Daly's Buck Tavern, a progressive hangout, is closing

|
(72)
Chris Daly's new political job took him away from the bar, where he held court his first year out of office.
Steven T. Jones

When leftist firebrand Chris Daly left the Board of Supervisors two years ago, amid political treachery that effectively ended a decade of progressive control over the body, the bar that he took over and operated – the Buck Tavern – became a gathering place for progressive activists. It was almost like a government in exile following a coup d'etat.

That changed a bit over the last year as Daly became the full-time political director of SEIU Local 1021 and dropped his regular bartending gigs, although the Buck still showcased community events. But as their lease was set to expire on Oct. 31, Daly and co-owner Ted Strawser were unable to negotiate a new one on terms they could afford, to find a new space, or to find a buyer that would keep the Buck running.

So the Buck Tavern, under the helm of a politico that the SF Weekly once-dubbed Captain Outrageous – in an article recognizing his role in getting a better deal for the city hosting the America's Cup (and, of course, denying ours) – is set to sink at the witching hour on Halloween. That's right, the Buck is going under.

“We've been able to do some really cool things with the space in terms of housing a community of people,” Daly told us. “We had a good run.”

That community is invited for a last hurrah at the Buck on Oct. 31, with nautical-themed costumes requested. So, ye scurvy dogs, come grab some grog and toast the motley crew that proudly sailed these stormy seas before they descend to Davy Jones locker. Arghhh!

Comments

Caffe trieste just closed. The previous owners beat it. etc...

Posted by matlock on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 6:30 pm

"...the greed of parasites who don't create anything with their labor, but live off rents from people who actually work for a living."

I don't suppose it's worth my time in this forum to propose that landlords do a bit more than lie back and collect rent checks, is it? (No, I'm not one.)

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 8:08 am

Ridiculous.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 9:31 am

The Buck was a place for all of us - for us to come together in healing as brothers and sisters. It will definitely be missed by so many of our progressive family.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 2:50 pm

whatever.

Posted by steamhoster on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 3:20 pm

complaint is pretty good, the progressives couldn't get together to scheme "one of their own" into office. The progressives got out schemed and it's all so unfair. The city has been electing political moderates to the mayors office for some time, moderates tend to win city wide elections, and it's all so unfair that the progressives didn't get to scheme "one of their own" in.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 4:55 pm

Because they're dumb and they tend to think people operate altruistically in politics. They often fail to use power effectively and when they do it's usually misplaced - as with the enormous amount of energy poured into keeping Ross Mirkarimi in office while allowing a scheming witch like Christina Olague to get away with so much just because of her single vote on that issue.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 11:26 am

They are out schemed because corporate power has identified ways to coopt them by offering them claims on public resources, either nonprofits or unions. Once there is a price point, then power has professional progressives by the gonads and has no compunctions about playing for keeps.

The death of runoffs in political campaigns has cut off the oxygen supply to progressives because instead of everyone coming together to work through past differences, it is only the professionals who care about campaigns given that their meal ticket is predicated upon playing nice with power.

That exclusivity is the incentive to cut off access to campaigns as they've cut off access to government decision making to anyone else. Hopefully, they are simply playing musical chairs on the deck of the titanic, and their political demise will portend a withering of their professional pay points and exacerbate the death spiral.

This is regretful, because others will suffer, but the professionals have had plenty of warnings, warnings which they've ignored. But it is also beneficial in that they will no longer be able to run interference to intercept demands for honest government by SF residents.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 11:51 am

>"The death of runoffs in political campaigns has cut off the oxygen supply to progressives because instead of everyone coming together to work through past differences,"

Exactly, Progressives are stupid. They fought like heck to get RCV on a March 2002 ballot (turnout=30%). So clever! Last year they fought like crazy to keep it even though it has been sucking the life out of them for a decade.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 12:11 pm

I'll concede you have direct experience with campaigns which exceeds my own -- and I do understand your point with regard to the fence mending which takes place during run-off season -- but I think your philosophy ignores the beneficial effect of IRV that prevails throughout campaign season.

While fence mending takes place during run-offs, under IRV candidates are rewarded for enunciating and elaborating common ground they share with fellow competitors; there is less reason for fence mending because each is interested in not alienating the voters who might place them on their ballots and second and third choices.

Really, I think it is a wash as far as local politics go, but when taking national presidential politics into consideration and the advantage of promoting a system which might ultimately break the deadlock of two-party representation, IRV must be seen as a wholly positive development.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 12:14 pm

Good point, lilli, as always. RCV is a good thing because the candidates subserviently pay lip service to each other during the campaign in hopes of catching the crumbs of each others 2nd and 3rd place votes.

Who needs the regular system where they had to rally around a powerful standard bearer and come up with a progressive campaign that best resonated with the voters.

Yup, having them fall over each other in debates is much better. Write to your supervisor and remind them of how great RCV is for Progressives.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 12:39 pm

There is no evidence on the table that supports your line of argument and conclusion. There is mounting evidence to the contrary.

Steven Hill's political malpractice claimed that IRV implemented locally would translate in due time to IRV at the partisan level. Over the decade that has not happened, the Democrats, locally aided by their progressive cohort, have effectively destroyed the local Green Party. So we're not going to be seeing any Greens competitively contesting the AD, Senate or House seats in SF any time soon.

The Greens and Hill were mistaken in that it was not fear of spoiling the Democrats that kept folks from voting Green, it was the wing nuts who we ran for office with whom the electorate did feel comfortable vesting the keys to the government because they showed up claiming to have good ideas.

The increase in IRV related kumbiya over the past ten years has been tantamount to unilateral disarmament for progressives. I'd prefer to take my chances in the circular firing squad, thanks.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 1:03 pm

but I remain unconvinced.

I like being able, on occasion, to vote for the "forlorn hope" without worrying that I'll be making my run-off choices that much more bleak.

I think the problem of having too many candidates diluting the vote turns such elections into random events.

More democracy is better, not less. It would be great if we could have elections which would only reduce the pool of candidates by one each round -- like on one of those "reality shows" I've never watched -- and I think IRV essentially mimics exactly that.

I'm still willing to be convinced though, and respect your opinion.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 2:09 pm

...that an election system that is undeniably progressive hasn't been great for "progressives." What could that possibly mean?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 8:54 am

I will point out how amusing it is to see the same troll who argued *against* pushing back Mirkarimi's reinstatement vote until after the election now lamenting that D5 voters might exclusively rely (ostensibly) on the information about the vote.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 12:01 pm

I think it's basically because they are dumb. They followed Aaron Peskin as a leader because he had a beard so they figured he must be smart. After all, he has a BA from UC Santa Cruz. It was a significant factor in their marginalization. Controlling the DCCC in this Presidential election year would have been a big deal but he wasn't nearly up to it. And they still think he is a smart guy.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 12:07 pm

Although I have to admit her scheming around the Mirkarimi issue was much better than I expected. She's never had a clever idea which hasn't been implanted in her tiny brain by someone more intelligent than her, which isn't very difficult considering she's borderline differently-abled.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 1:53 pm

Some of them are quite well educated, not real smart just well educated.

Progressives think the general public is chomping at the bit to agree with them, it's the other guys who are fooling the dumb peasants into voting wrong. The far right thinks the same way.

The progressives tried to scheme their way into the mayors offie, they just got out schemed. The progressives are "well educated" true believer and they got beat by common politicians.

Steves complaint that there was something underhanded is comical, his side was just as underhanded, they lost. If his scummy conniving won out it would be an untainted victory.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 5:56 pm

Hey, you don't think a Progressive could actually run a private business, do you?

That's why they all go into government, silly...

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly Persistent on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 6:25 pm

I did some consulting years ago with some various progressives wanting to set up different businesses. I explained all the laws and what not they had to follow and they were aghast. They had no idea about the various taxes and fees, workmans comp rates were shocking to them etc...

Posted by matlock on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 6:00 pm

Well, Oct 31 Buck Tavern sounds like the place to be....I'll see about some nautical costume. Yes, it was a good run. Thanks Chris and Ted & co for making it happen while it lasted.

Posted by Daniele E. on Oct. 23, 2012 @ 9:58 pm

Wow, what a shame. Chris Daly can't run a business and now it's going under. Poetic, in a way.

The dying screeches of the progressives aka LOSERS is louder as we see them go away. All they have left is the Shithead Sheriff, a couple of Hugo Chavez wannabes who are anti business, and a few hacks who will sell them out for a few pieces of silver for their re-election campaigns.

Meanwhile, the City moves on, and those that work for a living and not off government make things happen, while the progressives can't even control the dole anymore - Willie and company outsmarted them!

Don't let the door hit you on the way to Oakland or some other crime ridden warren.

Posted by Buck the Buck on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 8:03 am