Mayor's aide's totally inappropriate text to Olague

|
(64)
Where's the civility, Mr. Mayor?

Wow -- a source just passed me the text messages that Tony Winnicker, a senior advisor to Mayor Lee, send to Sup. Christina Olague after her vote on the Mirkarimi case.

It's totally crazy, outrageous -- and inappropriate coming from a top mayoral staffer. Check it out:

As your constituent you (sic) disgust me and I will work night and day to defeat you. You are the most ungrateful and dishonorable person ever to serve on the board. You should resign in disgrace.

Winnicker confirmed to me that he wrote the text, but insisted he wasn't speaking for the mayor:

As you know I am not the Mayor's spokesperson and have not been for some time, especially on matters like this. I am, however, a district five constituent who disagrees strongly with my district supervisor's vote last night and i took the opportunity to express my opinion and extreme disappointment in her decision and judgment. It is just that, however, my personal opinion and frustration with her vote, a frustration shared by many fellow district five residents who agree with Mayor Lee and the majority of the Board of Supervisors that Ross Mirkarimi should not be Sheriff.

Holy shit. I hope the mayor tells Mr. Winnicker that this is not an example of the "civility" Lee is trying to promote at City Hall.

Comments

Did you - have - to put that man's face at the top of the page? Why not just show the outside of his door with his name on it? I could deal with that. And he does not deserve the respect of the term "Mr Mayor."

This part stuck out for me:

As for Winnicker writing, "You are the most ungrateful..."

Translation: You are supposed to vote for his conservative** agenda. Period. You are supposed to be in lockstep with him. That's why he appointed you. This is the thanks you give him?

When the conservatives** don't get their way, the so-called "civility" is nonexistent, not that there was any legitimate "civility" to begin with...in reality it's just newsspeak.

This is a major defeat for this piece of work mayor.

** = charading as "moderates"

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 2:38 pm

Agreed. And, recalling how Gary Trudeau used to depict G.W. Bush as a feather, I humbly suggest to the SFBG editorial board and graphics department a visual eupemism for Lee herewith:

http://www.gramercyone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/bag-of-money-300x3...

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 7:33 pm

Tony Winnicker...his implication in telling Ms. Olague that her vote was "ungrateful" reveals the obvious fact that we've known all along. He and his boss expect her to do what they tell her to do...disgusting.
If he keeps his job, it only supports the obvious corruption.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 3:04 pm

Is the Guardian saying Olague should only be subject to cheers and laudatory statements now?

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 3:21 pm

Out of all the outrages perpertrated by the Mirkarimi/Lopez camp over the last nine months, THIS is what the Guardian considers inappropriate?!

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 4:19 pm

the Mirkarimi lawyers won because they were right. This mayor's aide is threatening this supervisor because she didn't do what the mayor ordered her to do,in exchange for campaign funds and political power...you are too dense to see the corruption.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 8:16 am

...that the voters will recall the Sheriff, thanks for asking. Between you and me, I like that Olague votes her own conscience rather than consistently being led by either machine. However, as a D5 resident I'll be voting against her come November because of her bad vote on the Mirkarimi issue.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 7:40 pm

My computer probably has some issue with SFBG cookies or something.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 7:45 pm

Troll II, why don't you just go away already? You obviously hate the Guardian and all it stands for, so why not give yourself a warm bath of FOX news and spare us all your filthy rhetoric? You are so biased you can't even tell when something is hideously inappropriate. For a Mayoral aide, a top advisor, to text threaten one of the supervisors -- the one the mayor appointed!-- and tell her she is "ungrateful" is very damning to the Mayor. You don't see it because you agree with the Mortimer Snerd of a Mayor we have.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 7:08 pm

No.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 8:41 pm

Methinks Young Master Winnicker has jumped the shark.

Posted by proggy boy on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 3:31 pm

Did this man learn nothing from the public comment last night, or the supervisors' well thought-out remarks?

It is the epitome of "witch-hunt" talk "you (sic) disgust me and I will work night and day to defeat you". ...scary. Unbecoming of anyone, let alone a public official. Hasn't he learned the # 1 lesson in relating? That you can disagree with someone, but not impugn the person. It is called recognizing the dignity in all people.

The fact that this person ever *was* the spokesperson for Mayor Lee is troubling, to say the least. I am glad he is being called on it here. There is no place for this in San Francisco.

If he is now backtracking in his letter to you, Tim, saying it is his frustration with her vote, well, that is not how he expressed it in the text message to Christina: "you (sic) disgust me". This is unacceptable.

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

I agree with Daniele E. Right on!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 7:09 pm

I'd think the trolls would be all over this.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 7:37 pm

Daniele I could not agree with you more! I await the Mayor's response. Winnicker could do the honorable thing and resign, but if he is not so honorable than the Mayor should fire him! This Mayor has much higher standards than this and his immediate action to remove Winnicker could prove that. I expect to hear an announcement shortly that Winnicker is moving on to much greener pastures!

Posted by JSalinas on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 10:09 am

He was speaking as a private indivdual and, in fact, saying nothing that I didn't hear over the water cooler about 50 times yesterday.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 10:28 am

Wow. If this guy still has his job by tomorrow morning it will be a scandal for the Lee Administration.

Lee's already utterly humiliating loss is getting more embarrassing by the hour.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 3:52 pm

A staffer thinking he could take that tone with a legislative official speaks volumes about the relationship, too.

Nasty tone. Vindictive. Political.

Posted by Hortensio Miller on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 4:30 pm

I listened to the entire presentation by mayor's attorney yesterday and I think Winniker's behavior pretty much perfectly fits the Mayor's definition of official misconduct.

I also heard Sean Elsbernd say that elected officials are elected officials 24hours a day, even before they're sworn in to office.

Supervisor Elsbernd, I'm assuming you'll be calling for the immediate removal for Mr. Winniker from his position? Mayor Lee, I'm assuming he's already be given his pink slip?

Posted by Ms. Conduct on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 4:34 pm

Honey, I guess you haven't heard of the First Amendment?? As a private citizen, and especially as Ms. Olague's constituent, he has a constitutionally protected right to voice his opinions on her vote and to share his displeasure. Just working for the Mayor's office does not strip him of his right to speak his mind when speaking for himself.

If Mayor Lee gave him a pink slip, then the Mayor woudl have his ass sued and handed to him on a platter so quick that it might register as a 5.3 on the Richter scale.

Posted by Chris on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 6:13 pm

Grow up.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 7:17 pm

the mayor has discretion to fire his aides for hurting him politically.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 8:18 am

The moderate pols in San Francisco are always paragons of civility. How dare you suggest otherwise!

Posted by Weak-ass Moderate Voter on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 4:36 pm

So you've fallen for the "moderate" label/newsspeak too, have you?

Just one example: one so-called "moderate" supervisor who shall remain nameless hates on the homeless/street people (he's pro sit-lie...criminalizes homelessness) and now he's hating on the 10 naked guys around the Castro and claims we need a new city-wide law for TEN PEOPLE (at the most on any given day). How many other major cities create a law for just 10 people? Crazy.

There's nothing "moderate" about hate and bullying.

They're not "moderates." They're conservatives. In San Francisco, they think they're slick by calling themselves so-called "moderates" to deceive and dupe the sheeple into voting for them, and so that they don't appear so draconian/right-wing/pro-corporate. If they called themselves a "conservative" (which is what they really are) they would have a more difficult time being elected here so they hide behind the word "moderate," although in the future that probably won't be the case as the City moves to the right. At which point, the conservatives (those that get off on hating on and bullying others) can come out of the closet and stop pretending to be something that they're not: "moderates". They're conservatives.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 5:42 pm

i forgot to use the sarcasm font. my apologies.

Posted by Weak-ass Moderate Voter on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 5:52 pm

We should take all take lessons on civility from Progressives. We all need to learn from the shining example of Tom "kiss my gay ass" Ammiano and Chris "do you know who the fuck I am? I'm going to get your ass fired!" Daly.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 1:23 pm

...all the oh-so-civil Mirkarimi supporters at the board hearing who would have lynched the DV-advocate commenters if they could.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 7:41 pm

"Talk to Mr Ed" about this horses arse.

Posted by Patrick Monk.RN. on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 5:23 pm

is probably the advisor who advised Ed Lee to appoint Olague.

Posted by sfsoma on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 5:36 pm

ah, excellent point

Posted by guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 5:53 pm

If Olague has any chance in D5 she must show she is not the Mayor's puppet. Et voila! Hand it to Enrique Pearce for delivering the defiance on a platter. Willie Brown and Rose Pak have a lot invested here. They are playing the long game. And there are so many people who want Christina to be the real deal. But this is just too neat. Would Tony Winnicker really be so undisciplined?

Interesting that unlike Avalos and Campos, Olague didn't have much in the way of criticism for Mirkarimi. I think she smells a meal-ticket; or sees a life line.

Not saying the vote was necessarily wrong, just that there's a lot to be gained. We're certainly not in Profiles In Courage territory here. One (seemingly) independent vote does not an independent make.

All very peculiar and not to be taken at face value.

Posted by Gust on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 5:45 pm

in being the most decidedly de-elected appointed incumbent supervisor in SF history.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 7:25 pm

I didn't see it at first, but your post here planted the seed in my mind and the more I've thought about it the more i'm certain you're right. This is Pak/Brown/Lee long game. No question.

It's not possible that Kim and Olague actually go rogue on the mayor, as it appears in this vote. This should have been obvious all along. I'm kicking myself for not seeing it sooner. Enrique Pearce (founder of the Run Ed Run campaign, and the political consultant / architect behind Kim and Olague) and his cohort David Ho (burgeoning Chinatown power broker) especially, are connected at the hip to Rose Pak and by extension Mayor Lee. Kim's and Olague's votes were absolutely cleared by the higher ups (i.e. Pak, Lee).

It wasn't likely their plan all along for the Mayor to lose the Mirkarimi removal vote at the Board, but perhaps it was when it became clear they were in danger of losing Olague's seat in District 5, that they realized they could make the whole situation work to their long term advantage in a big way.

With the Mirkarimi matter not being be put to rest at the Board on Tuesday, and with the recall campaign set to begin any moment now, the Mayor and his downtown backers will have the gift of a very potent wedge issue that keeps on giving. The Chronicle, in particular, will be able to talk about the "wife beater" and his progressive supporters for the next several months, through the November 2013 election, at least. Now this issue will be an albatross around the neck of progressives for much longer than it would have had the mayor won his vote.

Sure the loss appears embarrassing to the mayor. But how bad will it actually hurt him? Very little, if at all, I suspect. He still got the majority 7 votes. It's early in his term. He gets to claim "he's above politics" while the "crazy progressives" on the Board are supporting "wife beaters". The cops, the realtors, and the developers will pour tons of money into a recall campaign. There will be an on going barrage of mailers and TV ads painting avalos and campos as monsters and the mayor as a principled humanitarian.

Meanwhile, in the short term, Olague actually gets a chance to look truly independent of the mayor, for the first time and in a very big way, and have a fighting chance to win in D5. Her vote totally helps her in D5. She would have been toast otherwise. All these texts from Winniker, etc. are media plants designed to convince us that Olague has really broken off from the mayor. It simply isn't true. It's a ruse and the media is falling for it.

Olague's staff sent Winniker's text to the Guardian hoping they would publish this sort of piece so she could get back some respect from Guardian's progressive readership. It's working like a charm. You're right Gust, it's long game. No question.

Posted by Fool Me Once on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

If you’re Ed Lee, what’s more important: saving face and ousting the sheriff, or saving your appointed District 5 supervisor? Word on the street is that Mayor Lee needed Olague’s votes for his big development projects over the next four years. There’s billions of dollars at stake there. Ed Lee’s ego isn’t worth losing those luxury towers.

Posted by Political Realist on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 12:02 pm

Oh, and what's more, Kim is ALREADY CALLING FOR A RECALL CAMPAIGN. Which of course is the whole goal here, to make this drag on indefinitely and hurt the Mayor's opponents for months to come.

And Kim's call for a recall campaign is how she successfully distances herself from the progressive "wife-beater supporters," Avalos and Campos. And Kim *had* to vote with Olague (with her VERY carefully-worded legal rationale) to give Olague cover so that she wouldn't be the only woman who voted against the Domestic Violence advocates, etc.

Upon reflection and thoughtful examination, all this should be obvious to anyone who knows the players in this plot. Still it's brilliant political maneuvering, and so far it's working perfectly.

Posted by Fool Me Once on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 3:27 pm

Somebody on this thread is awake.

Posted by Judy on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 6:00 pm

Did it ever occur to anyone that her vote wasn't primarily about political alliances?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 7:43 pm

Give me a fucking break.

Should we honestly believe that the love is now gone between Rose and Ed and Willie and Christina?

After all the money raised for her and the awareness that she desperately needed to make it HARDER for her opponents in D5 to defeat her - the most OBVIOUS choice for her to buck the Mayor and let Mirkarimi off the hook (temporarily).

Horseshit.

They knew she needed to make this vote into a campaign victory in Mirkarimi's district and now Sideshow Tony is helping by adding some extra lube to the hand job.

Those pigs really think the voters are stupid, don't they.

Posted by Patrick Connors on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 5:51 pm

I think you're right. If it is a text (as Tim says) then the only two people who knew about it were Winnicker and Olague. So which one wanted it to be reported in the press?

It sure does make it look as if Olague has turned on the Mayor's Office. It is kind of obvious. Tim fell for it hook line and sinker but most voters are more sophisticated.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 6:05 pm

the buzz about the mayoral conversations would have been resurrected. If she recused herself, they would have had to probe the reasons why . By voting no , she did the legally and politically correct thing at that moment. I think I saw David Waggoner slap his thigh!!!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 6:41 pm

I agree. It does seem very possible that this is an effort to fool us in District Five. She could not vote to remove, and recusing herself would have pretty much confirmed that Lee committed perjury. I suspect that Lee may have thought he had the rest scared.

Posted by JUsher on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 10:26 pm

The message may be rude, but the last time I checked, you don't give up your First Amendment rights by virtue of being a Mayor's staff member.

Ms. Olague is the elected representative of Mr. Winnicker, and he has a right, speaking as a private citizen, which he clearly stated in his text message he was doing, to voice his displeasure at her vote, and to tell her that she disgusts him with her actions.

Mayor Lee is not responsible for Mr. Winnicker's comments as a private citizen, and in fact, the Constitution prohibits Mayor Lee from interfering with Mr. Winnicker's political speech as a private citizen.

Sorry, Pravda, oh, I mean SFBG, you may not like the message, but you have to let others say what is on their minds. Get over it, stop being petty and childish, and move on.

Posted by Chris on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 6:09 pm

Are you suggesting that a public official not be held accountable for reprehensible communications simply because that communication took place on the official's own time, even when the business of that public official is communications?

Posted by marcos on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 7:48 pm

Ms Olague is not "the elected representative of Mr Winnicker". She was *appointed* by the Mayor, and she *represents* District 5.

And the message is emotionally violent, an ironic twist coming from the very office that sought to come down so very hard on the Sheriff for another violent act.

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 8:14 pm

The violence of text messages from constituents to their lawmakers! This after she's spent the past year making excuses for Mirkarimi!!! Hahahahahaha.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 8:44 pm

I guess all the text messages from Eliana Lopez don't count either.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 8:49 am

Do you mean the ones where she described how her husband Ross Mirkarimi was a "wife beater" who drank raw pig blood? Those never materialized.

Interestingly, also in the news is the fact that Ross sent a letter to the Mayor who tried to destroy him -- both in his professional *and* family lives -- asking for a meeting so that fences could be mended and everyone could move forward, but was rebuffed by the petulant and sullen Lee.

At some point, Horty, you're just going to have to face up to the fact that you've hitched your self-righteousness to the wrong wagon.

Posted by lilliipublicans on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 9:18 am

Did you think that Congress was slapping mr. winniker for being a horse's rear and revealing part of the political lynching attempt here?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 8:21 am

He's not really wrong, is her? I'm looking forward to voting against her as well.

Posted by Mark 2000 on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 7:22 pm

just saved the city of San Francisco millions of dollars. Ed lee already spent 1.3 mill to unsuccessfully lynch Ross Mirkarimi. If the vote had gone differently,that bill would have at least doubled. do you know why?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 10:55 am