Mirkarimi case -- the aftermath

Olauge: A Profile in Courage

So many things to think about after last night's Board of Supervisors vote on Ross Mirkarimi. It was a dramatic moment in local politics, a clear rejection of the mayor by four supes, including one of his appointees, a show of political courage by some and weakness by others.

But before I get into that, let me say:

I argued against removing Mirkarimi, for a lot of reasons. One of the most important is the precedent here -- the City Charter gives the mayor too much power, the ability to singlehandedly remove an elected official for what the city attorney's office concluded was pretty much any reason at all. There is no definition of "official misconduct" -- and the way this case was presented, it could be interpreted really broadly. That's dangerous, and the supervisors (or four of them, anyway) knew it.

I'm also a believe in restorative justice, in redemption, in the idea that people can do bad things and turn themselves and their lives around.

Still, it's important to remember that what Mirkarimi did on New Year's Eve, 2011, was awful, unacceptable. He was, at the very least, a total asshole and a jerk, treating his wife in a way that was -- again, at the very least -- psychologically abusive. Some of the comments at the board meeting were way off base; some speakers attacked the domestic violence community and made it sound as if Mirkairmi's crime was pretty minimal.

I agree with David Chiu that the city's going to have to come together after this -- and the progressives who supported Mirkarimi are going to have to reach out to, and work with, the DV advocates. Because domestic violence is no joke, is no "private matter," is still a major, serious issue in this city, and the worst possible outcome would be a reversal in San Francisco's progressive policy on handling these cases.

I wish the audience hadn't erupted in cheers when the final votes were cast. I heard Mirkarimi on Forum this morning, and when Michael Krasny asked if he was "elated," he indicated that he was. Wrong answer: Nobody should be happy about what happened here. Mirkarimi's biggest political and personal flaw has always been his ego, which at times bordered on arrogance, and that has to end, today. The sheriff needs to be humble about what happened to him, recognize that nobody "won" this ugly chapter in city history, and get back to work trying to mend fences with his critics. He's facing the very real possibility of a recall election, and if he acts like he's been totally vindicated, it's going to happen.

This is a chance for Mirkarimi to take the notion of restoration and redemption seriously -- by doing what Sup. John Avalos suggested at the hearing. He has to become a changed man. He has to show the world that he really, really gets it. Starting now.

Speaking of change .... the Number One Profile in Courage Award goes to Sup. Christina Olague. Olague was under immense pressure from the mayor, who wanted her vote badly. And because of the rotation of the votes, she had to go early, when it wasn't clear at all which way this was going to turn out. And she came through, 100 percent solid. She made all the right points, and once she said she was going to vote against the mayor's charges, the whole thing was over. At that point, there was no way David Campos or John Avalos could or would go the other way, so Mirkarimi had his three votes. I have been critical of Olague, but in this case, I want to give full credit: She did the right thing, when it wasn't easy. She may have just won the election. (Let me clarify that -- she may have kept herself from losing the election.)

Sup. Jane Kim was brilliant in her questioning of the mayor's representatives and her analysis of the case. She showed real leadership and helped set the stage for what happened by pointing out the flaws in the mayor's case.

And of course, Campos and Avalos, the undeniable, solid left flank of the board, came through.

It wasn't easy for any of these four supervisors, and they all deserve immense credit.

Not so Eric mar, who I realize is in a tough race, but ... when Olague, who has been accused of being too close to the mayor, had the courage to stand up, Mar, who has nearly universal progressive support, did not.

This is a great opportunity for the city to start talking about restorative justice in a serious way. Let's get started.




Julian Davis is toast.

Posted by Orlando Chavez, Jr. on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 10:23 am

Your bend-over-backwards equivocation (and your Carmen Chu style criticism of organizers) around yesterday's resolution of the Mirkarimi case, simply does not connect with reality.

Though the domestic violence implications of this case, and Ross Mirkarimi's honest need to pursue personal growth, are very real, they are certainly not in any way the main issue here.

The actual main issue, is that the Mayor's office and Downtown tried to use Mirkarimi's weaknesses and, most importantly, the vulnerability of his innocent family, as cynical political tools with which to further their efforts to squash the progressive movement in San Francisco like a bug.

Everyone who has been working in the coalition to return Sheriff Mirkarimi to his duly elected office was -keenly- aware that this is what was at stake. And so, when we achieved victory against Mayor Lee's macabre and potentially massively damaging sectarian attack, you bet your ass we cheered. Bigtime..

This wasn't just about a single case, or even the setting of bad precedent for excessive power in Room 200. This was about the ongoing serious-ass war between Downtown and the 99% in this city.

And progressives just won a -big- battle in that war.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 1:25 pm

I have to agree with the above, Tim. Ross did not commit a crime. He committed a mistake and it grieves me to see you keep beating up on him after, well, everything.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

is not just a river in Egypt.

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 2:03 pm

Did. Not. Commit. A. CRIME?!

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

I wish I'd written such a succint response to Tim's infuriatingly milquetoast take.

Instead I wrote this (and more which I just deleted!):

Foremost I disagree with your statement about the mayor's power under the charter.

Waggoner and his cohort explained quite well why the language in the charter does not grant the mayor the power to do what he attempted to do.

In Mazzola it was established that official misconduct must be conduct either specifically proscribed for the officer in question, or it must be a crime committed by such an officer who use the office to facilitate that crime. (That's why Lee strove to prove that Ross threatened Eliana by claiming to be powerful; a charge which proved to be unsubstantiatable.)

The language of the ruling in Waggoner is what largely makes up the official misconduct definition in the city charter, and though some amorphous language was added to it, that "impliedly required" wording signifies *nothing.*

It signifies nothing because it is unconstitutionally vague and subject to the mayor's discretion.

As a matter of fact, Deputy CA Sherri Kaiser's claim that voters carefully considered the ramifications of passing that language in 1995 is provably false due to the Prop E digest in the ballot pamplet wherein the CA office of Louise Renne penned a description of the changes with regard to ethics, writing that "no substantive changes" were being made.

Paul Melbostadt, former Ethics Commission member said during the rally and later in public commment that when he was on the commission the subject came up on more than one occasion and that both the offices of Louise Renne and current CA Dennis Herrera cautioned that findings of official misconduct must be related to wrongful actions while in office and using the office to facilitate those actions if they were not expressly forbidden of that officer by city law; i.e. violations of Sunshine Ordinance.

Another disagreement I have with your essay is with your characterization of the pro-Mirkarimi group as "bullying" the DV advocates.

There was a small degree of such behavior which was highly unfortunate and uncontrollable -- there is no way to prevent mentally ill people acting-up during meetings-- but I don't think it is honest to say it characterized Mirkarimi defenders in general.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 6:16 pm

I didn't see it at first, either, but after thinking about it, it's obvious this is Ed Lee/Rose Pak/Willie Brown long game rather than an act of courage on the part of Olague and Kim.

It's not possible that Kim and Olague would actually go rogue on the mayor, as it appears on the surface with this vote. 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), 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, Pak and Lee, not acts of courage.

It was never important that Lee win the Board vote on the Mirkarimi issue. The real point of the Mayor's crusade to bring a vote to the Board was as an election season wedge issue, one that would have been brutal for the likes of John Avalos, had his Pak/Lee-backed opponent not turned out to live outside the district. Perhaps it was when it became clear that Pak/Lee 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 an even bigger way by actually losing the vote at the Board.

With the Mirkarimi matter not being 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 a relentless barrage of mailers and TV ads painting Avalos and Campos as monsters and the mayor as a principled humanitarian.

Meanwhile, Olague, for the first time, actually gets to look truly independent of the mayor and may have a fighting chance to win in D5. Her vote, of course, totally helps her in D5, a district that voted overwhelmingly against Ed Lee last year and almost never votes for machine candidates. She would have been toast had she voted with Lee. The furious text from Winniker calling her ungrateful is a media plant designed to convince us that Olague has really broken off from the mayor. It simply isn't true. It's a ruse.

Kim voted 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. Again, Kim and Olague are directly linked to the Enrique Pearce/ David Ho power circle, and all of them are allies with Rose Pak and the Mayor. All strategy is coordinated. We all know this.

You'll notice Kim has publicly called for a recall campaign, which of course is the whole goal here, to have a recall campaign that hurts the Mayor's opponents for months to come. Kim's call for a recall campaign is also how she successfully distances herself from the extreme progressive wife-beater supporters. She can say she voted to reinstate Ross, but only because of her legal obligations. Through this she implies that unlike Avalos and Campos, she really is against domestic violence and wants to see Ross out of office, but based on legal principles, she couldn't, out of good conscience, vote him out at the Board.

See how this works? Brilliant. And it's tough to recognize unless you actually know the characters in this scheme and the power relationships behind the scenes.

Posted by Fooled Me Once on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 8:04 pm

It's worth noting, however, that some 70% of the supes wanted Ross gone which, as you well know, corresponds to the various polls of SF voters about their feelings towards Ross. So aside from the legalities and technicalities, we have a sherrif whom neither the people nor the supes want in power. and that is troubling.

Second, regardless of ideology. Ross is really going to struggle with conflicts of interest. How does he treat DV inmates? How does he interact with the very same probation officers under whom he must report? Will the sheriff's allow Ross ot manage, or will they frustrate him, feeling he is little different from the inmates they see daily?

This is one untidy mess and, in a very real sense, it might have been better if Ross had gone away. surely you don't want progressive power this much? Or do you?

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

Ten years ago, 7 supes did not want the Mayor in power, yet nobody was whining about how that compromised Willie Brown's electoral mandate. Shit, Brown doubled down after being shellacked in 2000.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 10:34 am

7 supes under a much broader mandate. Even so, consider this "coincidence":

70% of SF voters poll as wanting Ross gone

70% of SF supervisors want Ross gone

Lee's approval rating remains over 70%

Coincidence, obviously.

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

In what universe is Ed Lee's approval rating at 70%? Last February's maybe, before he embarked on this journey. But the last poll had him down twenty points to 49%.
And that poll was a month ago. Who knows where it is today?

Posted by CitiReport on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:24 pm

I'm not surprised that this sordid machiavellian coup attempt has sullied Ed Lee's reputation. The whole thing is so transparent and it stinks to high heaven.

And btw people... enough with the "70%" meme already! Bogus numbers from a bogus poll. I wasn't even going to speak last night, because so many others were saying what was on my mind. But when one of those well-heeled, well-dressed, self-entitled, self-appointed advocates went up there and mentioned the bullshit poll, I marched right up there to do my best to demolish it. I don't know how well I did, because I had 60 seconds and I was pretty pissed (having had firsthand experience answering that crap poll). But I did my best.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 9:51 pm

Direct democracy will bring the healing we need. We can salve our wounds in the healing balm of a citywide vote. Only then can we move forward as the city family we were meant to be.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 10:07 pm

When the "results" of that last poll were released, I only guessed that the poll was a push poll based on the polling history surrounding this story, but your personal testimony -- both here and at City Hall -- has been very fortuitous.

Anti-democratic forces have flogged these bogus polls not only because they hoped thereby to put the greatest possible pressure on the supervisors, but also take advantage of the human tendency to wish to be in the majority group; in this case, falsely portraying public opinion was itself an attempt to control public opinion.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 7:28 am

rather than, say, those self-selected in very left or right wing circles, it is clear that the majority think Ross unsuited to serve.

That's not to say that Ross is unsuited to serve. Only that it seems clear that a majority believe that.

And if Ross had been appointed rather than elected, I believe that few believe that he would still be in the job.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 7:48 am

you have talked to all of them, or do you have a crystal ball?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 8:39 pm

You did just fine, Greg.
I, too, was the recipient of a similar poll (maybe it was the same one) and noticed all that you brought up. I'm glad you brought it to light. So thanks.

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 9:22 am

The 70% figure was an early poll. About the time of Lee's alleged perjury, the only other poll I have seen mentioned said 51%. Funny how we have 't heard any poll numbers. And I would be surprised if the numbers are not even less.

Posted by JUsher on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 10:40 pm

All the other districts had higher poll results favoring Ross's exit - up to 76% in one case.

My informal polling of people put's it around the 70% that everyone was talking about.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 1:21 am

Plus, that poll you are referring to, was an eggregious push poll, as anyone following the link can determine for themselves:


Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 1:54 am

If you have a link to a newer poll showing a lower number, please furnish it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 5:47 am

You write as if the d1 and d5 electorate are the same. Olague voted the right way to win her election as did Mar. Nothing courageous about it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 10:29 am

Olague is no shoe in for election. Davis has an energized campaign.

Christina is a profile in courage because she is not a woman of means, has no professional skillset to fall back on, and if she does not prevail, I doubt that there will be the ususal cushy public job made available to her after this.

I am proud to support both Christina and Julian as well as John Rizzo, fine candidates all.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 10:37 am

That's right, Olague for Suoervisor!!!
She's not Lee's puppet, she's Avalos' puppet...

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:18 am

Of course, it's OK if you're a puppet for the right people.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:59 am

As if it were courageous for Olague, at age fifty, not to have a "professional skillset to fall back on." Making ourselves employable is what those of us who were not born rich do to survive. Marcos harkens back to Olague congratulating herself at her swearing-in at having been born "with a stainless steel spoon in [her] mouth," as who the hell among us wasn't?

Olague could not possibly have voted with BrownPakLee on this one and not been slaughtered at the polls. This was a desperate move on her part, not a profile in anything. Tim keeps lowering and lowering and lowering the bar to accommodate Olague.

Posted by Judy on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

No surprise.
The progressives believes a sheriff that commits domestic violence against his wife, a convicted false imprisoner of his wife, on probation and domestic violence counseling for 52 weeks is well suited to hold one of the top law enforcement positions in SF.
And Avalos, Olague, Campos and Kim VOTED for this Convicted False Imprisoner and Domestic Violence Abuser, because he's progressive and favors were cashed in.
New Progressive Message: Domestic Violence is Progressive! Be proud and hurt the ones you love!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 10:54 am

As many know, I rarely agree with Tim. In this case, I completely disagree that Ross should have been reinstated, however, I do agree that Ross needs to humble himself.

The sad thing is that Ross saw this as yet another political campaign, hence the websites, the rallies, etc. Tim hit it right on the head, Ross' problem is his arrogance. I have spoken to many people who have interacted with Ross while doing business with the City and far and way, the consensus is that he is a massive jerk with a massive ego.

Ross should be humbled by this mess. He should realize that, as many supervisors pointed out, even those who supported him, that he caused every single bit of this train wreck. From the start, Ross has half-assed his apologizes, blamed others, and tried to paint this as a political witch hunt.

Hopefully Ross takes Avalos advice about becoming a changed man to heart. Sadly, I doubt he will.

Posted by D. Native on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:05 am

The left would not be overlooking his spousal abuse and lionizing him if they had any alternative.

But of course, they do not.

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

Word on the street, Ross is out with a vengeance on anyone that went against him.
Watch your back Mar, I hear the progs just labeled you a Rose/Willie/Newsom puppet and The Rookie Olague, just bitch-slapped Davis with her "Domestic Violence is Progressive Dammit!" vote for the bruiser.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:16 am

vengeance on any of the 70% of Sf'ers who think he is a worthless piece of abusive slime

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:29 am

The "progressive" machine has plenty of power to wreak havoc, though. I wouldn't be surprised to see some stealthy backing of David Lee just to get revenge on Mar.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:00 pm

No Progressive worth his weight in organic produce will ever back up David Lee. Rent Control has always been a progressive issue and it is a well known fact that David Lee wants to roll back Rent Control protections and Instant Runoff Voting. If David Lee wins, that will give the Moderates the necessary votes to do that.

Progressives know it is BEST to back up Eric Mar whom they agree with 80% of the time instead of David Lee who doesn't have a Progressive (or Democratic) bone in his body.

Progressives need to start thinking about being competitive in ALL eleven districts and not barricade ourselves in the the comfort of Districts 5, 6, and 9. I am not comfortable with the prospect of giving the Moderates another district.

Posted by N Judah Rider on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 2:47 pm

and well said, but with two caveats:

One, the term "moderates" is a hackneyed cliche. Let's try to focus on saying right-left, progressive-corporatist, or pro-people vs. pro-business. We can save "moderate" for when some real moderates come along which isn't that often. Let's *not* fall into the trap of believing national media coverage of San Francisco as being so "far left" that anyone not identified as a progressive must be moderate. Righties are righties; i.e.: Stop and frisk.

Two, in suggesting that Mar will lose now, I think the earlier commenter was pointing out that as much as we want Mar to prevail, progressive politicians have to disabuse themselves of the mainstream media bs idea that moving towards the right is always the answer for progressives. Moving to the right is a good strategy for winning *IF YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT*. Those on the left need to stand for what they believe in and what their constituents believe in.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 6:32 pm

The are democrats, or unregistered, or on the liberal wing of the GOP. They support abortion and gay marriage, they support reasonable taxes but not excessive taxes, and oppose or are neutral on foreign wars.

Trying to discredit anyone who opposes extreme left-wing politics as being similarly right-wing is an insult to the vast, silent majority of people in this city who don't spend 24/7 being activists and agitators.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2012 @ 1:25 am

That was the real Christina, finally?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:12 am

Clearly this was a gift from Olague to the "progressive community" - the SFBG in particular. I am sure that the progressive community will continue to hammer her like they have been now that she voted to save the progressive communities current darling.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:34 am

As I said before, I think she was sensing her campaign was in big trouble, and it was a Hail Mary pass to save it. We'll see if it works, but it has certainly generated a lot of goodwill in her district.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 9:24 pm

""Mirkarimi's biggest political and personal flaw has always been his ego, which at times bordered on arrogance.""

When you bring up this case, his "arrogance" is often mentioned. A SFUSD employee told me he called her one day at her office and yelled a string of obscenities at her. I heard similar stories from several sources. I think this is the reason he got only lukewarm support from many people.

Still, I believe in restorative justice, too. Maybe this episode will be a blessing in disguise for him.

Posted by Troll the XIV on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:52 am

How career employees will function under someone most of them clearly did not want back in office, how that impacts overall morale etc... Detractors here will mutter about how that doesn't matter - that sheriff deputies and employees should just do their job professionally and shut up. But that's not really how law enforcement agencies work, or at least work well, so what's really important here is how this department ends up functioning in the wake of Ross' return. We should all hope for the best because it matters to every San Franciscan that we have an open, clean and well-functioning sheriff's office.

We also heard a lot of whispering about "justice" being carried out against those who publicly stood up against Ross and Eliana during this whole debacle. State and federal agencies, particularly the FBI, are going to be keeping VERY close watch on the official organs of this city, in particular the sheriff's office, to ensure it's not being used as one man and one woman's personal vengeance machine against those they have repeatedly accused of ruining their lives and trying to destroy their family. Ross walks a knife's edge here - he and Eliana BOTH better make sure everything they do and say and how they operate are totally above reproach now. The FBI is not the SFPD.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 11:56 am

Of course, Ivory Madison and her family still live two doors down from the Mirkarimi menagerie. Considering his dodgy history with guns, should she be worried?

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:02 pm

After all, it started in violence.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:12 pm

After seeing the parade of miscreants and crazies ranting in Ross' favor last night I sure as hell wouldn't feel safe if those backers knew where I lived. I wouldn't feel at all safe being publicly identified against Ross and his wife now that they're back in control of one of the city's law enforcement agencies. We all read the numerous posts here threatening vengeance if the sheriff was to retake control - personally I take them at their word. Don't ever think a crazy is incapable of acting on what they say they'll do - we have FAR too long a history of just that type of thing in this city to not take it seriously.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

I run in progressive circles and have never heard ANYONE, including Ross mention a single word about seeking vengeance against anyone. But I suppose this will be the latest meme you will run with. Shame on you!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 2:49 pm

say something very different. SF has a long history of political violence - it's only wise to consider all the options. Ross is arrogant and vengeful, he's a very powerful man again - woe unto those who stood against him.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 3:23 pm

But at least many of the commenters here have come to realize that Troll II's comments are *never* to be taken to be the work of an honest or decent person.

Yes, political violence... hmmm... that was Dan White?

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 6:35 pm

wife who can turn the tables on his sorry ass in a minute.

He's neutered, and he knows it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:06 pm

I know Official Misconduct. Official Misconduct is a friend of mine. This is not Official Misconduct.

Posted by Guest Charley_sf on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

I've long supported Ross. His unwillingness to deal with his issues has cost him politically, such as the Board President's race in 2009 and constrained his realm of the possible as substantive political policy accomplishments goes.

Now that his each and every move is going to be under a public microscope, he has no choice but to work through his issues and emerge a better father, husband, public servant and human being.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 12:42 pm

Silly me for even looking at the Chron; I should be flogged. This is way better including the comments. I would be shocked if anyone other than the Chron was shocked by the outcome. I do think in my opinion Olague and Mar increased their electoral prospects. Doubt even the Mayor thought he would get 9 supes to agree on any issue of controversy, much less one with an unclear at best incident, abuse of the allged "victim" by the political and legal process, and rather vague aka unconstitutional criteria for removal from office. I thought that Olague, Cohen, and perhaps Mar had the most eloquent statements and I found the Nieves column quite compelling. Seems to me all supes acted consistent with their electoral ambitions and district leanings - which is neither good or bad but in fact the point of district elections - electing like minded representatives. Bucking the district is not brave but contrary to the concept. And for the silly supes so offended by the crude rabble of the rousers, fools that's the point - elected officials are expected to be articulate and have unlimited time to speak; the "rabble" indeed the public that elected you and to whom you are indebted have 2 minutes to spout their views, yet they knowingly elected you to be more articulate than them. It comes with the territory. Like the 2 public commenters after the vote said. Sorry to disagree with the dedicated DV advocates but the original incident did not seem to me to rise to the brouhaha around it. But thanks to the live broadcast for giving me a flavor of the city where I spent 34 wonderful years and left part of my soul and heart and had to leave for economic reasons or rather improvement getting my little house on the hill, garden, roses, fruit trees and 2 big funloving dogs to go hiking with.

Posted by Brocke on Oct. 10, 2012 @ 2:29 pm