Tim Redmond

Joe Nation’s friends are bad news II

-
0

joenation.jpg pg&e.jpg landlord1.jpg

More on why Joe Nation’s friends are bad news:

The Mark Leno campaign has done an analysis of the independent expenditure campaigns supporting Nation, and there are some truly nasty bad guys in there. Many of them (for example, our old friends PG&E) gave campoaign cash directly to Nation, then gave more money through the IEs.

Check out the list, taken from a Leno press release:

Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) $342,544

A group of big oil, insurance, banking, chemical, pharmaceutical companies as well as companies involved in the subprime mortgage meltdown. They were co-sponsors of Proposition 64, which was opposed by consumer and environmental advocates and weakened the general public’s ability to pursue lawsuits over unfair business practices and environmental violations. CJAC works to limit their member’s liability when lawsuits are brought against them from consumers, patients, workers or environmental advocates.

* Joe Nation took $1,000 from Pacific Gas & Electric Co., CJAC member

* Joe Nation took $3,600 from California Apartment Association, CJAC member

* Joe Nation took $1,000 from the CA Hospital Association, CJAC member

* Joe Nation took $3,600 from MEDPAC of the CA Association of Physician Groups, sponsored by the CA Association of Physicians Organizations Los Angeles, CJAC member

* Joe Nation took $3,200 from the San Francisco Apartment Association, California Apartment Association is a CJAC member

* Joe Nation took $7,200 from the California Real Estate Political Action Committee, CJAC member

Cooperative of American Physicians $100,000

A group that provides liability insurance for it’s member physicians and advocates to maintain the liability caps up-held in the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), which capped their liability in malpractice lawsuits at 1975 levels.

* Joe Nation took $3,600 from Cooperative of American Physicians

Californians Allied for Patient Protection (CAPP) $50,000

A group of corporate hospitals, doctors, insurance companies and others in the medical industry whose priority is to maintain the liability caps up-held in the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), which capped their liability in malpractice lawsuits at 1975 levels.

* Joe Nation took $3,600 from Californians Allied for Patient Protection

* Joe Nation took $3,600 from MICRA California PAC of NorCal Mutual Insurance Company, member of CAPP

Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy $3,277

A group of insurance companies, financial-services firms, developers, card clubs and biotechnology companies

I still think it’s a two-person race now, with Carole Migden far behind. And I think the best way to stop Nation is to vote for Leno. But whoever you support, don’t vote for Nation.

Joe Nation’s friends are bad news

-
0

joenation.jpgbigpharma.jpg

Check out who’s spending money supporting Joe Nation: A group called the Civil Justice Association of California. As Calitics notes:

A group like this does not spend a quarter million on a politician without expecting something in return. What does this anti-consumer organization expect in return? You need look no further than their own description: “Industry-sponsored California group, advocating legal reforms to restrict tort recovery.”

You can find out more about this group at its website, but Calitics has it right: This is an organization that wants to protect big businesses (particularly, these days, Big Pharma) from liability suits.

In case anyone was still wondering if Joe Nation ought to be called a “progressive.”

Judge hits SF Weekly with injunction

-
0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

SF Weekly and its parent chain Village Voice Media are legally barred from selling ads below cost for the purpose of harming the Guardian, Superior Court Judge Marla Miller ruled May 19.

Miller issued an injunction in the Guardian’s lawsuit against the Weekly forbidding the paper and its “officers, managers, agents, affiliates, parents [and] subsidiaries” from engaging in further predatory pricing. Unless the injunction is overturned by a higher court, it will be in effect for 10 years. Miller retains jurisdiction over the case.

Miller also issued a final ruling on damages, entering a $15.9 million judgment for the Guardian. That includes more than $300,000 interest going back to the date of the March 5 verdict.

The Guardian will also get attorneys fees and costs, although that amount is not yet established.

The Guardian sued the Weekly and Phoenix-based VVM, its 16-paper-chain parent, for predatory pricing. After a five-week trial, a San Francisco jury found that the Weekly and VVM intentionally sold ads below cost in an effort to drive the locally-owned competitor out of business.

The jury awarded the Guardian $6.39 million in damages. The law provides for treble damages after a jury verdict, but a recent court ruling interpreted that to mean that only a portion of the damages could be tripled. The ruling was not a big surprise: Miller had indicated at a May 9 hearing that she was prepared to issue an injunction and raise the damages to $15.6 million.

During the hearing, lawyers for the Weekly tried to argue that an injunction would violate their clients’ right to free speech. Forrest Hainline III of the Boston-based firm Goodwin Proctor, who was hired to handle the Weekly‘s appeal, insisted that the only way the Weekly could abide by an injunction would be to cut editorial costs – depriving the paper of its First Amendment rights.

That was a remarkable argument – in essence, the Weekly‘s lawyer was saying that the people could not possibly make a profit on its current product. But as Guardian lawyer Ralph Alldredge pointed out, there’s nothing unconstitutional about mandating that a newspaper obey basic business regulations.

The injunction states that the Weekly cannot sell display advertising space “at a price below the fully allocated cost of that space for the purpose of injuring plaintiff Bay Guardian Co, Inc., unless SF Weekly LP can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an offer or sales alleged to fall within this injunction falls within an affirmative defense to the below cost sales prohibitions of the Unfair Practices Act.”

Miller’s ruling now sends the case to the next phase. Hainline indicated at the May 9 hearing that he will now ask Miller to reduce the damages or overturn the entire verdict. If she declines, the Weekly can take the case to the Court of Appeal, a move that could delay any final outcome for as long as two years.

However, the Weekly and VVM will now have to post an appeal bond of as much as $24 million to guarantee payment of the judgment and interest. The award will accrue interest at 10 percent – that’s about $4,300 a day – during the course of any appeal.

Most important, however, the court has issued an enforceable injunction mandating that the big chain do what the Guardian has been asking for all along: play fair.

The Weekly has been losing money every year since New Times – which changed its named to Village Voice Media after buying that company two years ago – purchased the newspaper in 1995. The chain has pumped some $25 million into San Francisco to keep the local operation afloat. That allowed the Weekly to cut the price of its ads so low that the Guardian had to struggle to cut its own costs to match the below-market rates.

At this point, the injunction should force the Weekly to compete on a level playing field – meaning that both papers will have a chance to survive in the market, offering readers and advertisers a choice. That’s what the First Amendment’s marketplace of ideas is all about.

Mike Lacey, VVM’s executive editor, and Jim Larkin, the company’s CEO, failed to return calls and e-mail seeking comment.

The Guardian‘s lawyers are Alldredge, Richard Hill, and E. Craig Moody.

For all the details and background on the case, go to www.sfbg.com/lawsuit.

Editor’s Notes

-
0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

When the ruling on same-sex marriage came down, I was in upstate New York, hanging out with my brother, who runs a small construction outfit in a working-class town. His employees are the people Democratic leaders worry about; a generation ago they were called "Reagan Democrats." They make extremely un-PC jokes and insult each other with terms that would make most San Franciscans cringe.

And you know what? They couldn’t possibly care less about same-sex marriage.

"The people in my crew have families to feed and payments to make on their houses," my brother told me. "They don’t care who marries who. It’s the most ridiculous issue in the world." (My brother, who got married on his lunch hour wearing overalls covered with concrete dust, also told me years ago that "marriage is like a horse with a broken leg; you can shoot it, but that doesn’t fix the leg." You get the picture).

Yes, there are gay couples living in his little community. The framers and roofers treat them like everyone else. The construction workers are not remotely disturbed about queers being threats to their traditional values or marriages. And they’re all voting for Obama because they’re sick of the war, sick of the recession, sick of the cost of health insurance, sick of the politics in Washington DC, and ready for something totally different.

I thought about all of that when I came back and read the San Francisco Chronicle stories repeating the old argument that same-sex marriage could be the bane of the Democrats in November. It’s the same thing Rep. Nancy Pelosi says about all kinds of social and economic issues: we can’t go too fast. We might piss off some swing voters.

Sure, you might do that. And I’m not a pollster, and my focus group, as it were, is fairly narrow here. But I don’t think I’m wrong when I say that among rapidly growing numbers of Americans, gay marriage is becoming pretty insignificant as a wedge issue. I used to say that in 20 years, people would look back at this era and wonder what the foes of marriage equality were thinking. Now I suspect we’ll only have to wait 10 years, maybe less, before this is totally accepted in the mainstream of American society.

When somebody like Mayor Gavin Newsom takes the lead on a civil rights issue like this, I think it’s pretty crass to question his motives. But you can’t dispute the outcome: Newsom may have been acting out of pure principle or out of political calculation. But in the end, his career is now tightly tied to an issue that is part of the future. He will never have to say he was sorry about this, and all of the weak and trembling little Democrats who are wringing their hands will all look like idiots one day. One day very soon.

If Newsom wants to be governor, this can only help him — but it won’t be enough. My brother’s point is that the country is in a deep recession, the economy is a disaster, economic inequality is ruining the American Dream, and social issues aren’t going to carry the day. A politician who won’t tax the rich to improve the lot of the poor and the middle class, who won’t offer comprehensive economic solutions, who has nothing to say to people who make their living building houses when the housing market is in free fall … that politician’s going nowhere. *

The perils of private wi-fi

-
0

Tom Ammiano, who was just up in Portland, alerted me to this. That city’s ambitious plans to let a private company wire the entire area have fallen flat. The job is only one-third done. The company’s out of money. It’s a mess.

In other words, the critics of Mayor Newsom’s old Earthlink-Google wi-fi plan were absolutely right.

Guardian lawsuit moves to the next stage

-
0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

The news hit the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle Web site (www.sfgate.com) May 9 under a nice, subtle headline: "SF Weekly Loses Big, Again."

And while it’s not exactly a done deal, Judge Marla Miller appeared poised that day to finalize a $15.6 million award to the Guardian and issue an injunction barring SF Weekly from continuing to sell ads below cost.

The decision, expected this week, will bring the lawsuit to its next stage, as the Weekly and its 16-paper chain parent, Village Voice Media, threaten to try to overturn the 1913 California law that protects small businesses against big predatory competitors.

The Guardian‘s lawsuit charged the Weekly and Village Voice Media with vioutf8g the California Unfair Practices Act, which bars companies from selling a product below the cost of producing it with the intent to harm a competitor or reduce competition.

On March 5, a San Francisco jury found that the Weekly had engaged in predatory pricing and awarded the Guardian $6.39 million in damages. The law allows for treble damages.

Judge Miller opened the hearing by stating that, on the basis of legal briefs filed by the two sides, she was inclined to triple $4.6 million of the damages, leaving a final judgment of $15.6 million.

Although Guardian attorney Ralph Alldredge argued that the entire verdict should be tripled, the outcome wasn’t a big surprise: from the day of the verdict, we’ve been reporting that the likely final award would be around $15 million.

Forrest Hainline III, a new lawyer representing the Weekly, argued vociferously against any injunction, claming that the court would be wading into troubling First Amendment territory. He argued that the only way the Weekly could comply with an injunction would be to cut editorial expenses — and that would have an impact on the paper’s right to free speech.

But Alldredge pointed out that courts have always found that newspapers have to pay taxes and obey basic business regulations. What, he asked, would happen if the Weekly were found guilty of dumping toxic printing-press waste into the bay? Would the paper argue that paying the cleanup costs would violate the First Amendment?

The argument wasn’t new — the Weekly tried the same First Amendment claim early in the trial, when the paper filed to have the lawsuit dismissed. Judge Richard Kramer, who handled the first stages of the suit, rejected the argument. The Weekly sought an appeal of Kramer’s ruling, but the appeals court denied that as well.

Judge Miller seemed to imply in her questioning of Hainline that an injunction would only require the Weekly to do what it should be doing anyway: competing fairly. "Would you advise your client to go ahead and violate the law?" she asked.

Among the more interesting parts of Hainline’s argument was the claim that the Weekly would never be able to survive in San Francisco unless it could sell ads below cost. He essentially implied that the Weekly can’t make a profit on its own, and is in business only because its corporate parent is underwriting it.

Hainline said that he didn’t see how the Weekly would be able to sell ads at a price that covered its operating costs.

An injunction that would force the paper to operate like a normal business and live within its means would threaten the Weekly‘s very existence, Hainline argued, proclaiming that Miller was threatening to "silence a First Amendment voice." He implied that the Unfair Practices Act should never apply to newspapers and that the entire verdict ought to be invalidated.

Alldredge pointed out that it was silly to say the Weekly would be forced out of business. After all, he said, the Guardian is selling ads at a price that allows it to cover costs.

Miller took the matter under consideration and will issue a final ruling within 10 days.

The Guardian‘s lawyers are Alldredge, Richard Hill, and E. Craig Moody.

For more details on the case, the latest updates, and the dueling Guardian and Village Voice Media blogs, go to sfbg.com/politics.

Editor’s Notes

-
0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

I was having lunch with an old friend the other day, and, as usual, we got through our lives and kids pretty quickly and wound up talking about tax policy. I’m a great date.

I was explaining to her — well, yeah, I was lecturing, at some volume — about the problem with sales taxes and the value of parcel taxes and income taxes, and somewhere along the line I realized that the progressive leadership in San Francisco needs to think a bit more about small business.

See, my friend’s husband runs a small company, and she isn’t happy about the way the city’s universal health plan is financed. "If this is so important to San Francisco," she asked, "why aren’t we all paying for it, instead of just businesses?" Her idea: finance the program with a new sales tax.

Well, I support Healthy San Francisco and I think that, all things considered, Sup. Tom Ammiano did an amazing job of putting together a plan that is actually working. Ammiano told me last week that more than 20,000 people — formerly uninsured people — have signed up. This is a very big deal.

I realize it’s also a pain for a lot of smaller businesses, in part because the rules — specifically designed to keep unscrupulous employers from cheating — are complicated and hard to follow. And for companies that are barely making it, the tab for insurance can be brutal.

That, of course, is the overall problem with employer-based health insurance. But it’s the system we’re working under, and the complexity of creating a completely different model in one city would be, to say the least, daunting. In fact, there were a lot of employers in this city, many big retail outlets and national chains, that could well afford to pay for employee health insurance but instead dumped their workers on the overburdened public health system.

And restaurants, which are whining the loudest, have managed to stick their customers with the added cost, which frankly isn’t such a terrible thing: people who eat out a lot can afford an extra buck so the kitchen help can see a doctor when they’re sick.

And as I (ever-so-gently and quietly) explained over my $12 sautéed prawns, sales taxes are horribly regressive, even worse than small-business taxes. I’m right; she’s wrong. We had a hell of a lunch.

But I think her frustration ran a bit deeper than this one issue, and I hear it from a lot of others too: small businesses don’t seem to be part of the progressive coalition.

I understand why: a lot of small business people are conservative, particularly on fiscal issues. It’s really annoying how often small merchants side with the Chamber of Commerce and the big downtown forces. You can’t get small business groups to support any new revenue measures.

And the progressive supervisors have done a lot for small businesses — starting with enacting limits on chain stores, which have protected locally owned shops in several commercial districts.

There’s a lot more we can do: I’m still pushing for a progressive business tax (cut taxes on the bottom, raise them on the top). And a city income tax would pay for health insurance and a lot more.

But right now, many community merchants are feeling ignored, and our next progressive candidate for mayor needs to think about that. It’s a potentially powerful constituency — but for all the wrong reasons, it’s going in all the wrong directions.

PG&E offers Newsom a blank check

-
0

newsom.jpg pg&e.jpg

Gavin Newsom is a mayor who hates to make the tough decisions, and the proposal for three new power plants in Southeast San Francisco is his worst nightmare.

Newsom’s own Public Utilities Commission is pushing the plan, and he’s backed it in the past. Environmentalists are making a stink about it, and that’s caused the mayor-who-wuold-be-green some headaches.

But the major reason he suddenly decided to ask for a delay in the power-plant vote may have nothing to do with environmental issues at all.

Seven lobbyists for Pacific Gas and Electric, led by Travis Kiyota, visited the mayor May 5th and told him that the giant utility would spend whatever it takes to stop the peakers, a reliable City Hall source tells me. Attending the meeting were Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier and PUC commissioner Dick Sklar, the source said.

According to this source’s account, PG&E offered to pay for more power cables into the city, for an expensive demand-management program … for just about anything that would prevent San Francisco from owning its own power plants.

I couldn’t reach either Sklar or Alioto-Pier this afternoon. But Nathan Ballard, the mayor’s press secretary, confirmed that the meeting took place:

On Monday, May 5, PG&E participated in a meeting to provide substantive
expertise in the areas of energy efficiency, demand response and power
generation and transmission. Along with staff from the Mayor’s Office,
Board of Supervisors, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Department
of Environment, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, CA Public
Utilities Commission (CAPUC), and the National Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), we were able to engage some of the most creative and knowledgeable
experts in the room together as we work to identify alternatives to the
current action plan.

Ballard also said that retrofitting the Mirant plant — leaving the big privately owned polluter in place — was “one of the options on the table.”

As far as I can tell, there were no public-power advocates in the meeting.

So PG&E is still driving energy policy in the Mayor’s Office. How nice.

Three missing letters in the Chron’s peaker editorial

-
0

The San Francisco Chronicle came out today against the plan to build three combustion turbines, known as “peaker” plans, at the foot of Potrero Hill.

But while the editorial quoted both sides in what I agree is a complicated issue, the editors ignored one of the most alient points: The campaign agains the peakers is being funded largely by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Three missing letters, people: PG&E.

PG&E is underwriting the “Close It Coalition,” which sounds like a group aiming to close an existing power plant. The problem, peaker proponents say, is that the Mirant power plant that’s now pumping carbon and particulates into the air can’t be closed down unless the power it produces is replaced, locally. That’s what the state regulators are mandating That means significant new generation within city limits. And it means generating capacity that can run at night, when solar panels aren’t firing.

PG&E doesn’t want the peakers (which would produce about a third less pollution than the Mirant plant does) because they would be owned by the city; that’s a step toward public power. The utility isn’t worried about pollution or green power; this is a company that owns a nuclear power plant (on an earthquake fault). It’s a company that is building its own fossil-fuel plants up and down the state.

No: for the major funder of the no-peakers effort, this is about preserving a power monopoly. Beginning and end of story.

I am dubious about the peakers, too. It’s hard to support new fossil-fuel plants in San Francisco. But when you look at who’s behind the anti-peaker campaign, the story gets a lot more complicated.

You wouldn’t know that from reading the Chron’s editorial.

State Senate update: The newspaper endorsements

-
0

Carole Migden got the Bay Area Reporter, which is a significant achievement since the B.A.R. has often tended more toward the moderate side of gay politics:

A sitting incumbent who has a solid record of accomplishment – both for the LGBT community and residents as a whole – should not be driven from office because she has a strong personality or has been gruff at times in her dealings with people.

Mark Leno got the Pacific Sun, the major alt-weekly in Marin, which complains that Migden has been out of touch with the North Bay part of the district:

When she first ran for this seat in ’04 she alienated large numbers of local people, including Democrats, at a San Rafael Chamber of Commerce candidates’ event and in other actions that made it clear she had little interest in the parts of the 3rd District north of the Golden Gate. While she says she was quietly working on Marin issues, including solving a Sausalito houseboat problem, in the first part of her term, most people saw her as out of touch with Marin. From the time Mark Leno declared his intent to run for her seat, she has been a legislative dynamo on North Bay issues.

Joe Nation’s got the landlords.

Joe Nation, the landlord’s man

-
0

joenation.jpglandlord1.jpg

The Marin Organizing Committee held a rally May 8th in San Rafael that attracted all three state Senate candidates to discuss issues of social welfare in the county. More than 600 people showed up, and by Marin standards, that’s a huge crowd.

Among the top issues: Prop. 98, the horrible ballot measure that would end rent control in California.

All three candidates say they are against 98.

Mark Leno and Carole Migden got to the rally on time. Joe Nation was a bit late. The reason: He had to stop first in San Francisco – at a fundraiser sponsored by some of the same landlord groups that are funding Yes on 98.

That’s right: Nation went and took some big checks from the pro-Prop. 98 landlords, then drove across the bridge for a No on 98 rally.

Lisa Christensen, Nation’s campaign manager, told me that Nation “has been against Prop. 98 from the start, and wears his No on 98 button everywhere he goes.” As for his alliance with the landlords? “San Francisco politics is a melee,” she said. “Some of my dearest friends are passionately against me on some issues, and we work together on others.”

I wonder if he took the No on 98 button off for the landlord party.

Whining at the Weekly

-
1

My old pal Andy Van De Voorde is back. Village Voice Media, which owns the SF Weekly and is now pleading poverty, managed to fly Van De Voorde and the two top comany executives, Mike Lacey and Jim Larkin, in to San Francisco for the hearing Friday on our lawsuit. And Van De Voorde, writing as The Snitch, has put forward a remarkable work of journalistic whining.

Oh, dear, says Andy; Judge Marla Miller is prepared to accept the jury’s verdict after a five-week trial and follow the law by issuing an injunction. Requiring the Weekly to follow the law would violate the First Amendment.

There are a couple of key points that he misses.

One is that courts have found consistently over the years that newspapers, despite their First Amendment protections, are also businesses — in some cases, big businesses — and have to follow the same sorts of basic regulations as all other businesses. It costs money to comply with OSHA rules, the National Labor Relations Act, and environmental laws. It’s costing the Guardian (and, I assume, the Weekly) a bit of cash to comply with the city’s new health-insurance law. Should those laws be invalidated because complying with them means I as an editor have less money to spend on reporters and freelancers?

Be serious.

The other point that he misses is that the Unfair Practices Act, the Progressive Era law designed to keep small business from being destroyed by giant predatory competitors, actually promotes the goals of the First Amendment, which, history tells us, include the notion that a broad variety of voices in the marketplace of ideas make for a healthy democracy.

Preventing one large media company from driving a locally owned competitor out of business is a positive result.

See, the Weekly can whine about the First Amendment all it wants, but a jury found that the 16-paper chain, with revenues of some $150 million a year, that owns the Weekly, was trying to silence a First Amendment-protected local San Francisco voice. The Weekly wanted to shut us down, in part because the owners of the chain don’t like what we have to say and the way we say it.

Um, Andy, isn’t there a First Amendment issue there?

If the Weekly now wants to whine about the size of the verdict, let me say for the record that we have warned these folks repeatedly, going back more than five years, that they were violating the law. When we first sent a warning letter, we asked for no damages at all; all we wanted was for the predatory activity to cease. We filed suit only because we had no other choice — and even after years of litigation, the jury found that the below-cost selling continued, up to the moment of the verdict.

And now we have no choice but to ask for an injunction, to do what we tried to do from the start: Make these guys follow the law.

Now the Weekly and its parent, Village Voice Media, have resorted to trying to overturn the Unfair Practices Act and complain about their First Amendment Rights.

Boys: As my late grandfather, the Honorable James C. O’Brien, a New York State Supreme Court judge, used to say, you made your bed — now eat it.

McCain’s next preacher problem

-
0

Okay, John McCain has yet another problem with his connections to crazy bigoted preachers. Check this out.

Guardian poised for legal victory

-
0

Judge Marla Miller appeared poised May 9th to finalize a $15.6 million award to the Bay Guardian and to issue an injunction barring SF Weekly from continuing to sell ads below cost.

In a post-trial hearing on the Guardian’s lawsuit against the Weekly and its chain parent, Miller said she was inclined to rule that some, but not all of the damages a jury awarded to the Guardian in March should be trebled. And she said in a tentative ruling that she was prepared to issue an order forbidding the Weekly from engaging in further predatory behavior.

The ruling hit the front page of Sfgate this afternoon with the headline “SF Weekly loses big, again.”

Of Katie Couric and Dan Rather

-
0

couric2.jpgbikini.jpg
One female anchor is losing her job; another, her clothes

By Leslie Griffith

When Katie Couric was given the title of “America’s sweetheart it was a death knell. America relishes devouring its sweethearts.

If the news magazines and newspapers are correct, Katie Couric’s career at CBS, much like Dan Rather’s, is toast. The last chapters of this complex and revealing human drama are not written yet. But the plot, the sub-plots, the dialogue, the public’s perverse interest, and the motivations are nothing if not Shakespearean.

Two years ago, Couric was the first woman to anchor the evening news broadcast on one of the big three networks. On that day, I was called by local reporters for a quote. My own career in television began 26 years ago, about the same time as Couric’s. “It’s about time,” I told the newspaper reporters.

Couric and I have a few things in common. Bay Area viewers watched as I grew up before their eyes just as Katie Couric grew up in full view of the nation. Wives use to say in various ways, “You are the only other woman I will let my husband bring into the bedroom.” The intimacy of television is still very real, but the truth tellers of old are becoming history.

Woolsey endorses Leno

-
0

Just heard from Mark Leno that Lynn Woolsey, the popular Democratic Congressional Rep. from the North Bay, has endorsed him for state Senate. I suspect Woolsey, like many of us, has come to believe that, for better or for worse, this is a two-person race at this point between Leno and Joe Nation.

Hillary Clinton, CTD

-
0

Among the most fascinating items in a day when the pundits declared the race over, no less than George McGovern told Clinton to drop out and Drudge reported that superdelegates don’t want to meet with her: CNN says Dianne Feinstein, a superdelegate and Clinton loyalist, has been trying to reach the candidate for two days and can’t get her calls returned.

I saw Hillary on TV last night vowing to fight on, and talking about seating the Michigan and Florida delegations, which would tear the Democratic convention apart and almost hand the election to McCain. But the Clinton campaigning is clearly circling the drain. She’s canceled all public appearances today; maybe she’s getting ready to do the right thing for the party and call it quits.

Editor’s Notes

-
0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

Early in January 1992, with Bill Clinton poised to win the crucial New Hampshire primary, a woman named Gennifer Flowers came forward with a sordid tale of a 12-year affair with the young Arkansas governor.

Pundits proclaimed that the allegation by Flowers, a former TV reporter who later posed nude for Penthouse, would sink the Clinton campaign. Instead, Bill and Hillary appeared on 60 Minutes right after the Jan. 26 Super Bowl and, in a stunning performance, the candidate diffused the damage and went on to win the primary and the White House.

Years later, a political operative I know offered a bizarre story: Clinton’s senior advisors not only knew that Flowers would go public; they were happy she did it.

See, back then, my source said, polling showed that Bill Clinton was popular among women and educated liberals. His only problem was with the so-called working class white-ethnic men, the blue-collar guys who were Democrats but voted for Ronald Reagan. Those voters thought Clinton was weak, and that his wife was pushing him around.

The Flowers affair was bound to come out eventually, the operative told me. So the strategists figured that sooner was better. Of course, the morality voters and the sanctity-of-marriage crew would be aghast, but they weren’t going to vote for Clinton anyway. The blue-collar guys wouldn’t be offended at all; in fact, some would think a guy who had a Penthouse centerfold on the side wasn’t such a chump after all. And the women had nowhere else to go.

So why not control the release, let Bill and Hillary deal with it, put it behind them, and defuse its potential as an October surprise?

If that account is true, the strategy worked brilliantly.

I thought about Flowers when I saw the video of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright speaking to the National Press Club.

The news media and a lot of Obama supporters say Wright, after talking about the oppression of African Americans, derailed the campaign of the only African American ever to get close to the presidency.

But let me offer a strange but plausible thesis here: what if the Obama campaign not only knew what Wright was going to do, but quietly approved of it?

Think about it: Obama is about two whiskers from being the most powerful person on Earth. If he really wanted Wright to shut up, he could have made a few calls, and I suspect the guy would be cloistered behind closed doors for months. But no: the fiery minister went and attacked America and insulted Obama in a way sure to make huge headlines.

The result: Obama gets to denounce and distance himself from a guy who was going to be a problem in the fall. The damage was done early enough that it will be old news by October. Obama will still win North Carolina, be close in Indiana — and Clinton simply won’t have the numbers to win the nomination.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the story I was told all those years ago was a total fabrication. Maybe Gennifer Flowers and Rev. Wright acted alone. But I’ve watched enough presidential campaigns to know it’s entirely possible they didn’t.

Who’s afraid of public nudity?

-
3

George Davis, the naked former mayoral candidate , was arrested again — on May Day, no less — and has reached a scientific conclusion:

“From my field experience with public nudity, I can state that the only people who have emotional problems with public nudity are angry people, excessively authoritarian personalities, and fundamentalist religious nut cases.”

Oh, and he thinks Pope John Paul II was a big fan of nudity.

You can read his entire letter after the jump.

What’s up with the restaurant surcharges?

-
0

The last time I had lunch at the Slow Club, the check came with a little notice: $1 was added to the cost of every meal to cover the cost of complying with the city’s new health-care mandate. That was fine — if I can afford to eat at the Slow Club I can afford an extra buck so the people who work there can get health insurance.

But it’s interesting that the place didn’t just raise prices by $1 (which most people wouldn’t have noticed — restaurant prices go up all the time). They made a point of letting everyone know that the money was for a new government mandate. It was, in its own way, a political statement: Hey, sorry we have to charge you more, but the city is forcing us to do it.

That’s made some local activists a bit angry (there’s a fascinating little bit on it in the San Francisco Magazine blog — Sup. Tom Ammiano (who wrote the health-care bill) and labor leader Chriss Romero were eating at 2223 Restaurant on Market, and Romero got pissed off when the tab came with a four percent service charge that mentioned the insurance rule.

I get Romero’s point, and we supported the Ammiano legislation — and as someone who works at a small business that has always provided health insurance to employees and is still getting hit with some serious additional expenses to comply, I understand why the restaurants are trying to make a point about it.

And it’s absolutely true that restaurants never do this when other mandates, taxes, fees and expensive compliance rules take effect (you never see it for increases in the minimum wage, for example).

Mild statement or annoying protest? Thoughts?

Leno’s next move

-
0

Mark Leno called today to thank us for endorsing him. I reminded him that this was a leap of faith for us, and that I’d gotten a lot of shit from some of my best political friends over the endorsement, and I told him that (a) he better not ever do anything boneheaded like endorsing Michael Yaki again, and (b) he needs to start now trying to repair the rifts that this race has caused. He promised me that was a top priority.

And then after I got off the phone I got an idea, which — like just about everything I’ve said to Leno — is worth putting out in public.

Mark: Why not start the process now by annoucing that you’ll support Debra Walker for District 6 supervisor in 2010?

She’s running. She told me that last week. She’s going to be the consensus progressive candidate to succeed Chris Daly. She’s a queer community leader, a leader in the arts community, an experienced political activist and city commissioner … she’s pretty much perfect for the job.

And she’s a supporter of Carole Migden.

That’s the sort of bold move it’s going to take to prove that you’re serious about bringing people together. And it’s a no-brainer, since Walker is such an extraordinary person and exceptional candidate. Nothing to lose here, Mark, and everything to gain. I have her phone number if you need it.

PS: Update: I’ve apparently been wrong in one of my criticisms — Leno says he never endorsed Michael Yaki. Sorry about the error.

Editor’s Notes

-
0

› tredmond@sfbg.com

I have something to say to Mark Leno, and I hope he’s paying attention.

Listen:

Our endorsement in the state Senate race, which you can read on page 13, was painful. We made the right call, and I stand behind it — but it wasn’t easy.

I still remember the year 2000, when San Francisco politics changed forever, when district elections turned the Board of Supervisors from a collection of political hacks — wholly owned by downtown and utterly loyal to a corrupt mayor — into one of the most progressive policy-making bodies in any city in America. That was the year Aaron Peskin, Chris Daly, Matt Gonzales, Jake McGoldrick, and Gerardo Sandoval joined Tom Ammiano and, in one great political day, doomed the Willie Brown machine to political obscurity and paved the way for a living wage law, universal health care, community choice aggregation, real budget oversight, and a city where the grassroots actually mattered.

And you, Mark, were on the wrong side of history. You went along with Willie Brown. You endorsed Lawrence Wong against Peskin. You endorsed Michael Yaki against McGoldrick. You were behind not only the sleazy Brown machine but a couple of truly lame candidates; those endorsements should embarrass you until the end of time. (Be serious — looking back at all that Peskin has done for San Francisco, can you actually say Lawrence Wong, who couldn’t even handle a job overseeing the Community College District, was the better choice? Mark, you are many things, but you are not a fool.)

If you win this election — and I think you will — you have some serious work to do bringing the queer community and the left back together. A lot of people are mad at their friends, and a lot of good allies are fighting. We’re losing sight of the prize, here. And while you had every right to challenge Carole Migden, and I’m glad you did, you also created this situation and you need to help fix it.

How do you do that? For starters, don’t attack Migden. She’s done enough damage to herself. And she’s done a lot for this community. Your campaign consultants will want to send out nasty hit pieces (they’re probably already printed), but you have to stop them. And if you don’t get that, if you think winning is more important than anything, then you’re as bad as Bill and Hillary Clinton, who seem to believe it would be better to elect a Republican than concede defeat to another Democrat. Don’t go there. The collateral damage would be immense. It’s not worth it.

And show a little independence. This November don’t let yourself side with another group of worthless supervisorial candidates who are simply Gavin Newsom clones.

When you refused to criticize Mayor Newsom’s bloody budget, you blamed the governor and told us you didn’t want to see "the good guys fighting." I have news for you: When it comes to the city budget, Gavin Newsom is not one of the good guys. He is our own Arnold Schwarzenegger, refusing to raise taxes and instead cutting programs.

And his allies, the downtown forces furious about the progressive board, will want to put another group of regressive sycophants in office this fall. You have no business being a part of that.

Mark, I like you, but this endorsement was a great leap of faith for me. Show me I wasn’t wrong.

Dede Wilsey is an idiot

-
0

And you wonder why Phil Bronstein, whose blog is quite pathetic, even pays attention to her. But Phil is always down with the swells, and now he is promoting Dede’s plan to repeal district elections.

Let me remind you, Phil, since you haven’t been covering City Hall in a long time, that the district-elected supervisors are far, far better, despite their occasional foibles, than any previous board in the 25 years I’ve been watching.

There’s a good reason for this: District candidates can run without big money from the powers that be and the Dede WIlsey’s of the world. So you get candidates with real grassroots constituencies, not just hacks who are pawns of the power structure.

The nightmare pastors

-
0

I’m sorry to see Barack Obama’s campaign in so much trouble over the latest comments of Rev. Wright, but you have to admit: This is a great argument for the separation of church and state.

Religious figures say all kinds of strange things — and frankly, while I (obviously) don’t agree with Wright that AIDS is a government plot, it’s pretty well established that the Reagan administration’s failure to respond to the epidemic in the crucial early years was, if not a government plot to kill anyone, certainly a government plot not to save the lives of gay men.

But here’s the question: Why so much media attention on Obama’s religious albatross — and so little on John McCain’s? McCain, lest we forget, is pals with Paston John Hagee, who believes, among other things, that the Catholic Church is a “great whore,” that “all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews,” that God wants us to bomb Iran — and that God damns the United States because of gays, Catholics and Muslims.

Me, I’d rather have a guy who rails against the U.S. for racism and imperialism than a guy who says God hates gays. But then, I don’t go to church.

1...899091...116Page 90 of 116

48hills.org is the official publication of the non-profit San Francisco Progressive Media Center.
Contact us: info@48hills.org