27, which means the progs realized they didn't have a candidate who could get a majority. Most of the other leadership roles are from the conservative side of the party. Yes, Alix Rosenthal is second vice-chair, but it's clear who is going to be in charge of the party -- and it's not the folks who have run it for the past four years.

The slate-card committee, which has the key job of creating and delivering the powerful endorsement card, will be dominated by conservatives, Jung and Tom Hsieh, with only one progressive, Rafael Mandelman. It's pretty much a train wreck all around.

Samson Wong (who is a good guy) says it's a new era of civility, which is the same thing we used to say about City Hall (and I agree with him that it's historic: The mayor, the president of the board and the chair of the party are now Asians). But when civility means you stop fighting (loudly, even if you lose) for things that matter in the name of keeping the peace, I'm against it.

In a press release, the DCCC's new corresponding secretary, Matt Dorsey, notes that the local party's priorities this fall are re-electing Barack Obama (who will win California even if the SF DCCC members all take a six-month nap) and restoring Democratic control of the House (which won't be decided in the Bay Area). No mention of electing progressives to the Board of Supervisors -- which is where the local party really matters.

The race to watch will be D1, where incumbent Eric Mar is part of the progressive bloc that lost the DCCC. We'll see what happens.




Why so much energy fighting over a party controlled by the 1%. Lesser evilism, ugh.

If you're into electoral politics, seek out Peace and Freedom or Green. The Republicrats/Democans are a dead end, even in "progressive" San Francisco. Real power lies with the money. In this city, downtown business and real estate interests fronted by the Democratic Party machine.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 4:31 pm

Not progressives. Inasmuch as you're gobsmacked over this piece of information it shows how out-of-touch you've been while the DCCC was busy promoting losing candidates simply because the Peskin-Haaland-Daly junta were running things. As you're now realizing - those days are over.

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 4:53 pm

Since there is no political coherence amongst Democrats, then electing Democrats means electing people who check "D" on their voter registration card. The Democrat Party will only be allowed to succeed to the extent that there is no difference between the policies it espouses and those that the Republicans promote save same sex marriage.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 6:06 pm

Look how well that's served them - they've sunk almost to the level of a third party and they hold not a single statewide office.

Since you're not a Democrat it's quite difficult to take your analysis seriously Marcos.

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 8:51 pm

You're now expressing concern that the Democratic Party not suffer the same fate as the Republicans due to getting "political coherence," but just previously you took pains to point out that "The DCCC is in charge of electing Democrats -- Not progressives."

So which is it? Does the local party have to fall in line with the state and federal offices -- or is it the other way around; that *local* Dems work specifically work to represent their side of the aisle *locally* according to the way *local* Democratic Party constituents want?

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 10:09 pm

As you joust with lions of your own imagination. Nothing you just wrote makes any sense at all.

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 10:33 pm

You don't really lament the Republicans fate in California. In fact the gestalt in the state legislature probably suits you to a "T". You simply used mention of Republican block-conciousness as a rhetorical prop on which to hang your "balanced" assessment of what "Democrats really ought to do."

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 11:00 pm

Then someone said that.

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 11:40 pm

"There goes the SF Democratic Party"

Well, the national corporatist misnamed "Democratic" Party (which is really a wing of the corporatist Republican Party) has been dead for years, at least since 2000, so I guess this branch of it is headed in the same direction.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 5:23 pm

remind me of how ecstatic the progressives were when they thought they might be able to appoint "one of their own," after their lack of success at electing a progressive.

Posted by matlock on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 7:46 pm

If you are a Progressive you should just be celebrating the fact that Peskin is gone from the DCCC. It doesn't matter who took over.

I don't know Mary Jung but I doubt if any Chair could ever match Peskin's ability to move the city away from Progressive thinking. The guy is amazing. If he ran Apple for 6 months it would go bankrupt also.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 8:29 pm

progressives, socialists or greens.

One you understand that, your outrage is misplaced - you appear to be complaining that your political views are minority views. So accept that you're a minority and fight for what you believe from the outside.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 10:33 pm

That's exactly right and it's not close - I bet they make up 20 percent of the Democrats in sf. To their credit though they probably make up 50 percent of the reliable voters and 75 percent of the flag wavers. They should understand that their main agenda point (keeping the far left of the party relevant by preventing anyone with two nickels to rub together from moving here) is not universally shared.

Posted by Michael on Jul. 30, 2012 @ 6:41 am

Michael, your points are generally spot on, but you might be overstating the case. I have more than two nickels to rub together. In fact, I may even qualify as a 1%er, wealth that I gathered not inherited. And I've happily moved here. I'm a natural small-business Republican, but, in fact, am a progressive Democrat with liberal values and proud of it. The weakness that the Bay Guardian has is a smaller but more vitriolic case of what Democrats have locally and nationally.

In an amusingly Stalinist way, the Bay Guardian labels anyone who is moderate and not a form of the their left-wing conservatism, as a Conservative. If would be full-on laughable, if it weren't so harmful to the Party. America needs a return to a more moderate citizenry with more common sense and intelligence and less hatred and accusation. The Bay Guardian will back anything that is affiliated with the deep Left, no matter how asinine or corrupt.

When SF city workers get an average take-home pay in the mid 90s, compared to the mid 40s for private workers, and someone tries to equilibrate this unsupportable profligacy of pensions and benefits that is gutting funds for social projects for the truly needy, the BG and other left-wing conservatives tie themselves in knots to keep things the way they are: uncompetitive, bankrupting, and unsustainable.

Why do you think SF muni is the laughingstock of anyone who knows that carny show on wheels? Left-wing conservatives protect the status quo, which here is the status of disrepair.

Moderation and compromise are for adults. The Tea Partiers and their left-wing analogs cannot stand such maturity and will always descend to labeling people, be it "Socialist" or "Conservative," because their ideas are too inchoate, ill-conceived, and immature.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 31, 2012 @ 1:49 pm

Interesting that neither this post, nor Samson Wong's nor Matt Dorsey's report as posted over at Fog City Journal bothered to the mention the 10-12 minutes of the meeting where the public spoke. I was among those who used public comment, and spoke about the failure of Scott Wiener and the Merchants of Upper Market Castro to lower the rainbow flag in honor of the victims in Colorado last week.

In my post here, , I mention a few of the other public speakers. This was my first time at a DCCC meeting and it was more or less what I expected.

What I didn't expect is that three folks weighing in on the meeting would all fail to say a word about the fact that there was public comment, on a variety of subjects.

Posted by MPetrelis on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 11:03 pm

That's what I want to know.

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 27, 2012 @ 11:41 pm

Castro Street flag and it's masters of the Castro St chamber is a well know and important issue to dozens.

Donna Summers became a born againer and would spout about Adam and Steve on stage etc...

Posted by matlock on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 1:49 am

In my public comments (picking up on MPetrelis's post, why were we ignored?), I urged the SF Dem Party to:

1) register voters - SF's vote will be critical for several statewide propositions Nov 6.

2) get word out to Dem Clubs about helping reelect Obama - every week SF phonebanks call into swing states, and we need travelers to help Nevada, Colorado and other battlegrounds - sign-up at

3) help restore Dem control of the House - which MAY be decided in Nor Cal with challengers Dr. Ami Bera vs. incumbent Dan Lungren (CA-2) and NASA astronaut Jose Hernandez (CA-10)
can tip the balance - as long as we also reelect Jerry McNerney (CA-9), the "Giant Killer" who used 100's of SF volunteers to beat House Resources Chair Richard Pombo in 06.

There's a big picture out there where we can't afford to lose...and some Dem Party unity can really help over the next few months.

Posted by Alec Bash on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 8:28 am

If the Democrats could not make a go of it with 60 Senators and +60 in the House, in fact, if they doubled down on the Republican policies they ran against, it's just not going to happen with the Democrats no matter what elections they win.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 9:17 am

they had absolute majorities in both the House and the Senate.

Americans just aren't as "progressive" as people here like to think.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 2:51 am

nature of the own values -- or at least on the result of their political calculus -- *not* on the values of "Americans" who supported the "Medicare for All."

Sixty Five percent of respondents answered "favor" to the question: "would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicare that would compete with private health insurance plans?"

Somehow I suspect you aren't really unaware of that.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 7:13 am

The Democrats don't represent Americans, they represent the corporations. When Republicans take power they pass measures that Americans oppose based on the polls. When the Democrats take power, they pass measures that Americans oppose based on the polls. The common thread here is that there is no place for public opinion on the crafting of public policy under the Demopublicans and Republicrats.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 7:21 am

Americans think they have a choice when they vote. It doesn't matter who they vote for coz the Dems and Repubs serve the same corporate masters. Take money out of politics and our reps will serve the people.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 9:08 pm

...then again, did he sign the statement against it? If yes, it may have been only a symbolic gesture.

The Supes need to ban the policy outright.

I remember Mar saying he was glad, when Lee was first appointed, to have a mayor from the API community. Too bad said mayor thinks racial profiling is just fine and dandy.

Posted by Erika McDonald on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 10:24 am

Every member of the BOS voted to oppose any implementation of Stop and Frisk in San Francisco.

You do follow local politics - do you not?

Posted by Troll II on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 12:08 pm

Yes, I saw that many signed a statement against. Problem is, Emperor Ed is still talking like it will become policy.

So, are the Supes just powerless to stop it in a legally binding manner? Or, have they just yet to do so?

That, Troll II, is my question.

Posted by Erika McDonald on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 5:43 pm
Posted by Erika McDonald on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 5:56 pm

....the statement the Supes signed was indeed "non-binding," according to SFGate City Insider.

Posted by Erika McDonald on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 6:07 pm

best friend - according to Steven and Tim these are pretty much the same as a law. Look no further than the non-binding policy statement that transit should be given first priority in transportation planning - that's dragged out of the attic every time there's a debate over repairing or building new roads.

I don't know how a "law" is going to be passed banning something which is so amorphous and ill-defined as stop-n-frisk, who would enforce it (would one policeman cite and arrest her partner if she thought he were employing it?) or what the penalties would be. The police can already search someone they suspect of carrying an illegal weapon. As it stands now no one but the mayor has spoken publicly in support of this policy and everyone has spoken out AGAINST it. If that's not good enough for you then start a campaign to ban something which no one knows how to define.

Posted by Ex-Catholic on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 3:45 pm

There is nothing progressive about Democrat or Republican politicians.
If u want politicians who might represent the interest of working and poor people look on the ballots for candidates from other parties and do ur own research, cause the mainstream press, including the Guardian, will not give them much if any any time or space.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 28, 2012 @ 11:11 am

This post and the post on Planning Commissioner Antonini have the same problem: left-wing SF Democrats and progressives have a hard time distinguishing themselves from Republicans on important issues, like planning and land use and transportation. They've bought the aggressively pro-development City Hall policies under the "smart growth" label. They support the Central Subway and high-speed rail projects and City Hall's anti-car, pro-bike policies (Antonini, with Olague, voted to implement the 500-page Bicycle Plan with no environmental review).

City voters have rejected much of the prog agenda---public power, legalizing prostitution, and on JROTC.

And the prog contempt for President Obama is ridiculous. Obamacare will provide 20-30 million with medical coverage in 2014, which Republicans all oppose. Is that a trivial issue? The new Consumer Financial Protection is a huge accomplishment, which will be increasingly evident over time.

President Obama has aggressively reversed much of President Bush's policies on torture and national security. President Nader couldn't/wouldn't have done better on these issues.

Posted by Rob Anderson on Jul. 29, 2012 @ 10:44 am

This article is racist. Since when does having a number of Asians in political positions constitute anything?!
Progressives are the most arrogant, mean-spirited bunch, no wonder they choose to idolize an admitted wife abuser and all around misogynist as Mirkarimi. He epitomizes a typical cop who breaks the law and abuses his wife, yet is given a pass because of his progressive roots.
Avalos is the only hope for real progressives, not Mirkarimi!

Posted by GuestOfNoOne on Aug. 04, 2012 @ 4:14 am

Progressive is synonymous with "loser." Who wants to work with losers? No one. Time has marched on, Willie Brown won the war, and the progressives are in shambles. You're going down on a sinking ship and you think you have a a lifesaver in the form of Ross Smikarimi? Keep on sinking, Tim, you suck, the progs suck, and you've effectively had your ass handed to you on a Brown platter in a Pak. Sucks to be the Corporate Pwned Guardian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by U Lose, corporate owned guardian on Aug. 04, 2012 @ 8:45 am

It's OK. Take a breath. Have a chicken sandwich. 

Posted by marke on Aug. 04, 2012 @ 9:00 am

PG&E is worse than Enron in many ways, yet it still has considerable credibility in the Bay Area. I don't know of any other company that has murdered people, tried to get its ratepayers to pay for its criminal defense, blamed the government for the fact that it murdered people, and then spent millions of dollars (of ratepayer money) trying to convince people that its golden-parachuted CEO was solely responsible for murder and that the new guy won't stand for that.

Seriously, how could anyone vote for someone who works for a company like that?

Posted by John on Aug. 05, 2012 @ 3:54 am

throw the switch, nobody cares about the politics. It's just a utility and that's dangerous business so the odd accident is inevitable, just as with oil companies, airlines and so on.

The voters have repeatedly rejected any attempt to have public power. People are happy with PG&E and will continue to be unless we start getting power cuts.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 05, 2012 @ 7:15 am

These liberals are crazy and just plain dumb....We need to steer away from that secular progressive nonsense...

Posted by David on Dec. 11, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

I get whatever placidity I have from my father. But my mother taught me how to take it on the chin.

Posted by sfbg cert exam on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 11:44 pm

I got up with my wife, I sat down at the computer when she went to work, and I didn't stop until she got home.

Posted by sfbg cert exam on Jan. 20, 2013 @ 11:42 pm

To be totally honest, I'm not the happiest about the previous elections, things didn't go as I imagined it.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 7:09 am

If your viewpoint is a minority one, then you will usually lose.

Prefer a dictatorship?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 7:39 am