• No categories

Politics Blog

Election night parties in SF

2

By Bay Guardian News Staff

There will probably be hundreds of parties in the Bay Area marking this historic election. But with 22 local ballot measures and seven of the 11 seats on the Board of Supervisors up for grabs, there are more official campaign parties than ever before (which we’ll do our very best to cover as we bring you our usual live election coverage here on this blog).
All the parties are free and they generally start around 8 p.m. when the polls close. So take a look at our list so far and feel free to add to it in the comments section with the ones we’re missing. And don’t forget to vote.

Fake Demo slate mailer

2

1103slate.jpg

By Tim Redmond

These things show up in mailboxes every year, but since some people are still fooled by them, let me set the record straight.

The “Voter Information Guide for Democrats” is NOT the Democratic Party’s slate card. This misleading piece of junk comes out of a political consulting firm in Sherman Oaks, where hack Larry Levine has been using it for years to trick voters. There are no real endorsements here; the piece is a giant campaign ad, a for-profit operation where endoermsements are either for sale to the highest bidder or just stuck on there randomly to give credibility to the paid positions.

This year’s card says No on H; the Democratic Party has endorsed Yes on H. But PG&E paid a lot of money to be on the card, so the card carries PG&E position.

Ignore it. Toss it in the recycling bin. Vote Yes on H.

Obama Street! (for a while, anyway)

6

1103obama.jpg

By Tim Redmond

Local artist Alex Zecca (a friend, and I love his work) very nearly turned Bush Street into Obama Street last night. He and a co-conspirator managed to get all the way from Presidio to Grant before the SFPD “descended with lights and sirens.” He managed to stay out of jail, but had to pull all the stickers down.

Still: Shows it can be done. And such beautiful work.

The landlords attack David Chiu

1

1103gop3.jpg

By Tim Redmond

Jack Davis, the notorious landlord lobbyist and consultant, has put up some $8,000 of his own cash to attack David Chiu, the progressive front-runner in District 3. His piece seeks to portray Chiu as a friend of the Republicans; what’s it’s really about is that Chiu is a friend of rent control.

The developers and landlords have spend a fortune on this race; they’re trying to elect Joe Alioto.

For the record, David Chiu has the endorsement of the San Francisco Democratic Party. He’s not supported by the Republicans. This is a last-minute campaign trick.

The Green Energy Revolution

4

A well-thought-out piece by the manager of the Yes on H campaign:

By Julian Davis

The United States of America and the Planet are teetering on the edge of economic and environmental collapse. We are now well aware of the threat of global warming and the catastrophic climate change it is causing. We know we have to curtail greenhouse gas emissions to heal the planet and sustain life on Earth. We are also in the midst of a serious financial crisis the depths of which we are coming to understand more and more as the days go by. But the economic instability we are experiencing is not just a result of toxic mortgage backed securities and the credit crunch. It’s not just the folly of Wall Street, it’s the folly of Big Oil, it’s the folly of our energy policy, and it is the folly of war.

We borrow trillions of dollars, mainly from China, to violently secure fossil fuel energy resources in the Middle East. This is not only environmentally unsustainable, it is economically unsustainable. Our current energy consumption and geo-political existence are destroying the planet and the American economy.
We are actually amazingly fortunate that there is one answer to our biggest problems. Clean Energy. We cannot save the planet from environmental disaster without developing clean and renewable sources of energy and we cannot save our economy in the long-term without becoming energy independent. Building a massive renewable energy infrastructure will heal the planet, stabilize the economy, create jobs, lift people out of poverty, and relieve us from war.

Our generation has a responsibility to figure this out now. San Francisco has the immediate opportunity with Proposition H to lead the world in the fight against global warming and lead the nation in the quest for energy independence.
Let’s not underestimate what one city can do. San Francisco has been out in front on so many issues in the past, from gay marriage to the most progressive minimum wage in the country. Two years ago a bunch of young workers in San Francisco past a paid sick days measure and now Barack Obama is talking about implementing it nationally. Just a few months ago a rag tag group of San Francisco activists put a 100% Clean Energy initiative on the ballot. A few weeks later, Al Gore issued his now famous energy challenge to America. If San Francisco passes Prop H, other cities and other states and countries around the world will follow.

We now face the biggest economic crisis since the great depression. It has become glaringly apparent that the free market and unregulated rule by private profiteering financial institutions and corporations is not a model that will sustain a healthy economy in this country. Wall Street’s greed has been matched only by Big Oil companies that have made windfall profits while moving at a snail’s pace towards developing alternative energy sources. In San Francisco, financial mismanagement of the private-investor owned utility PG&E has left us with skyrocketing electric rates for natural gas and a paltry supply of renewable energy. It’s time for the public accountability and stewardship of our energy resources and infrastructure that we will get with Proposition H.

At this pivotal moment in history we are faced with profound choices about our place in the world and our future on the planet. We can continue with the folly of national debt, oil profiteering and war or we can create a new clean energy economy, a fearless new ‘new deal’ that builds the next great public works projects, employs the next generation of workers, and ensures peace and stability in the 21st century. With Proposition H, San Francisco will be ready to work with the next President and the federal government to lead the clean energy revolution and build the renewable energy infrastructure that we need to sustain life on earth.

“A first-rate love, all the way”

1

Guardian contributing videographer Lisa Pickoff-White, along with Marnette Federis, Gaelle Faure and Elizabeth Shemaria, has been following newlywed couple Jen and Iris around — and has put together an amazing multimedia biographical journalism project about their same-sex wedding. (You can view the entire fabulous project here.) Jen and Iris came from Atlanta to tie the knot in good ol’ SF, where it’s legal — at least for the next four days. And yes, this is another plea to help out the No on 8 campaign.

Watch below as they describe what a difference marriage makes in their lives …

The Chron’s supervisors

3

By Tim Remond

Interesting endorsements from the Chron.. I’m not surprised they gave Ross Mirkarimi the nod in D5; he has no real competition, and has done a great job in office from almost any perspective. But the nice words

he’s shown an ability to find common ground on many issues – and has pushed the mayor for more police foot patrols, authored a crackdown on rogue pot clubs and led efforts to ban plastic bags.

fit in with the Chron’s obvious bias in this election. Although Mirkarimi can push the political edge as well as anyone on the board (jeez, did the Chron even support the plastic-bag ban?), the daily paper lauds him for “an ability to find common ground.”

That seems to be why the Chron, which is typically in lock step with downtown’s agenda on local issues, chose Mark Sanchez, another Green, in D9. Sanchez, the paper says, has

proved to be a reasonable consensus builder as president of the Board of Education, and he’s promised to make civility and compromise a priority as supervisor.

I think civility is the word he used with us, and it’s a fine one (actually, I think all three of the D9 progressives can claim they’ll bring civility to the board). But what the Chron wants is “compromise,” which is a buzz word for getting along with, and not defying, the mayor.

It’s not exactly what I think of when I think of Sanchez, who as a progressive on the school board fought bitterly with Arlene Ackerman when she was school superintendent. And in fact, I just called Sanchez and he told me that “I didn’t use the word compromise.” But he did point out that he has a good relationship with the mayor on education issues, and that glimmer of hope was apparently enough for the Chron.

In D 11, the endorsement of Ahsha Safai comes as no surprise, but it’s a bit warped. The district, the Chron says,

needs an active leader who can work with other supervisors and City Hall figures.

(Who do you suppose those “other City Hall figures might be?)

The problem is that Safai has no real political experience and isn’t going to get along at all with the progressives on the board. He won’t even talk to us.

And in D3, Denise McCarthy gets the nod because

In facing a worsening city budget, she’s willing to consider the tough options of budget cuts and layoffs. Though her policy position put her on the left of the spectrum, she is open to other viewpoints and groups in this fractious corner of the city.

You see a pattern here?

The Chron wants people who will avoid fights and all play nicely with Newsom. That’s not what the legislative branch of government is supposed to do, particularly with a mayor who is so focused on running for governor that he isn’t spending much time running the city.

I’m not sure Sanchez is really going to be as willing to compromise as Chron seem to think… but then, I’m not sure the Chron endorsement means that much in D9.

Samuel L. Jackson: No on 8, m**f**ers!

4

OK, well not exactly, but he’s in the game:

as is Ms. Feinstein:

But where’s Arnie? In Ohio, stumping for McCain, sigh. Obama? Anyhoodle, the No on 8 folks just announced another matching funds drive, after malevolent Mormon spiders downed their site. This is your last chance to tell the Knights of Columbus to shove it up their Shriners!

UPDATE: And Bill “DOMA” Clinton!

PS — And don’t think us gays won’t remember this — there will be a TON of kiss-in fun if 8 passes, which it won’t, but just saying. I love tonsil-tickling my bf in Catholic churches. Just like the ’90s. Bitter? Maybe I am. But the $50 mill already spent on this foolishness could have funded how many food banks?

The other candidates in D3 and D 11

2

By Tim Redmond

We poured a lot of ink this week into the races in D1, D3 and D11,, since those are the swing districts.

And while most of what we wrote about focused on the front-running progressives in those races — Eric Mar, David Chiu and John Avalos — I don’t want anyone to forget that these are ranked-choice voting contests.

That means there will be no runoffs. Randy Shaw thinks that might be a bad thing; he says Avalos would easily beat Safai in a December runoff, but given the anti-Avalos money, I’m not sure that’s true.

At any rate, RCV is the process now — and in every one of these swing races, the outcome will depend on the second- and third-place votes.

So if you live in D1, D3 or D11, remember: It’s not enough just to put your top candidate first. It’s also important NOT to put Sue Lee, Joe Alioto or Ahsha Safai on your list at all. The don’t-vote-for vote is as important as the do-vote-for.

We’ve endorsed three candidates in D 11 and D 3. And I’ve urged that in D3, Chiu and Denise McCarthy work together to stop Alioto. As a matter of strategy, I think it makes sense to vote a full ballot in those districts. (I wish I could say the same in D1, but other than Eric Mar, there’s really nobody worth voting for, so bullet vote in that one.)

A classic Kopp smackdown

3

Watching former Sup. and State Sen. Quentin Kopp take on a bumbling politician or incompetant bureacrat used to be one of the great works of political theater in California. Now that he’s a retired judge, who has to show some sort of judicial temperament, you don’t see it as often, but this smackdown of Republican state Sen. Roy Ashburn, in a hearing on high-speed rail, is one for the ages.

(Thanks to Ken Bruce for the tip, and for pointing out the wonderful YouTube title:

October 23, 2008, in the California State Senate: Quentin Kopp delivers an epic smackdown to galactic
asshat Senator Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield

The Chron misses the dirty money story

2

By Tim Redmond

I’m glad to see that the San Francisco Chronicle is covering the downtown-money campaigns in District 1, 3 and 11. But the paper misses the real point. Not only is downtown spending a lot of money, it’s creating fake political groups and promoting outright lies.

Take this fake “San Francisco Democratic Club” that Sue Lee’s campaign consultants have fabricated in D1. A serious daily newspaper would be all over this story, but since the Chron has missed it, the San Francisco Democratic Party ought to force the issue. Chair Aaron Peskin has made good, strong comments, but why not pull together a press conference with all of the progressive members of the DCCC denoucing this fraud>

If we don’t stop it here and now, it’s going to keep happening.

UPDATE FRIDAY 10/31: Heather Knight at the Chron emailed me to say that the paper did cover the fake Democratic Club.I stand corrected. I still don’t think lies and bullshit coming out of downtown have gotten enough Chron attention, though. This is ongoing, big-story stuff, not small items for the insider column.

Guerrilla campaigning in District 1

4

by Amanda Witherell

lee10082a.jpg

Our SFBG email inbox contained these photos this morning, sent by “Subcomandante Marcos” who said they were a “guerrilla street response to your excellent story in this week’s issue.”

For those who missed it, here’s the story.

And more photos from Marcos. We love it when politics incite art!

lee10081a.jpg

lee10083a.jpg

Competing political narratives in SF

0

sfpic.jpg

By Steven T. Jones

San Francisco looks very different depending on where you stand. And that point is certainly being driven home this election season as voters hear two very different political narratives about The City.

One expresses great pride that San Francisco is setting an example for cities across the country in strongly opposing excessive militarism; mandating that workers receive a living wage and decent benefits; protecting tenants from eviction, harassment, and unaffordable rents; maintaining a social safety net; demanding developers provide community benefits; seeking clean energy sources; creating a tax structure that favors small local businesses over large corporations; standing up for the rights of the LGBT and immigrant communities; treating prostitution, drug use, and quality-of-life crimes as social problems rather than strictly criminal matters; and generally standing up for the broad public interest against the self-interest of the wealthy and privileged.

The other side mocks such namby-pamby ideals, arguing that only free markets unfettered by government regulation can create social and economic progress, and that anyone who doubts that is either stupid or unrealistic. They decry taxes (but expect taxpayer support for things like promoting tourism, sweeping streets of trash and the homeless, and subsidizing drivers and development) and consider government a bloated, malevolent entity that is far less trustworthy than corporations. Job creation is their top stated concern (but public sector jobs don’t count). They value unwavering patriotism, property rights, and robust, risk-taking capitalism and generally consider the poor and their sympathizers to be lazy, morally deficient complainers who deserve their lowly status. And they think progressives (actually, “ultra-liberal” is their preferred label) are destroying the city.

Which narrative rings true to you? Because where you stand will largely determine how you vote on Tuesday.

Yes on Prop H rally at PG&E’s house

1

by Amanda Witherell

Clean Energy Act supporters gathered in front of Pacific Gas & Electric corporate headquarters on Wed., Aug. 29, to mock the $10 million the utility company has spent opposing the legislation.

Dressed as construction workers, activists from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Green4All, and Green Guerrillas against Greenwashing, successfully erected three wind turbines in front of the PG&E building.

PG&E employees, penned behind a barricade and standing underneath a “Stop the Blank Check” banner watched the activists wrestle with enormous burlap bags of money, signifying the millions PG&E has dumped into the campaign opposing the measure that would move San Francisco more rapidly toward 100 percent renewable energy. PG&E alleges the measure is a blank check for supervisors because it allows them to issue revenue bonds to finance renewable power infrastructure. In fact, PG&E has written the entire check for the No on H campaign. As we pointed out in this week’s issue, it’s also shunting some of that money into supervisors’ races to support Mayor Gavin Newsom’s picks for the Board in districts 1, 3, and 11. Besides the fact that Newsom’s campaign director, Eric Jaye, also runs PG&E’s No on H committee, why might it be important for PG&E to have friends on the Board of Supervisors?

Well, if Prop H does pass, unlike the “blank check” lies PG&E is telling you about it, the SFPUC will conduct a study to explore the best way toward 100 percent renewables. If that includes a publicly-owned utility system (that would, by default, put PG&E out of business in San Francisco) the supervisors will still have to vote for it and vote for the bonds to do it. So, PG&E needs a board that’s friendly.

McCain will die

2

By Steven T. Jones

There’s a great website, He’s Going to Die, focused on the likelihood that John McCain would die while serving as president — leaving us with the absolutely frightening prospect of President Palin. Yikes!
It features actuarial tables and links to lots of stories about the poor health of the man who seeks to be the oldest president in American history. And for a great musical take on Palin, from a couple of “real Americans,” check this out:

Or this one, a pro-Obama diddy, from the same adorable couple:

Tom Ammiano and the Greens

14

By Tim Redmond

I respect the Green Party. We’ve endorsed a lot of Greens, from Matt Gonzalez to Ross Mirkarimi to Medea Bejamin. We even endorsed Nader the first time around. In San Francisco, the Greens are doing the right thing — they’re running local candidates for local office and building a base that way before they get all agitated about statewide and national races.

And if the Green Party wants to take the position that it endorses only Greens and not Democrats in partisan races, that’s fine, too.

This fall, though, the Greens endorsed Mark Leno for state Senate, saying that

We are pleased that Mark Leno has represented our Key Values well in the State Assembly, and therefore we endorse him for a promotion to the State Senate.

Again, that’s fine — we endorsed Leno, too, and he’ll be a great state Senator and will do his best to promote the progressive values that the Greens and I share.

So why did the party decline to endorse Tom Ammiano for state Assembly?

I mean, with all due respect to Leno (and I mean that, sincerely), Ammiano has always been more a leftist than Leno, and closer to the Greens core values. Leno endorsed Gavin Newsom for mayor. He’s supported more moderate Democrats in a lot of races. That’s not to say he isn’t a good legislator and shouldn’t get the Green nod — but if he’s good enough for the Greens, then Ammiano sure ought to be.

The party’s take on Tom?

We are disappointed that Ammiano has not followed Supervisor Mirkarimi’s lead in pushing for a Green approach to improving law enforcement, particularly as Mission residents feel that City officials have overlooked growing concerns about crime and public safety. Ammiano has also taken an increasingly partisan tone in recent years, and may as a result be ineffective in passing progressive legislation in Sacramento.

Gimme a Green Fucking Break, folks. Ammiano has been right there with Mirkarimi on foot patrols, against the ICE crackdown on immigrants, for progressive approaches to crime — certainly as much as Leno has. And “too partisan?” I’ve never, ever heard the Greens argue that one before.

No, I think this is simple: Leno endorsed Mark Sanchez, a Green, for supervisor. Ammiano endorsed a Sanchez rival, David Campos. Both are qualified candidates for supervisor; it would be entirely appropriate and reasonable for any progressive to support either of them. Penalizing Ammiano for not supporting Sanchez makes no political sense.

It’s a silly thing to fight about because both Leno and Ammiano are going to win overwhelmingly anyway, and I have no right to tell the Greens what to do with their endorsements — but this just looks awful. It looks petty and yes, partisan, and frankly, drives a wedge between the Greens and the left wing of the local Democratic Party, which is the last thing we need.

Grow up, Greens.

Where to celebrate or drown your sorrows

0

We’re in the process of pulling together a complete list of election night parties that we’ll post here before Tuesday (feel free to send me yours at steve@sfbg.com). In the meantime, if you’re not looking to party with local political luminaries and just want to find a public spot to drink and watch the returns roll in, our intern Katie Baker has found some spots for you.

By Katie Baker

Is it really almost over? I feel like I’m living in some kind of alternate reality, where we’ll be analyzing poll results and fretting over swing states until the end of time. This hasn’t only been a grueling election process for Obama and McCain — whether it’s the latest Sarah Palin wardrobe controversy or another 700 point DOW drop — it seems like there’s a new political crisis every time you refresh your RSS feed. We’re in the home stretch, but the most stressful day is still to come – wouldn’t you rather skip the nail-biting anticipation and just black out until November 5th ? It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat; there’s no reason to be sober on Election Night. Here’s a list of the best places to get wasted on November 4th, whether you end up celebrating or drowning your sorrows.

The nonsense about Daly

0

By Tim Redmond

And while I’m raving about the D1 race: The attempts to link Eric Mar to Chris Daly would be laughable if they weren’t so toxic.

This ad

despite its pretty lame graphics and production values, suggests that the three progressives in the swing districts are all Daly “puppets.”

A little reality here:

Chris Daly is not much of a power broker these days. You could argue that Aaron Peskin, board president and chair the Democratic Party, is pushing a slate of candidates, and that would be accurate. But Daly’s off in the wings. He’s termed out in two years, he knows he’s not that popular outside of his district and, while I like and respect Chris, none of these candidates (except possibly John Avalos, his former aide) would owe him anything.

Peskin, the DCCC and the Labor Council are the ones pushing Avalos, Mar and Chiu. But nobody wants to run ads in San Francisco saying that a candidate would be a puppet of the Democratic Party or the Labor Council. So they’ve picked a guy who polls badly in those districts.

I had this argument with Eric Jaye the other day. He kept telling me that there’s a “Peskin Machine” and that the DCCC is now Peskin and Daly’s personal political operation. Nobody who understands the San Francisco left would ever believe that.

The left is notoriously fractious. We fight with each other, we fight with our elected leaders – and most of us never do what we’re told unless we want to. Peskin has very little ability to enforce his will on the DCCC or the progressive movement; his constituents in both areas are just too independent.

That’s the problem with building a left machine. The left in San Francisco doesn’t follow orders.

Lunchtime fun tomorrow

2

proph_sticker_1.gif

by Amanda Witherell

For all y’all who are roaming around the financial district tomorrow or need some diversion from the grind, swing by 77 Beale Street where clean energy activists are going to be installing three enormous wind turbines in front of PG&E’s headquarters.

Starting promptly at noon, about three-dozen people dressed for green jobs construction success will build three 12-foot wind turbines in front of the headquarters of a $12 billion utility company that sells 89 percent non-renewable energy. They’ll be calling on voters to approve the Clean Energy Act, Prop H on next Tuesday’s ballot, which, if passed, lays out a plan for 100 percent renewable energy for San Francisco that includes a green jobs component.

According to the press release, “Workers in green hard hats and overalls will build the wind generators and then begin to erect them – evoking the image of the WW II victory photo, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, illustrating the historic opportunity Prop H offers our country for secure energy. The $9.9 million that PG&E has spent to oppose Prop H will be visually depicted by ten large burlap sacks of money.”

PG&E has been busy blistering the city with lies about what the measure will do — even their vice president quaked when reasonably questioned about the measure.

Proponents call it “the most robust renewable energy policy ever seriously considered in the country, and yet is more modest than Al Gore’s recent call to Americato achieve 100% renewable energy in a decade.”

They may get the big PG&E boot, so be sharp to catch the action. Wed., Oct. 29, noon to 12:30 at 77 Beale Street.

Sue Lee and segregation

1

1028SKL.jpg

By Tim Redmond

I find it hard to believe that D1 supervisor candidate Sue Lee is allowing her supporters to resort to this sort of pandering, but here it is: Fliers from the landlords are going out attacking her main opponent, Eric Mar, over “neighborhood schools.”

That’s a buzzword for re-segregation. I hate to be that harsh and blunt, but it’s the truth. THe pro-neighborhood schools people may be well-meaning, but if they get their way, and school assigment is done primarily on the basis of where you live, the schools are going to face some ugly problems.

Eric Mar’s been on the school board. He understands this better than most. Sue Lee ought to understand it, too.

I get the frustration that some parents in the Richmond feel: After all, there are quite a few good schools in that part of town, and their kids won’t necessarily get into those schools. But there’s a very good reason for that: If every kid went to a school in his or her neighborhood, we’d have a lot of segregated schools. That’s not only terrible for the kids, it’s against federal law.

Imagine: All the Asian and white families in the Richmond could keep their kids in schools that were almost entirely Asian and white — and the kids in Bayview Hunters Point would go to schools that would be almost entirely African American. Where do you think the resources are going to go?

My kids go to McKinley Elementary in the Castro. Their classmates are a picture of San Francisco — black, white, Asian, Latino, Pacific Islander; kids from single-parent families, kids from traditional families, kids from gay families … not all of them can walk to school (we commute from Bernal Heights), but it’s a wonderful educational situation. It’s what public schools ought to be.

And it’s tricky in a city like San Francisco, where we still, sadly, have some hihgly segregated neighborhoods. But it’s worth the effort.

Frankly, I can’t believe anyone in this liberal city really thinks the schools would be better off if we didn’t have policies that seek to integrate the classrooms.

Besides, San Francisco parents have made it very clear, over and over, that they want school choices. They don’t want to be forced into one neighborhood school (especially if they live in a poor neighborhood or one where the local public school isn’t very good). Why can’t kids from Bayview go to Rooftop and Clarendon?

I’ve been through the San Francisco school assignment process, and it isn’t perfect. And every time someone complains to me about it, I ask them the same question: How would you make it better? It’s a tough one; either you accept that some schools are going to be segregated and some kids denied the opportunity to attend the best schools in town and all kids denied the value of learning in a diverse environment — or you accept that fact that not everyone can go to the neighborhood school.

Of course, you can insist that San Francisco provide excellent schools in every neighborhood, and we should — but really, that’s a copout. It isn’t happening now, and it’s not going to happen in the next five years, and unless the state spends a lot more on education, it’s not going to happen at all. Look: My school has some fairly well-off parents with organizing skills and time on their hands. We can raise money for special programs, and we have an active PTA and lots of volunteers. We just got a new playground built.

In a school that serves almost entirely a low-income community, the parents don’t have money to pour into special programs, they’re working two jobs to pay the rent and don’t have time to spend on the school — and it’s not fair. Clarendon parents raise $200,000 a year, because they can. So Clarendon gets programs that other schools don’t. If the state doubled education spending, we’d be better off, but it won’t, and we’re not.

So you simply have to let parents choose to send their kids to schools out of their neighborhoods — and you have to accept the fact that some kids from richer parts of town won’t be able to attend their local school.

Sue Lee ought to know that. It’s a disgrace that she is allowing this to happen in her name.

A PG&E VP at the door

0

Steven Hill, director of the Political Reform Program at the New America Foundation (www.newamerica.net) and author of “10 Steps to Repair American Democracy” (www.10Steps.net), sent this over. It’s a fascinating story that shows how PG&E is not only slinging mud but refusing to debate the real issues of Prop. H.

The political mudslide threatening to drown us all

by Steven Hill

You know you are in the height of the political season when you start receiving activists knocking on your door for political campaigns. But I was taken aback recently when the activist at my door was a vice president for Pacific Gas and Electric.

He, of course, wanted to talk about Proposition H, the San Francisco ballot measure known as the “Clean Energy Act” for which PG&E is the main opponent. Before I provide details on that conversation, let me step back for a moment and get something off my chest.

I don’t know about you, but in watching the presidential campaigns wage their mudslinging hack-attacks against each other, it’s clear to me that such “win at all costs” tactics not only degrade the electoral process, but those who participate in and are forced to witness it. From the McCain campaign and their supporters we have heard that Obama is a pal of terrorists, a supporter of infanticide, and a tax-and-spend liberal, with subtle allusions to his race.

From the Obama side we have heard that McCain is too old, too crotchety and too out of touch with Main Street. Both sides feel that their characterizations are fair and accurate — or at least close enough to sling the mud.

But from the voter’s perspective, it’s hard to watch. Instead of finding out what’s good about each candidate, and what stirring vision they have for these difficult times, we are finding out the worst about them. And then, following the election, the tainted winner is supposed to rally the country behind him, even though half the country now detests him.

Something is very wrong with this picture. Sure, we can rationalize it, say that this kind of mudslinging has long been part of American politics. But perhaps that’s partly why the public is so cynical about politicians, and so anti-government. That attitude has contributed to Republicans’ relentless bashing of government, which became the basis for massive deregulation of all stripes, including the financial, banking and home mortgage industries. “Get government out of the way,” was their rallying cry.

So this mudslinging and distorting of facts and information is not harmless or innocent. Those who practice it know exactly what they are doing.

Which brings me back to my curious door-knocker, the vice president for PG&E. I politely greeted him, and he launched into a tirade against Prop H. If passed, he said, this clean energy legislation would “take away my right to vote” (his exact words), raise electricity rates and force San Francisco to buy PG&E’s system (which oddly he implied was antiquated and not worth the money). And besides that, “it’s a power grab by the Board of Supervisors.”

Whew. I had just been doing my own research on Proposition H and other ballot measures to figure out how I would vote. So I knew he was tearing a page out of the Karl Rove campaign handbook. Unlike with the presidential campaigns, however, which happens far away like we are spectators in the 42nd row, here was one of the “candidates” right at my doorstep. PG&E had been spending barrels full of money, over $5 million, to defeat this measure. This was my chance, I figured, to have a real dialogue.

“The proponents of this measure dispute your claims,” I told him. “They say Proposition H will make the City study all possible ways to get to 100% clean energy, and then create a plan to make it happen. PG&E’s system can be part of this plan if you figure out how to deliver low-cost, clean energy. They also say that any bonds issued would have to be approved by the City Controller and the Public Utilities Commission, who are all appointed by the mayor. The Board of Supervisors can’t do anything by itself. What’s your response to that?”

His response was the Sarah Palin “deer in the headlights” look. I don’t think he had been knocking on too many doors of people who had done some homework. Isn’t that what the mudslingers always rely upon?

I was ready to engage and discuss. But instead he said, “I have to go.” And that’s what he did.

In this political season, I urge all voters to do your research, and don’t automatically believe the candidates or their proxies. With the country facing deep economic challenges, too much is at stake to take the word of the sharks at your door or on your TV screens. And please vote Yes on Proposition H.

Are you worried yet?

1

My daughter says she say fliers everywhere in Berkeley yesterday, announcing that there will be no Halloween in the Castro.

Wait a minute! Does that mean that Berkeley is now home to the gang bangers and gay bashers that the Newsom administration reportedly wants to stop from coming to the Castro?

It makes you wonder just what is going on in the Mayor’s mind. Especially since it’s almost impossible to get a straight answer from his handlers. And especially if you had to sit through last week’s report to the Board of Supervisors on the impacts of the global economic meltdown on the San Francisco economy. There were lots of charts and statistics, mostly showing roller coaster plunges of one financial stripe or another, even though we were assured that there is no need to panic. At least not just yet.

But one of the predicted outcome, (In between fairly severe reductions to the City’s property tax transfer revenues, as people stop flipping homes so fast, I guess.), was a drop in international and business tourism, as European visitors and convention traffic are forced, for credit freeze reasons, to stay home or go elsewhere.

I listened as the Mayor’s people described how they want to attract local Bay Area residents, instead.

Yahoo News: Fascists and gay marriage? Heil yes

1

Oh, these automated media times — faster, news cycle, kill kill! Here’s another fun distraction: In a gaffe that slightly recalls Yahoo’s infamous Katrina photo captioning brew-ha-ha of 2005 (where black people were labelled as “looters” while white people were “finders”), that great news aggregator of the digital Alps pricelessly pulled up this pic of recently semi-outed — and recently very-dead — hard right Austrian fuckwad Joerg Haider and his simpering spokesperson/buttboy Stefan Petzner to illustrate a story on Prop 8, plus bonus slideshow. Oops.

————————————————————————

nohaidersgaywad.jpg

————————————————————————

Hey, though — doesn’t the number 88 mean something in skinhead culture? Fascists — always only going halfway.

The bf and I were horrified when we Web-stumbled upon this Sunday night. Moral: Yahoo, it haz confuzed. Even bigger moral: The gays can be anything! We. Are. Everywhere.

Gayz: were in yr fascism, marrying yr mormonz.

UPDATE: Oh lord, it’s still up there. Editors …