D5, Mirkarimi, and 8 Washington


Everybody knows that the timing of the Board of Supervisors vote on ousting the sheriff for official misconduct is bad for Ross Mirkarimi. We're talking about a huge, high-profile decision just weeks before some of the key board members are up for re-election, two of them in hotly contested races. For Sups. Eric Mar and Christina Olague, it's going to particularly difficult: Mar's in a moderate district, and he'll be attacked from the more conservative David Lee if he supports Mirkarimi. Olague's in a progressive district where Mirkarimi was a popular supervisor, so no matter what she does, she'll take heat.

But I was a little surprised by Randy Shaw's analysis, which suggests that Olague will be motivated entirely by political spite:

D5 Supervisor Christina Olague once faced a tough decision on Ross, but since Mirkarimi allies have attacked her on a number of issues it would be very unlikely for her to support him.

That's pretty insulting. Shaw, who has supported her in the past, is saying that Olague won't make up her own mind based on the actual issue and case in front of her. She was pretty clear when I called her: "I will vote on the merits of this issue," she said. "If I was motivated to vote based on who had pissed me off I'd have a hard time voting on anything."

I've disagreed with Olague quite a few times, and one could easily argue that she'll be under immense pressure from the mayor. ("The mayor doesn't want a lot from Christina, but he does want this," one insider told me.) But is it impossible for Shaw to imagine that, in one of the toughest matters she will ever have to handle, the supervisor might actually listen to the testimony, consider the merits of the case, and vote to do what she thinks is right?

Meanwhile, Joe Eskenazi at the Weekly has already announced the Guardian's endorsement in D5 -- which is interesting, since we're barely started interviewing the candidates. Eskenazi calls Julian Davis "the Guardian's fair-haired boy" (which, speaking of insults, is not a terribly appropriate way to refer to an African American man), indicating that he's already our candidate.

For the record: We have not made an endorsement in District Five. We plan to endorse a slate of three candidates for the ranked-choice ballot, and we'll publish that endorsement the last week in September or the first week in October.




Otherwise, they don't count. Get it?

In this case, I correctly guessed that you were attempting to "set me up" so that you could prance about with your typical trollery, so I researched your allegation and it is -- surprise! -- true.

Nontheless: the distinction is *meaningless.* Ross is an outsider to the San Francisco Demoblican machine. The PPP poll was a push poll; that is a fact based on its nature, and which cannot be disproven by alluding to supposed and weakly-inferred allegiances between Democrats. Fool.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 8:12 pm

You can challenge and demand URLs but your statements are infallible - immune from challenge?

LOL - OK Pope lilli.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 8:25 pm

Hey @lilli that was MUCH better...this time before you made a complete fool out of yourself you did your own research and found that you were indeed wrong and Troll II was right. Nice going!!!

The next step for you would be to understand that he didn't "set you up", you just said something stupid and he pointed out your error.

So he was right, and you were wrong. I noticed that you called him a 'fool' anyway but can you understand that the 'fool' is the one who got it wrong. Which in this case, as usual, is you.

But keep up the good work. I'm impressed. Someday you might not even be the village idiot!

Posted by Troll on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 9:56 pm

That is the point I was making, and you cannot prove it was not a push poll by citing wholly illusory ties between PPP and Ross Mirkarimi.

The fact that Ross Mirkarimi recently re-registered as a Democrat is *immaterial,* and while I was unaware that he had done so, it does not alter the fact that he is an outsider to the local Demoblican political machine.

And as for being "set up," I consider any situation in which Troll(x) incorporates actual facts in her arguments to be describable as such. That is simply a result of her track record in regard to telling the truth.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 9:56 am

And stopped supporting Dem candidates in 2008, so it's not a "recent" thing.

It's amazing how you exhibit this chronic tendency to admit you were wrong. You're like a progressive George W. Bush in that way - it's fascinating to see the same pathologies on exhibit within the Republican party demonstrated so ably by a progressive such as yourself.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 10:48 am

I don't come on this site much, but is this lillipublicans guy for real? This has got to be a conservative in disguise trying to make Progressives look bad. Right?

Posted by Snoozers on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 2:19 am

then, when it comes to the mindlessness of the left, you can never be too sure.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 1:09 pm

lilli, the fact the you didn't know a basic data point like Mirkarimi's party affiliation says a lot about how seriously we should take any of your political analysis.

Posted by Guest (the same one) on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 9:33 am

Hey idiot, he was for Obama in 2008 and left the greens then, as did Jane Kim. are you really this stupid or are you just troll baiting MORON?

Posted by Beyond Beyond Chron on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 3:12 pm

Who they hell are you? Nice try at punditry but you're wrong, dude or dudette. A progressive who votes for Ross wins over progressives--they don't have to worry about this harming their chances for higher office. It's just one issue out of many, after all. Your nonsense is bias cloaked in journalese.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 8:42 am

and we need to make it clear to those supes what *we* demand: a vote free from the sort of political calculus which the machine has promoted. We want a vote based on the merits of case.

So, progressives supes. Consider carefully. You constituency does not see a momentary arm grab as an occasion for Brown/Pak machine to further develop its political power. Your constituency will *not* "understand" if you bow falsely to political exigency.

The very fact that the mayor's allies had to commission one extreme push poll after another to try to bolster their position demonstrates how tenuous its position actually is. Try to pick out the voices of your constituents over the crafty siren song sung by those who -- no matter how you vote -- will *never* give you their support.

Vote to reinstate Ross Mirkarimi as sheriff.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 8:59 am

"We want a vote based on the merits of case."

For once you're being sensible, lilli. Allegiance to neither machine (and, yes, there are two) should sway any supervisor's vote. And the merits of the case clearly show Mirkarimi needs to go.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 8:28 am

Christina won't win over this progressive if she votes for reinstatement, and I live in District 5 and donated to Mirkarimi's campaign. Real progressives know that it's not OK to abuse your wife.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 7:11 pm

Even fake progressives seem to know it's not OK to abuse one's spouse; the real question is whether a real progressive who lives in District 5 and donated to Ross Mirkarimi's campaign wouldn't be able to develop a more nuanced take on the subject.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 7:54 pm

A more nuanced take than "Mirkarimi, right or wrong"? Yes, I did do that, in fact. That's why I insist that the lying abuser has got to go.

Posted by Guest (the same one) on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 8:32 am

She herself said that she may need to do just that after Walker revealed that Ed Lee had conferred with Olague about how to handle the Mirkarimi case. Why would she say such a thing (about needing to recuse herself) if there wasn't some truth in Walker's revelation about her convos with Christina? She has some explaining to do, at the very least!

Posted by No Justice, no Peace on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 5:24 pm

Every eye witness to those conversations disputes what Walker alleges. In short, Walker is lying to try and "mix it up".

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 10:01 am

You said it!!

Posted by GrannyGear on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 10:48 am

debra walker's baseless accusations not under oath are not fact. this is left wing mccarthyism. she didn't take the stand and swear on it, so it's worthless yabbering from a Ross supporter. Walker might as well be lying for all we know.

in the end it doesn't matter, because she's irrelevant and Lee is mayor and progressives lose because they are losers. Heck she couldn't even beat the rich girl from Jersey despite all that money spent on her behalf (and her own lame campaign lol)

Posted by Beyond Beyond Chron on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

Her comments were heresay, at best. Perhaps she thinks she heard something that wasn't said. But most likely she is just trouble-making and trying to "mix things up" to create confusion and doubt.

Luckily, nobody believes her, because of her known bais.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 04, 2012 @ 4:37 pm

I hate to see all this overt politicization and calculation going on with Mirkarimi. But I guess that's the nature of the beast...
I always thought what was missing in politics was a whole lotta spirituality...I can still dream, I guess...

I see the Mirk debate fueled by fear (at least the side of the anti-DV advocates). And that's a shame. I hope fear doesn't win out. You know the expression "would you rather be right or would you rather be happy?" This is used when people have conflicts...sometimes it's better to lose the ego and just acknowledge that there are other points of view to be had. In this case, I'd say would you rather please the Mayor, or would you rather be happy? Because I think if the Mayor is pleased, it will be a sad day, leave a bad taste, and the forces of fear will have won. That might feel good for a second, but how will those people feel after they realize they have not acted out of compassion or love but instead after the same emotion that led Mirkarimi to do what he did in the first place? When does the cycle end?

Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 9:09 pm

Perhaps this is either a good time for Mayor Lee to either vocally rescind his previous statment regarding his inability to work with the future reinstated Sheriff Mirkarimi, or be prepared to announce his own resignation if (and when) the vote does not go in his favor. After all, Mayor Lee is *only* the mayor because he went back on his promise not to run; he would have *never* gotten past the board without that promise and he renegged on it.

Mayor Lee, there may be hope for you yet, but it is time for some expression of humility. Ross Mirkarimi has already performed multiple contritions over this matter and he is scheduled for more. You have said nothing to atone for you excesses in this matter.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 10:47 pm

A decision endorsed by the people who gave him a landslide election victory and 70% plus approval ratings.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 6:45 am

Stop with your spinning, PLEASE!!! There was a tacit understanding at the time that whomever would be THE INTERIM MAYOR would have no designs on the office. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. That was the whole purpose of that whole episode....
NOW you want to say--hey, dude just changed his mind--he's allowed! Well, how convenient for you!!! And along with that interpretation of the facts, we have a sleeping electorate, most of whom do not have time or inclination to watch the SFGOV TV, and really did not know. So people with rose-colored glasses like you work well under the circumstances.

I watched the whole d**ned thing, so I'll keep my memories of it, thank you very much.

Other than that, you had a unified Chinatown behind the first Chinese-American Mayor (can you say voter fraud), and the forces of Willy, Rose Pak providing the cash...Maybe I missed something, but those are the main facts for me.

And don't get me started about how Lee has comported himself w/ this whole Mirkarimi case. It's slanderous. He's a cheap shot--at Mayor, and everything else, it seems.

Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 7:34 am

I remember the whole d**ned thing also. I remember Campos saying that they needed to get together and do the best thing for the Progressive movement. I remember Daly talking about a once in a generation opportunity to select a mayor without having those pesky voters involved.

I remember Daly throwing an embarrassing tantrum when Chiu didn't vote the way that he was supposed to. I remember Daly shouting down Alioto-Pier (who had the floor) screaming 'You represent rich people'. I guess the taxation without representation meme hadn't reached the leader of the Progressive movement.

I remember Aaron Peskin taking Phil Bronstein to lunch at Cafe Trieste, saying that he was going to be 'appointed' Mayor. While bragging that he could illegally park outside because the cops knew who he was.

And then the childlike, overconfident Progressives got spanked by Newsom and Rose Pak. And they are still whining about it apparently.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 8:21 am

Talk about sour grapes. He changed his mind. Big deal. Apparently to the people who really counted, the voters, it wasn't that big a deal.

And I resent your implied racism that because Chinatown was behind Lee there was voter fraud. Lee did not steal the election and you have no proof of that. People had a choice, and the majority of people choose Lee. Get over it and grow up.

Posted by D. native on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 8:47 am

With the voter fraud I was referencing the stenciling in of Lee's name that there were photographs documenting. Do you remember that? No racism implied. Just the facts that were caught for all to see.

Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 3:56 pm

Oh wait, he would do nothing because he is also part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

So tired and predictable. Why not just admit that you lost?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 4:34 pm

It's not about "winning" and "losing" for me. It's about what you are made of. And I don't like what I see. You are free to love the man. Really.

As far as going to the DA with the evidence? Too much time has elapsed, and nothing was done then, and I have better things to do with my time. I just chose not to sweep it under the rug. I think you needed to be reminded. So I reminded you.

Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 5:04 pm

smearing allegations against Lee. It's just yet another case of liberals being bad losers. After all the experience you have of backing the losing guy, I'd have thought you would have learned how to lose gracefully.

And even when a leftie does win, like Mirk (albeit only just and because his opponents were split) he goes and ruins it all because he can't stand his wife having her own opinions and tries to shut her up.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 6:09 pm

a) i didn't see it as directly against lee, but more that the Chinese community seemed to be voting as a block, which would explain how these voter representatives saw nothing wrong with filling things in for "the people".

b) I guess you didn't listen to me when I just said: it's not about winning or losing. So much for getting one's points across on these blogs.

c) Mirk made a mistake, unfortunate as that is. The only one trying as hard as he can to "ruin" things for him is Lee. That's unfortunate, too. If you think Ross was mean-spirited, well, you then you know how I (and many others) feel about Lee. The mean-spiritedness ought to end somewhere, but, see, it isn't. It just continues. But in Mirk's case, it was in the heat of an argument. Unfortunate, but that's life at times. We all make mistakes. But Lee knows full well what he's doing, but he insists on doing it anyway. Voila la difference. It is Lee who puts a bad taste in my mouth. Not Mirkarimi. To each his own.

Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 7:46 pm

example of races voting "en bloc"?

Fact is, race is a big deal and people often "vote their race". That doesn't mean there was any fraud. It's entirely possible that some Asian leaders "advise" their flocks how to vote just as some religous ministers do, but that doesn't rise to the level of fraud.

And anyway, Lee won by such a huge margin that fraud could not possible account for more than a small amount of it. Fraud only works in maeginal races and this was far from marginal.

As for Ross going, I am very clear on why that must be, for the same reason that most people are:

1) A violent criminal should not be sheriff

2) Someone convicted of false imprisonment should not be in charge of the prison system

3) The sheriff works very closely with the probation officers and this sheriff is on probation.

In 3 years his probation will be over. Then he can stand for election as sheriff again. If you're right and the people really support him, then he will win.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 11:50 am

Contrast Mirkarimi's momentary mistake occuring during a heated argument about his wife's desire to take his son out of the country with Lee's calculated attack on him over that event to further his political goals.

Lee's nastiness in branding of Mirkarimi as a "wife beater" when he had no credible evidence was opportunistic and perhaps reveals a bit of a sadistic streak. After all, the man was already forcibly separated from his wife and son and had his job taken from him all at the same time.

As for your completely meritless observation with regard to Blacks voting for Obama, I think you should be ashamed for mentioning that in a discussion which began with accusations against Danielle for engaging in racism.

Blacks have voted heavily for Democrats ever since the civil rights acts. Blacks typically vote 85 - 90% for Democrats. The fact that Obama got a slightly higher percentage, in view of the stakes in the last election and the clear differences between the candidates is *completely* unremarkable -- except to puffy right wing demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and those who parrot his cant.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

not a shred of evidence, only speculative conjecture. Then she played a race card and was called on it, rightly.

Ross made his own bed and now he has to lie on it. You can't be head of a LE department and then push and shove your wife, period. He's admitted it, apologized for it, and your endless vacuous defense of him cuts no ice.

Lee won by a landslide and has widespread support. Ross has self-destructed. It's really that simple.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 1:05 pm

Daniele, in fact, mentioned voter fraud in the context of Lee going back on his promise not to pursue the office of mayor beyond service on an interim basis; serving to further flesh-out the general level of disdain for the voters, but not making the claim you explicitly (and falsely) say she made.

Why is this site beset by mendacious reactionaries? You are obviously driven by a misanthropic tendency.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 2:44 pm

committed fraud because they "voted their race" was appalling but, even if it were true, would not explain the scale and enormity of Lee's victory.

She was wrong on race, wrong on voter fraud and wrong on ross. But otherwise she was 100% correct.

Oh except where she also said that Lee "promised" not to run. He did no such thing, but merely changed his mind, as all politicians are entitled to do. Heck, even Eliana "changed her mind". And her story.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 3:56 pm

Daniele correctly cited fraud that was documented. Daniele never used the phrase "voted their race"; that was used by the reactionary scumbag troll who thereby falsely portrayed why Blacks voted for a Democrat, and then accused her of it.

You obviously have no honor. You. Lowlife. Scumbag. Piece. Of. Crap. Troll II.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 4:52 pm

gone to the DA. You did not and nor did anyone else. It's just the rantings of a bad loser. Again.

And yes, Daniele indicated that Asians were in cahoots somehow.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 5:00 pm

I just have a photographic memory of the photograph that was published of Lee representatives doing the voting for the voters. That tells a story. End of story.
Here’s a link: http://sfist.com/2011/10/24/ed_lee_campaign_accused_of_voting_f.php

But I’m not here to dwell on this. I was just laying out how I saw Lee’s star rise, beginning with his being asked to be Interim Mayor. I’m interested in who this man is. And once again, I will say I don’t like what I see. I don’t care what his race is. And one last time: I'm not a sore loser. I just don't like him and his ways.

Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 7:56 pm

See, d.native, that's where we who are unified in wanting Mirkarimi gone differ. I think Lee's decision to run after he promised not to was really wrong. He only got to be interim Mayor because he promised not to run, and his incumbency and the apolitical good feeling he spread around that first year was what got him elected. Bad, bad faith.

However, that doesn't mean I think his suspension of Mirkarimi was also wrong. I'm not pro-Lee just because I'm anti-Mirkarimi, and I think there are a lot of San Franciscans who feel the same way.

Posted by Guest (the same one) on Sep. 01, 2012 @ 9:39 am

When Lee accepted the job, he did not AT THAT POINT IN TIME have any intention to run. So when he did run, he didn't "lie" or "break his promise". He simply was responding to the very favorable feedback he was getting for his job performance and felt him standing in the election was in the best interests of the city and it's people.

The people agreed, giving him more than 60% of the final "runoff" votes, which is the technical definition of a landslide.

And so what anyway? He was just one candidiate. If the left had had a credible alternative, it would not have mattered at all. But they didn't, as in every mayoral race. SF just isn't as liberal as you'd like to think, and Lee's mayorship reflects that consensus.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 9:59 am

Tacit: understood without being openly expressed; implied, implicit. So...where's the confusion?

Doesn't change what was implicitly implied...he just chose to take advantage, listen to those whispering in his ear, and change from Clark Kent to....SuperCandidate!!! Hey!! Here I am, coming to the rescue!!! You know me, you love me...No more Chris Daly (that's not hard, by the way, to appear "nice" compared to Chris Daly's fireworks). Whatever. I said it all in my last post, and I stand by it.

I dunno, if it were me, I'd feel pretty wormy doing what he did. Don't like him. Not a matter of race, or anything superficial like that. It's more about integrity. I also didn't like how he characterized Mirkarimi as a wife-beater. That made my blood boil. Mirkarimi may have mistepped his bounds with his wife. Mirkarimi may even have had an anger management problem, now being addressed. But labeling someone as such when your position gives your voice heft, was disgusting. So I see the common denominator between the two situations as this: self serving, integrity/truth be damned.

Sorry, I find that offensive.

Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 4:11 pm

enthusiasm that the people voiced, and was concerned about the weakness of the other candidates. He acted nobly and authentically, and was rewarded when over 60% of voters agreed with him, and gave him a landslide victory.

And if Mirk had wanted to avoid being branded a wife-beater, then a good start would have been for him to not beat his wife. He can only blame himself for his fall from grace. Heck, the guy had only just been sworn in - that's a special kind of stupid.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 4:37 pm

Is that comment what you meant by bringing spirituality back to politics, Daniele?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 7:13 pm

I don't think it is in his DNA. He's set in his stubborn, one-dimensional, short-sighted, transparent-to-those-that-have-a-heart, ways.

Posted by Daniele E. on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 8:05 am

there is no sign that anyone else can credibly challenge Lee in the next mayoral election.

You don't like Lee because he is not extremely left-wing, just moderately liberal. Luckily for this city, most of it's resident and voters do not share your view.

But hey, if you're right and I am wring, then Mirk can challenge Lee next time around, right?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 10:03 am

got elected and if you can prove otherwise, please feel free to do so. Just to be clear, when I write "prove," I mean honest polls done in the recent past -- say, subsequent to his Ethics Commission theatrics and waffling on nazi policing policies.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 10:59 am

your ideology is "invalid" there is no point in me furnishing you with poll results. The last poll I read had Lee's approval at over 70% and nothing in my day-to-day encounters in real life indicate that that is wrong. you can believe what you want.

And since we know that 60% to 76% of voters support Lee on Ross, the EC hearings if anything have boosted Lee's approval score.

But anyway, Lee won a landslide election victory and he has the power. Eat it up. As a leftie, you should be used to losing by now.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 11:13 am

Your continued failure to provide proof for your allegation that Lee has high approval numbers is telling. It is apparently no longer the case -- if in fact it ever was.

Lee won an election tainted with registration, campaign finance, and voting irregularities. That his performance has been decidedly mixed opens up the question as to whether he still enjoys broad support.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 11:38 am

Like everyone on the left, you rationalize away all your failures and losses.

If you lose an election, it's always because of "registration, campaign finance, and voting irregularities."

If you lose a poll, the poll was "invalid".

If a left-wing politician gets charged with DV, it's all a "giant right-wing conspiracy".

And so on. Perpetual losers like you can only continue to exist by continuously denying every bad outcome you get with reference to some great "unfairness" somewhere.

It never actually occurs to you that you always lose because you are always wrong.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 12:11 pm