The billionaire attack on D5

|
(155)
Billionare mailer tries to sink Olague over her vote on the sheriff

The attack on Sup. Christina Olague, funded by a couple of right-wing billionaires, is in full swing in District 5, with mailers, robocalls, a social-media buy and even TV ads. It’s a disgraceful effort to buy an election in the final week, a flood of sleaze that’s outrageous even by modern political standards.

On the surface, the PAC called San Francisco Women for Responsibility and an Accountable Supervisor is talking about domestic violence. One mailer features a woman whose daughter was killed by an abuser saying she is “appaled” that Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi still has his job -- and that Olague voted not to throw him out. A 60-second TV ad features Ivory Madison, the Mirkarimi neighbor whose video was the centerpiece of the campaign to oust the sheriff.

But the PAC is entirely funded by Ron Conway, his wife Gayle, and Thomas Coates. Conway hasn’t been a leading voice on domestic violence issues, and neither has Coates -- they are business people who are primarily interested in making money. In the case of Conway, he’s someone who has publicly announced that he wants to “take San Francisco back” from progressives and install more big-business-friendly politicians at City Hall. Coates is a real-estate investor who has spent a lot of time and money fighting to limit tenant-protection laws.

Why are these two so interested in the D5 race? Well, in an email, Conway told me that “the Committee that my wife Gayle and other women, including longtime anti-domestic violence advocates, have formed and that I and others support exists solely to oppose Christina Olague because she put her own politics ahead of women and the victims and survivors of domestic abuse.”

But it’s eminently clear that there’s a larger agenda here, that the wealthy donors are using the domestic violence issue to get rid of a supervisor who they see as not sufficiently friendly to their economic interests. And there’s probably a bit of payback involved: Olague defied the mayor with her Mirkarimi vote -- and while a lot of observers still say this was all a setup to demonstrate her independence in time for the election, Conway, one of the mayor’s closest allies and advisors, clearly didn’t get that message.

Coates lives in Los Angeles. Conway lives in Pacific Heights. Neither of them has any connection the D5 -- except for their desire to get rid of Olague. They’ve taken a real, serious issue -- domestic violence -- and used it to their own political advantage.

We haven’t endorsed Olague, but we know a shady scam when we see one, and that’s exactly what this is. The voters of District 5 should reject this kind of outside-influence politics and not let a couple of billionaires decide the future of their the city.

Comments

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 8:49 am

...writers am I missing, Lilli? Is Salman Rushdie competent to talk about politics in India and the Muslim world?

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 12:14 pm

a person like Andrea Shorter (member of the womens studies committee of SF since 2001) taking the stance she does on Mirkirimi.

She takes the position that 99% of SF progressives would be taking if Mirkirimi was non-progressive.

We likely differ on our views of Shorter as a SF activist, but her views are consistent with the history of progressive positions, while those progressives attacking her are comical stooges.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 5:11 pm

Again, Madison would be hailed as a progressive hero if Lopez's husband had been of "the machine."

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 8:21 am

Can you prove that?

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 8:13 am

"Yes, we trashed Madison by quoting her"

All Ross supporters did was quote her? I seem to remember Progressives accusing Ivory of covertly working for "Downtown" interests.

Please show the quote where she stated that she was operating for the benefit of "Downtown".

Posted by snoozers on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 12:27 am

Hmmm... I guess so.

Guilty as charged then. We didn't just use her own words against her. We also factored in to account her actions.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 5:33 am

How someone who supported Mirkarimi and Bock during the 2011 election could be considered "downtown" makes no sense.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 8:34 am

...is now the equivalent of working for downtown interests? No matter the reason?

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 9:59 pm

between misdemeanor false imprisonment and battery. Seems she was too busy reading comic books during her criminal law class.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 3:29 pm

By his own admission, Mirkarimi committed battery. He wasn't convicted of it, but he committed it.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 8:37 am

Ross couldn't speak freely about it prior to the disposition of his case because it was, at its heart, a political railroad-job all along.

He did something wrong; he grabbed Eliana's arm. He knows it, she knows it, everybody knows it.

The fact is that his *relatively* minor wrongful act was blown out of proportion in an attempt to reverse the election result of Nov. 2011, and it was done for politcal reasons; to satisfy the desires of money men both big and small and their greedy and mean-spirited reactionary cohort.

Those who actually hold the importance of DV prosecution were *used* by these reactionary forces who provably do not care one whit about DV.

Now that Ivory Madison has established her true allegiance to downtown interests through her recent T.V. attack piece for a group also attacking Christina Olague on public power, it's becomes obvious how valid it is to question anyone who purports to focus on DV while attacking Ross Mirkarimi: you for instance.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 9:17 am

>"The fact is that his *relatively* minor wrongful act was blown out of proportion in an attempt to reverse the election result of Nov. 2011, and it was done for politcal reasons; to satisfy the desires of money men both big and small and their greedy and mean-spirited reactionary cohort."

No, that's not the fact. That's the way that YOU look at it. Two entirely different things. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept that the way that you view something is not necessarily the FACT.

That's your problem. I just bring it up because it constantly pollutes the board with disturbing posts.

Posted by Another Guest on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 9:59 am

an arm grab being prosecuted as DV when there is no police complaint by the person grabbed, *then* you can question my statement of fact.

As for polluting the board...

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 10:53 am

@lilli, I remember that 'challenge' before, or something very similar with D.Native. As he pointed out, the situation that you describe would not be in the newspapers. As D.Native pointed out, you're asking someone to spend hours or days going through records at the Hall Of Justice.

At the same time, D.Native was asking YOU for an example of en elected LE official who plead guilty, was sentenced and DIDN'T resign. We're still waiting for your response. This is a much more high profile incident that would be in the papers as opposed to the obscure examples that you ask for.

We're still waiting.

Until then....feel free to continue to amuse us with your mindless babblings.

Posted by Another Guest on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 11:18 am

They were among the posts I made to the SFGate cite which were erased due to the duplicitous actions of trolls such as yourself.

There are plenty of AHM cops and real estate interest simps on that site, why don't you put the question out on my behalf there? I'm sure if such an example exists *somebody* knows about it.

The only case which has been produced so far was a man grabbing his *pregnant* wife's arm and throwing her into some bookcases; where either the victim or her live-in dad called the police and she filed a complaint; and wherein the woman's five-year-old son testified to the event.

There's a reason I'm sure, why no case like the one against Mirkarimi has come to light: NONE SUCH EXISTS.

While DV law is for good or bad worded in such a way as to enforce "zero tolerance" in the real world honest cops use discretion during their investigations and DAs use discretion in bringing charges. In the Mirkarimi case, all discretion was thrown to the wind for the sake of political gain.

The point was not to remove Mirkarimi so much as to shift the balance of the board of supervisors more rightward; to eliminate rent control, eliminate neighborhood protections against rapacious development; to further moves towards making local law fit in with police-state mentality.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

@lilli, the question was: Can you provide one example of an elected LE official who plead guilty, was sentenced while in office bu didn't resign.

Apparently you can't do it. I tried reading the rest of your babblings but they are just too off the deep end. For example, saying that the point was not to remove Mirkarimi but to shift the balance on the BOS, where he didn't even have a seat.

I'm going to drop the matter now out of humanitarian concerns because your babblings are becoming alarmingly incoherent.

Posted by Another Guest on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 1:27 pm

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/phillipsburg/index.ssf/2012/03/phillipsb...

I told you AG, I've already made several of these citations. Quit it with your lame trollery and come up with an example of a simple arm grab being prosecuted as DV. And -- just in hopes of pre-empting the BS that is sure to follow: make your example one that is free of other violence and any personal complaints to the police by the victim and/or her family.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 1:54 pm

Um, @lilli, the key word is 'elected'. Look at the thread. Beat detectives in Phillipsburg, PA aren't elected, they have bosses who can fire them and aren't held to the same standards as are elected officials.

You can't find one example of an elected official who did what Mirkarimi did, obviously. That's the point the Ed Lee and the rest of us are on -- if Mirkarimi had any integrity he would have resigned when he pleaded guilty, just like every other elected official who did so. Mirkarimi's refusal to resign offends and disgusts people who expect a certain level of honor from our elected officials.

But congrats on finding a detective on Phillipsburg, PA who's boss let him stay on after a conviction.

FYI...no matter how many times you babble that you provided an example...you didn't. But that probably won't stop you.

Posted by Another Guest on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 2:30 pm

And it is most amusing that you would hold that *elected* officer staying in office is more objectionable than an *unelected* officer remaining in office.

An *elected* officer can be removed by a vote of the people -- not by the mayor unless it's a felony showing moral turpitude, by-the-way -- but an unelected officer cannot.

Previously, I did provide numerous examples of elected and unelected police and sheriff personel remaining in their positions despite prosecution and conviction. All those citations were erased with trolls such as yourself contrived to have my account at SFGate erased.

I let you try to explain how an unelected officer staying in his position after conviction is more onerous than one put into office by a vote of the people. If you can, I'll let you off the hook for either providing an example of someone's arm grabbing being charged as DV or shutting the heck up.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 4:15 pm

Conway and Coates are also the primary funders of the Yes on B campaign. One has to ask oneself what interest these billionaires have in our parks? This is part of the same effort to takeover San Francisco and privatize our parks. Voters should reject these interests and VOTE NO ON B.

Posted by Guest DA on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 1:31 pm

The battle is on team Breed Vs team Olauge both are downtown tools, in the playbook of Karl Rove create a distraction. The only losers will be to the progressive's in D5
SFBG Redmond wake up please stop promoting downtown intrests.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 1:32 pm

I don't know if you've ever seen Christina Olague sniff that her vote is not for sale. The ones that are sure of their own incorruptibility are always the ones to watch out for. Better to just not put yourself in a position to be corrupted in the first place.

Posted by Gust on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 1:41 pm

Supporting a top law enforcement official who pleaded guilty to DV will have many more unintended consequences. Nice work, "Progressives".

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 1:45 pm

to "domestic violence". see the statute..don't ask Ivory Madison what a statute is..

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 3:32 pm

She must have "Ivory Madison" as a Google alert.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 4:04 pm

She's always had "special needs" and it seems that any questioning of her logic sends her off in a tangent which nobody can figure out. Frequently she begins muttering about "her nemesis" Christine Craft.

I know Christine and she gives my daughter a wide berth to avoid getting her all agitated, but dear little Troll II imagines her being behind every door and around every corner. We used to try to humor her, but as you see, she's just gotten worse.

Posted by Troll II's mom on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 4:29 pm

Your comment just fills me with sadness.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 4:42 pm

...how ChrisCraft has squandered her considerable feminist credibility with this strange hero-worship of the male-dominated "progressive" "movement." I wonder if the Buck Tavern carried a stock of knee pads out by the ice machine.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 1:05 pm

Not guilty of DV? Why is 52 weeks of domestic violence counseling part of his sentence?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 9:50 pm

of his sentence?"

A: Because he and his lawyers drew the line at wearing pink women's lingerie on the outside of his sheriff's uniform.

Remember, Ross Mirkarimi faced trial in a courthouse shaded by billboards proclaiming his guilt and a jury pool horribly contaminated by the sort of propaganda I'm sure you personally played a great part in promoting.

And let me add -- because you may not know this -- but here in my country we have a jurisprudential system wherein the guilty are *PRESUMED* *INNOCENT.*

As a practical matter -- and just to keep this on a real simple level for you -- what it means is that we *DON'T* talk about accused persons as being guilty of that which they have only been charged with.

We certainly wouldn't use the terms of such a plea agreement to infer guilt on a person.

Bottom line is that the DV counselling that Ross is undergoing makes him a better sheriff than he would otherwise be, and that is a really good thing.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 10:13 pm

Just give it up. He plead guilty. He admitted what he did was wrong. Everyone seems to be able to accept that what Ross did was in fact domestic violence- including Ross, except his fanatical supporters like you.

Posted by D. native on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 11:26 pm

The court ordered DV counseling is to help him become a better Sheriff. It's really just 52 weeks of job training. LOL.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 12:11 am

Mirkarimi supporters seem to think she essentially is when defending Lopez's ludicrous testimony, but not on Madison's actual legal expertise.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 8:22 am

reside in the "fact-based" community.

"Law & Politics

After being Editor in Chief of my Law Review, graduating from law school, working at the California Supreme Court, and serving as a James Madison Law Fellow for Americans United for Separation of Church & State, I wisely chose not to practice law."

http://web.archive.org/web/20080820022830/http://www.ivorymadison.com/la...

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 8:36 am

...than lack of expertise. Most of the lawyers I know wish they were doing something else.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

Is she going to give that back?

This couldn't be more hypocritical. The money isn't less dirty when you accept it than when the "evildoer" spends it against you.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

Do Tim Redmond and all at the Bay Guardian live in D5? If not, then why is it okay for you to try to influence who represents the district but it isn't okay for someone who lives in D2? Makes no sense. Also, given that the Conways gave $500 each to Olague in August, I think the issue is simply that, like many of us, they are repulsed by her Mirkarimi vote. The BG doesn't care about Olague, this is all about Mirkarimi to you, and the contortions you get into to make your arguments are mindblowing.

Posted by Ryan C on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 3:02 pm

She's FAR too good for the likes of the Conways!

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 3:36 pm

SFBG will not exist in a few years - it's basically a couple of tired, dated hippies who try to keep the flag flying for a form of socialism that even Europe has rejected.

Tired, sad losers.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 3:26 pm

it and commenting on its articles?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 3:33 pm

ZZzzzzzzZZzZzzzzzzz........zzzzz

Posted by thatsthewayitis on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

That the Chronicle reports the news? hahahahahahahaaha

Posted by CitiReport on Nov. 02, 2012 @ 7:12 pm

...and publish private documents like Madison's Stanford Law admissions essay.

Posted by Hortencia on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 8:24 am
Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 8:40 am

It became part of the public record. You seem to misunderstand the difference between evidence in a criminal trial and a law school transfer essay written for a private college under the privacy guaranteed the writer under law. One of your many, many misunderstandings.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 12:34 pm

Numerous citations have already been given to show that Madison -- who isn't "Eliana's friend," *obviously* -- has portrayed herself as a lawyer frequently; and why Eliana reasonably expected she had attorney-client priviledge.

The court erred. Big time. I don't say this based on my own legal training, but the opinions of those I trust who have such training.

As for the admission's essay, there is no such privacy "under law" as you pretend. If you write a letter to someone, they can share it with whomever they wish to share it with. Law school admission's essays are essentially letters intended to be read by several people.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 2:00 pm

without a student's consent - including transcripts and essays. A school may release dates of attendance, honors etc... and can be compelled to release information under judicial order, otherwise it is totally prohibited from releasing any information without the student's OK. Look up 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99.

An application for admission to any school is considered private information. Only the applicant may authorize its release to the public. Violating this statute risks a school's ability to participate in the federal student loan program and other US Department of Education programs.

You're a stone-cold idiot who has absolutely no idea of what you speak. You're now arguing that admissions staff who read applications may freely discuss and share the applicant's personal information as they wish - something, at a minimum, for which an admissions officer would lose their job. Your assertion is entirely false.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 4:54 pm

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a Federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all schools that receive funds under an applicable program of the U.S. Department of Education.

I didn't know Stanford University had become part of the public school system.

I'm such an idiot.

Posted by lillipublicans on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 5:28 pm

Stanford participates in Department of Education's federal student loan program as well as other DOE programs. ANY school which participates in ANY Federal Department of Education program is required to adhere to 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99. It's not a choice.

You're way out of your league here. You've been proven wrong on this point again and again.

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 5:54 pm