Sponsored link
Sunday, September 26, 2021

Sponsored link

UncategorizedWiener's allies attack Kim -- and the race has...

Wiener’s allies attack Kim — and the race has just started

Negative whisper campaign largely fails, but it shows that this campaign could get ugly

Scott Wiener's allies are already going negative
Scott Wiener’s allies are already going negative

By Tim Redmond

NOVEMBER 10, 2015 – Already, the state Senate race is getting ugly, with supporters of Sup. Scott Wiener calling around to women in the state Legislature and urging them to reject Sup. Jane Kim because she refused the mayor’s move to remove Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi from office.

But so far, that approach has utterly failed: Kim just got the endorsement of the California Democratic Women’s Caucus, including two state senators who were lobbied by Wiener allies.

Fiona Ma, a former legislator and current member of the state Board of Equalization, told me that she had made anti-Kim calls to some of the women she used to work with. “I want my former colleagues to know the facts,” she said.

Among those who received calls from Ma and others: State Sens. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) and Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles). Both have since endorsed Kim. (UPDATE: Ma says she spoke to Mitchell but never spoke to Jackson, but other Wiener allies did.)

That’s the first indication that Wiener’s allies are going to try to smear Kim with the same dirt that was thrown at Sup. David Campos when he ran for state Assembly.

We all should have expected this to happen eventually, but it indicates that Wiener is prepared to go negative right from the start.

“It’s not surprising that people are raising that concern [over the sheriff vote],” Wiener told me. “As elected officials, we’re all accountable for the votes we cast.”

But the language I’m hearing out of Sacramento – that Kim “supported” a sheriff with a domestic violence conviction – is more than a bit misleading. She never said that he should remain in his job; in fact, at the board meeting, she said in public that if the sheriff’s opponents wanted to organize a recall election, she’d support that.

What she and several of her colleagues decided on that momentous day was that the mayor had not met the very high standard to remove from office someone elected by the people.

You can agree or disagree with that position, and it’s been debated constantly over the past four years. The supervisors were sitting as judges, in a sense – they had to listen to the evidence presented and make an independent decision. It’s fine to say you think Kim made the wrong decision; that’s political accountability.

It’s a bit different to twist this into hit pieces saying she doesn’t care about domestic violence.

And in the heat of a campaign, the nuance of that very complicated and difficult vote will get lost.

We have seen this sort of thing before, plenty of times. I had to spend a huge amount of time six years ago explaining a child pornography bill that Mark Leno had introduced when he was in the state Assembly. The bill was complicated; the smear was not.

I had to go through this when Ron Conway tried to attack Campos with the Mirkarimi vote. The issue came up during the debates in that race, and David Chiu, who wound up winning, kept it civil; he said he disagreed with Campos, but didn’t try to malign his motives or say he supported violence against women.

As I wrote at the time:

There are good, reasonable people who think what Mirkarimi did was awful, inexcusable, deserving of criminal action and punishment – and still didn’t think the mayor had the right to remove him from office. …

The board, to its immense credit, did what it was supposed to do: Deliberate and discuss, in the role of a judicial body, whether the prosecution case presented by the mayor was adequate under the Charter to warrant removal.

I think most of the supervisors took this seriously. I think they listened to the evidence, gave both sides a fair chance to make the case, and tried to do the right thing. I was proud of the board that day.

And while Campos and Chiu disagreed, and this has been an issue in the campaign (a legitimate issue), they’ve mostly kept the discussion respectful. As I said, a reasonable person could easily have seen that evidence and come down on either side. I don’t fault Chiu for his vote; I don’t fault Campos either.

One former judge at the time told me that if the case had been in court, a ruling either way would have stood up: “If I had ruled in favor, I would not have been overturned [on appeal]. If I had ruled against, I would not have been overturned.” On the merits, the legal merits (and Chiu, Campos, and Kim are all lawyers with degrees from top schools) there was room for fair disagreement.

Scott Wiener, who is also a lawyer with a degree from a fancy school, knows that.

And as a friend of Leno’s, he knows how bad it can be when complex issues become political smear campaigns.

As Kim just told me, “I think we should be accountable for our votes but also honest about why those votes happen. I have demonstrated my record on women’s issues and domestic violence, and when I explain that to people, they get it.”

Can’t we have a positive campaign that talks about the issues? I suppose that’s too much to ask.

But I will note: Aaron Peskin never did a single attack piece on Julie Christensen, although her campaign and her allies went after Peskin mercilessly. (UPDATE: The IE’s supporting Peskin did do negative pieces on Christensen, but nothing like the attacks Peskin endured.) And he won.

Tim Redmond
Tim Redmond has been a political and investigative reporter in San Francisco for more than 30 years. He spent much of that time as executive editor of the Bay Guardian. He is the founder of 48hills.
Sponsored link


  1. Yes, I want people elected with less than 10k votes to hold the real power! Lets make sure only the most parochial of concerns get heard!

  2. Ross Mirkarimi has done more to undermine the progressive cause than Don Fisher or “downtown” ever could have hoped for. If anything, Conway et al should be funding him to run for Supervisor again in D5 just to prolong the pain and suffering he’s caused lol.

  3. You’re right, he doesn’t fall into it, he currently DEFINES it.

    He was born out of a small clique of elites, for goodness sakes.

  4. “I don’t think correctly stating we live in a Republic is a semantic
    argument or trivial. I’m not going to understand why you think

    Because either this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, or it is not. If it’s not, then it should be. I don’t care what it’s called. I care about who ultimately holds power, the citizens or a small clique of elites.

    “you’re trotting out the same defense of term limits that failed in 1988.
    Back then, the fear mongering was that Gays, Minorities, Women, etc.
    would never be elected again. Well we know that’s far from true, looking
    at the current board.”

    No, my opposition to term limits has nothing to do with who is elected, and everything to with process. Frankly I could care less what color and gender my representatives are, and where they stick their genitals. I vote on issues alone. And regardless of *my* vote, I want the people to be able to vote for whomever they want without restrictions.

    “Term limits are a safeguard.”
    Against what? Democracy? I don’t want people to be safeguarded from their own choices.

  5. It wasn’t about Jane Kim allowing anything.

    Fiona Ma told Tim she made the negative calls. And that was going to be reported.

  6. Dear Jon, the mailer is real


    It isn’t a lie.

    And Donald Dewsnup volunteered for her campaign. Any campaign these days monitors what is said about the candidate on social media. They could have asked him to stop his false attacks

    He kept saying Peskin was a womanizer which is false.

    He also bragged on the SFBARF email list about sitting next to his wife at a debate and making her uncomfortable, but they are still supporting him for the local Sierra Club board.

    Donald Dewsnup:

    The next Sup Christensen/ Peskin Debate will be on October 8th…

    Come join us at the University Club on Nob Hill and support Supervisor Julie Christensen in one of Her last debates.

    We need to be cheerleaders during the debate clapping enthusiastically. She needs our help….

    The last debate was filmed on TV. I sat next to Peskin’s wife last time and made her feel very uncomfortable. LOL

  7. The SFBG was transferred to a new non-profit, San Francisco Center for Newspaper Preservation, because the former owner only agreed to keep the website up for a year.

    “Currently, past issues are available on the old site, but that is still maintained by the San Francisco Media Co., which plans on discontinuing it at the end of 2015.”

    They originally were just going to kill the site, but there was enough outrage to get them to agree to that.



  8. Let’s see. He was stumbling badly in his testimony and suddenly there (supposedly) was a bomb in a vehicle just outside. So do the police evacuate the building, lock it down, clear the streets and bring in the bomb squad? Nope, they come and evacuate Lee for his safety and everything continues as if nothing has happened.

    If you can’t do the math on this, it is your problem.

  9. Agree. I do wonder how accurate the obstructionist tag is though. My guess is he actually doesn’t have the consistency to get involved with the preservationist issues lingering in D3. If someone wants to put condos where the Boun Gusto plant is, what does he do now?

  10. I don’t think correctly stating we live in a Republic is a semantic argument or trivial. I’m not going to understand why you think otherwise. I wasn’t intending to be petty, I think it matters when you’re going on about Canada, and the Democratic process, etc.
    Honestly, you’re trotting out the same defense of term limits that failed in 1988. Back then, the fear mongering was that Gays, Minorities, Women, etc. would never be elected again. Well we know that’s far from true, looking at the current board.

    Peskin is a careerist politician. I think it’s widely acknowledged that his deals are always geared towards personal power, no matter how small and inconsequential.

    I think it’s a huge error to view this election as a vote of confidence in Aaron. The neighborhood groups stood a lot to gain from his return. During the time Peskin and his crowd were asleep, more vacancies got filled, and they got to remove the police spotlights off Broadway. I’d say all of D3 has improved with his absence, so we’ll see if that’s coincidental.

    Peskin could screw up royally and still get re-elected. See his career for proof.

    Term limits are a safeguard. It allows a neighborhood to cycle with some fresh faces. In a roundabout way, it discourages systematic voter fraud. It doesn’t stifle a vote, it says that after a certain period, a candidate should find another office if you want to vote for them again. And the most damning issue is this wasn’t overtly repealed. It was snuck in.

  11. “We have a Republic, for starters.”
    I just have to say, I hate when people throw out that irrelevant, meaningless, throwaway line of legalistic jargon. Look, the point is that whatever you want to call it, it’s supposed to be a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” And it’s not. I think you’re capable of understanding the point I’m making, so please be serious and don’t make these semantic arguments.

    “You don’t have to answer, and I don’t mean to sound patronizing, but were you around for Peskin’s first 8 years?”
    Oh yes, absolutely. I only talked to him about legislation a couple times, but he was serious, responsive, straightforward and real. He may not always agree with you, but you get the impression that this is someone who doesn’t suffer fools and he’ll give you a straight and honest answer. I much prefer to deal with someone like Peskin, than slick politicians like David Chiu, Bevan Dufty, or Mark Leno who you can’t get a straight answer from. And btw… I neither contributed nor volunteered on either of his first two campaigns. Not all progressives liked him either. Some say he compromised too much. But unlike Chiu, who always made deals with an eye toward his career, Peskin’s dealmaking was always made with an eye toward a larger purpose.

    “Peskin’s absence from office is the very reason his district is looking
    alive again. He crippled his own neighborhood, and yet, he is the name
    brand established candidate and will be until he retires.”
    Frankly I haven’t noticed much change, except that it’s gone from expensive when he left, to outrageous now. And that’s wreaked havoc on people’s lives. Obviously the people still in his district don’t see it the way you do.

    “Peskin could never, never, never, lose to a small town bartender.”
    I agree with that, but that’s precisely because he works hard and gets things done. That’s what I’m talking about when I say incumbency advantage isn’t necessarily bad. When incumbency advantage comes as a result of being able to raise more money and flood the airwaves because you’ve done a few rich people a lot of favors and then you can call in your chips at election time, that’s a problem. But when incumbency advantage comes because people know you work hard and get things done, and hundreds of people are willing to take the time to volunteer on your campaign, that’s what democracy is all about. Or call it a republic if you wish. Whatever. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. Telling people, “No, I won’t allow you to vote for this person because I don’t trust you to make the right decision” is not democracy. Or republic. That’s an infringement on the right to vote.

  12. Yes but the union members who brought us the weekend are long dead and today’s organized labor cannot arrest labor’s steady decline.

    The unions that pay Tim to pimps for them, who are now almost exclysively confined to the public sector, have interests that are often disjoint than those of residents. San Franciscans are not anti-labor, but organized labor leveraging their relative economic and organized power to shout over residents to elect candidates favorable to labor is often disrespectful if not anti-San Franciscan. I doubt that if SEIU had to compete to represent SF city workers that they’d win an election today. Their own representational house is too much in disorder.

    Likewise the interests of the nonprofits on one hand and their clients and other residents are oftentimes disjoint. That is why, often times with taxpayer funding, these corporations leverage their relative economic power into a form of organizing that suffocates the voices of residents.

    Today’s organized labor is in no way poised to execute in the way that my those who came before us did. Today’s nonprofiteers inherited the fruits of the risk taking and sacrifice of previous generations.

  13. Chiu had to help fight Peskin’s wife and THD cronies to get the library built. Peskin’s election means that the subway tunnel that is already dug to North Beach will remain unused. Keep the riff-raff out.

    Peskin’s policies are disasters of impracticality. He’ll fight against a Right-Aid in North Beach because he wants the old fashioned independent drug store. So now they have to walk to Chinatown or Fisherman’s Wharf to get their prescriptions filled at a Walgreens.

    He ran a campaign of fear — vote for me or you’ll get evicted. Meanwhile, there is little that he can do at the district level and his cohones were too tiny to run against Lee or for something in Sacramento, where he could actually make a difference.

  14. We have a Republic, for starters.

    You don’t have to answer, and I don’t mean to sound patronizing, but were you around for Peskin’s first 8 years?

    He didn’t phone it in, far from it, so that would never be a criticism you’ll hear about him. Yet, he sure as hell has owned the seat. Who cares if he thinks he’s safe, or if he has populace support, there is a danger in predetermining elections, or changing laws for specific candidates, or seeing an oligarchy rule small government.

    Peskin’s absence from office is the very reason his district is looking alive again. He crippled his own neighborhood, and yet, he is the name brand established candidate and will be until he retires.

    Peskin could never, never, never, lose to a small town bartender.

    His successor Chiu, never saw a real threat either. Christensen was a terrible candidate, who only had traction because she was holding office, had a war chest of support, and the Mayor’s hand holding, AND she too came from under Peskin’s wing.

  15. so why are you reading it – how good do you feel after you attempt to slime someone – over and over again; do you feel like a big guy

  16. the labor movement brought you the weekend, the 8-hour day, health and safety regulations – it did not come from the goodness of management

  17. It was a whisper campaign in South Carolina by George W. Bush operatives that did in John McCain in the 2000 GOP primary. This, combined with a decision by a conservative Supreme Court, gave us a president who wiped out a budget surplus, was asleep at the wheel when terrorists attacked, launched an endless war in Afghanistan, launched a war in Iraq that plagues us to this day, and presided over the worst financial meltdown since the great depression. My take away: bad actions in politics lead to bad ends.

  18. No, Peskin is at the mercy of his constituents, not the other way around. Well that’s if you believe this is a democracy. It’s not exactly a democracy, of course. What we have in America is a corrupt perversion of the concept, but telling people they can’t vote for a popular incumbent doesn’t advance the cause of democracy.

    The real problem is money, and no one wants to deal with that.

    Take for example Canada. Elections for the Canadian Parliament are set up in the stupidest manner possible in many ways. First past the post, winner take all districts, gerrymandering, unfair apportionment -in short, many of the same problems you have in American elections, and it sometimes produces peculiar results. But the tyranny of incumbency is DEFINITELY not one of them. They too have seats that conventional wisdom says should be strongholds for this or that party, or this or that person. Sometimes an incumbent holds a seat for 30 years and you think they will hold that seat till the day they die. Until they lose to a 20-year old political science student, or a karate instructor whose only previous political experience is running for mayor on the Communist Party ticket… by 30 percentage points. Even though you happen to be the nation’s Foreign Minister.

    And this happens. Regularly. So what’s the difference? Money. In Canada, the parties each get 20 million to spend on the election, and that’s that. That completely changes the dynamic. Without being able to totally dominate the debate, you actually have to work for your constituents (instead of the big moneyed interests). If you do produce, then you have an incumbency advantage, and you have it for all the right reasons.

    Take the case of one Ruth Ellen Brousseau, a bartender and single mother who was swept into office because her party was winning all over the country. She didn’t run a campaign, and in fact she didn’t set foot in the district. She didn’t even speak the same language as the rest of her district. But the people of her district were drawn to the ideas of the leader of her party, so they turned out a “safe” long term incumbent and elected her. She was on vacation in Vegas when her friends started calling her to tell her she was winning her seat in a landslide. The opposition ridiculed her, of course. They dubbed her the “MP from Vegas.” But she got the last laugh. She decided that she would be the best MP anyone has ever seen, she worked her ass off for her constituents and proved her critics wrong. The next time around, she won a solid re-election victory, EVEN THOUGH the rest of her party was now losing seats left and right.

    So it’s a lot more fluid when money doesn’t dominate the debate. Sometimes voters prefer to turn away from a party because of ideas, and there’s not much an incumbent can do about it because they’re not dominating the airwaves. But it doesn’t mean there’s NO incumbency advantage. It doesn’t mean that you can’t amass a volunteer army. But if manage to do that, then that means people in the district really do support you, and they may overlook party preference.

    But for that to happen, you have to deliver. What you cannot do under such a system is phone it in like many US congresscritters do. You can’t depend on your donors to carry the day for you, because your donors are severely limited by law, no matter how rich they are. The minute you think you’re safe because you “own” the seat, as you put it, that’s when you suddenly wake up to find that you’ve just lost it to a 28-year old bartender. No term limits needed.

  19. For people to support a candidate simply based on gender is pathetic.
    To try to tar a candidate on the Mirk vote is only slightly less pathetic. And Tim, let us know when it is fair/unfair to tar a candidate with something that a supporter of theirs does.
    But that aside, lets not herald Jane Kim as some type of Progressive hero. Just last month she, to use the typical bullshit language of SF non-profits, declared war on the homeless. Really, Jane? Fencing off a public park because some neighbors have issue with the homeless people who hang out there? Oh, the Progressiveness of it all!! Can we stop for a second and imagine the outrage on this here website if it had been Scott Wiener who had done that? Front page news with 118 comments at least. But not a peep. Kind of a joke, really.

  20. Sorry, but there’s no reason Peskin should serve a combined 9 years, let along 17 years on the BOS, not counting the 2 years of his surrogate. No politician of any ideology should own their seat. It’s the opposite of Democracy.

    Decades of control in D3 should not be under one politicians whims and desires as he plays petty politics.

    Tell me, if you disagree with Peskin on a D3 issue, where do you go, what do you do? You’re at his mercy, and the mercy of the neighborhood groups he controls. Do you fund a campaign against him all on your own? Do you turn yourself into Rose Pak, and Jon Gollinger, magically? And when he runs for re-election, do people hold him accountable? Ever? Does his record get scrutinized in depth? Do people remember what he did to you, how he told you he would ruin you or your neighbor, and essentially did? Oh sure, some comments on blogs will reference it, but then the guy runs a populace campaign, claims he’s going to make the whole city affordable again with magic dust, and then he banks on name recognition and power with the local Democrats, or just gets pushed over with the recent arrivals to SF that just read how effective he was and follow their progressive voter guidebooks.

    That in no way reflects Democracy, it reflects political manipulation from a greasy politician. We must have term limits. It’s not a lifetime job. 8 years is plenty, and the system already allows for grooming a successor.

  21. I understand all about the advantages of incumbency. I think it’s overblown, in the sense that many incumbents win re-election for the same reasons that they won election. The same combination of demographic advantage and personal political skills, generally are in play in future elections. Other reasons incumbents tend to win is because they build on those skills, collect experience, and deliver something for their constituents that they can then run on. All of these help incumbents, and all of these are legitimate. There are also illegitimate aspects of incumbency advantage, such as the ability to raise more money due to granting favors to special interests. But there are ways to deal with that which don’t threaten democracy itself. Term limits is like using a chain saw where you really need a scalpel.

  22. The problem with sending someone to Sacramento is that we really have no idea what they are doing. The Chronicle runs a state legislative story once in a blue moon, and often with a unique anti-teacher’s union slant. That leaves us with press releases from our representatives. The result is we know more about what Nancy Pelosi is doing in the House than what our representatives are doing in Sacramento.

  23. Except for executive positions like president, governor and mayor, term limits for state and local legislators were dreamed up by conservatives as a way to limit legislative power. One result has been a less professional class of legislators who are more easily swayed by money and special interests.

  24. San Francisco is a “strong mayor” town and a big source of the mayor’s power is appointments to vacancies in elected positions. The charter needs to be amended to curb some of this power. More power should reside with the Board of Supervisors.

  25. If you have evidence that the Peskin team green lighted third party expenditures against Christensen, you should turn it over to the DA; I believe the law prohibits campaigns coordinating with third-party campaign efforts. Also, if you believe this, you should also believe that the Christensen campaign green lighted anti-Peskin ads, and in the end, they clearly spent more doing it.

    Overall, third party expenditures are a scourge in American politics. Kim and Wiener would do San Francisco voters a favor by agreeing to renounce third-party expenditures in their upcoming Senate race.

  26. OK. But I still contend that the last thing we need is Wiener embedded in Sacramento. While I never condoned Mirkarimi’s behavior I find it unfortunate that many still buy into the accusation that he ‘beat his wife’ and use that as reason for making political decisions. There is no excuse for abuse, physical, emotional, psychological, but this ‘incident’ was a ‘domestic dispute’ that was blown out of proportion for political reasons and did not advance the struggle for women’s rights. It simply succeeded in dividing ‘progressives’ and increasing the power of ‘downtown’. Just my 2c.

  27. It’s not just the will of the voters that creates professional local politicians.

    The last time we had a BOS class allowed more than 8 years, they had a stranglehold on the City, but the name recognition to essentially name their successors. If our BOS act as neighborhood Mayors, meets mafia boss, then no, we can’t have unlimited terms. It may take a couple years, but you’ll come around on this.

  28. Not sure why Scott Wiener still has a reputation for civility — often echoed by Tim Redmond — when he routinely engages in defamatory whisper campaigns.

  29. It’s been about 3 years now. How bout you share your evidence showing that the bomb scare was totally fake. Because security issues do occur at City Hall and the mayor does need to be consulted.

    So please do share, otherwise people might think that you just make up whatever you wish and blurt it out repeatedly.

  30. Oh, I don’t think D5 is jinxed. Progressives won 3 elections there, and they’ll likely win again next time. I don’t think Supervisor potty-mouth has much of a future.

    I did forget how the smear campaign against Julian Davis affected that race. You’re right that with Davis in the race, it might have tripped up London Breed even with all the Conway money backing her. He might have pulled away just enough votes to let Olague squeak by; who knows, he may have even won. He came in third as it is. Conway and Lee play hardball politics. Kay had a good job in the city. Not every 20-something with a degree in Politics and a minor in acting in softcore indy exploitation movies can get a six-figure job as the Emergency Services Coordinator for a major city that sits on an earthquake fault. (don’t you feel safe knowing that!) So when it’s suggested that you may want to dredge up 4-year old allegations that one of your boss’s opponents is a creep, in a race that just happens to have your boss’s candidate running a tough race… oh it might behoove you to follow those gentle suggestions.

    As for Qwan in Oakland, that race went exactly the way IRV is supposed to work. She turned out pretty badly, but no one could know that at the time. And at the very least, we ended the career of the odious and corrupt Don Perata, who would have been far worse than Qwan. Qwan, for her part, self-destructed for the same reason Olague did. She tried to sit on the fence, and as a result pissed off everyone.

    One silver lining is that Qwan definitively shattered not one, but two myths that anti-IRV folks like to promote –
    1. The absurd allegation that IRV is somehow “biased” against women and minorities
    2. That incumbents never lose under IRV

  31. I don’t think Willie Brown could have won a third term; same for Ed Lee. Voters are getting tired of him already. But if he did, so be it.

    Reality Check. No matter who ‘wins’, Mr Ed is gonna select another Conway clone for Supervisor. Kim is gonna be far better for us in Sacramento in the years ahead. We will just have to suffer a couple more years of the weasel and do our best to foil his mostly malignant machinations. We must start now to identify and support viable, ‘acceptable’ candidates in all upcoming district elections. We only have about 12 months with this ‘progressive’ Board.

  33. Who doesn’t want to see a lifetime term for Willie Brown or Ed Lee!?

    If it weren’t for term limits, we’d still have two Alioto’s on the BOS.

  34. He’s not a “perp,” a word that should be expunged from the lexicon anyway, and “most” people in such a case wouldn’t even be charged, because DAs know that it’s virtually impossible to get a conviction when the alleged “victim” doesn’t want anything to do with the case. But of course that was never the point of all this. Smearing Ross’s good name was always the primary objective.

  35. You overlook the fact that a key progressive candidate for D5 self-destructed on sexual harassment issues. Perhaps the main conclusion we can draw is that there is something about D5 that jinxes progressives.

    I agree that IRV has flaws. It produced the ill-fated Mayor Qwan in Oakland, for instance.

  36. Wait… what am I talking about? My brain must not be working right today, because for some reason I was operating on the assumption that D8 becomes an open seat. It doesn’t, so I guess it sucks either way. Still probably better to get rid of Weenie on balance. At least that way a conservative gets replaced by a conservative.

  37. Olague’s problem was that she tried to have it both ways. Had she immediately and clearly declared independence from the mayor, she would have cleared the field on the progressive side. Her problem was not London Breed. Her problem was that several progressives were siphoning off votes. IRV theoretically counters that, but IRV is an imperfect system. Better than the others, perhaps, but you still run into vote scatter. She would have easily won a 1-on-1 contest with Breed, but to get to a point where she would have the full support of the progressive community would have required nerves of steel.

  38. I dunno….the part about reviving the SFBG logo so that Tim could make the endorsements that he is prohibited from on 48 Hills (so that he can get a tax advantaged status) was pretty sleazy. Somebody should follow the money in that one.

  39. Sure but the bruise was there for all to see, so Mirk obviously did something. And his “it’s just a private family matter” shtick didn’t help either.

    If Mirk is guilty of nothing else, he is guilty of stupidity and of betraying his supporters by neutering his electoral success and the decisions that led to it.

    And the legacy of that failure is enduring, as we see here.

  40. I see the logic of your position. It would have been like me tactically voting for Campos versus Chiu just to get rid of him, and have the mayor appoint to D9 rather than D3.

    But in the end, I just could not bring myself to do it. I would have felt dirty.

  41. Well let’s see, if weenie wins, will there really be much difference in Sacramento? Someone like Campos might have pushed tenants issues, but I don’t see Jane Kim doing anything inspiring. They’ll both vote the right way on the budget. OTOH, if Kim wins, we lose D6. Potentially that could hamper progressive legislation for 10 years. Maybe someone could convince me otherwise, and if weenie starts making the campaign about Ross Mirkarimi, that just might convince me to write a check to Kim. But for now, that’s the way I see the race. I voted for Ting over Sandoval for Assessor for the exact same reason, even though I’m closer to Sandoval politically.

  42. We all know that people cop to all sorts of BS charges, because the system is rigged. But that’s not my point. This stuff about “you have cooties because you endorsed someone who supported someone who’s friend’s cousin may have done something bad at some point in the past…” it’s all getting ridiculous. I actually know the story, and MY head is starting to spin when I hear the logic.

  43. Tim’s pimping for the non-profit and labor vampire squids has nothing to do with how Aaron Peskin ran his positive campaign.

    Tim was minister of propaganda as the progressives consumed their connection to San Francisco residents in favor of feeding Calvin and Gabriel’s vampire squids. Under his ministry, the circumstance of those dependent upon labor and the nonprofits deteriorated while Tim got rescued.

    I wonder if any public dollars get laundered by the vampire squids into the 48hills/sfbg lifeline?

  44. DV cases are treated in a special way, because of Federal law. The county gets money from the Feds for each successful prosecution for DV, and so the DA tends to be more relentless on DV crimes than other crimes of violence. The 10 year ban on firearms also comes from the Feds.

    A small bruise or cut inflicted on a domestic partner gets treated more seriously and aggressively than a much more serious act of violence outside of a relationship.

    In fact the DA will sometimes pursue a case even after the victim recants or refuses to testify.

    So in a sense I think Mirk for caught up in the county’s zero tolerance approach to DV. He would have stood better if he had broken some random guy’s nose in a bar.

    All that said, Mirk should have resigned rather than stubbornly carrying on as a lame duck and putting everyone else through the tedium of the proceedings.

  45. I never liked Mirk. But the case against him didn’t exactly pass the smell test.

    The totally fake “bomb scare” rescue of Ed Lee added to my doubts on this case.

  46. I’m not so sure. On two occasions, she went apeshit in businesses over Peskin or anti-Christensen signs in their windows, and even though one of the business owners put her name to the story, I didn’t give it a lot of credibility until I spoke with my neighbor. She is a very polite person who is a church-going moderate. She had an encounter at a cafe with Christensen, who she characterized as needlessly defensive, snapped back several times in the conversation and was needlessly tenacious.

    But you may be right.

  47. Defending Aaron Peskin’s political decorum is like defending an arsonist when he burns just one house not the whole neighborhood….Better just to keep quiet and recognize that the argument is so absolutely ridiculous to people who know anything that making the argument would be so laughable and discrediting to the source that it isn’t worth making.

  48. Tim, for once I am going to agree with you. I disagreed with Kim’s vote to reinstate Mirk but she was quite clear at the time that she didn’t think that Mirk was fit to serve and that she would vote for a formal impeachment. She simply had a problem with the process on legal and technical grounds.

    And as you note, Kim did not support Mirk this last election, although I thought she endorsed Hennessy not Cunnie.

    I like Wiener and hope he wins. Given that the district has a lot of moderates he should prevail and I would prefer him not to resort to dirty tricks. On the other hand he is my local supervisor and I don’t want to lose him. And a part of me would prefer a mayoral appointment to D6.

    Given that I think Kim is probably the best and smartest of the progressive supervisors I have known, this is not a race where I am going to worry about the result too much about either way.

  49. That punishment is identical to the standard punishment for a DV rap, and that was deliberate. Having spent a six-figure sum on defense lawyers, Mirk managed to plead to a rap that was technically not a DV rap, but everyone knows that it was anyway. Most DV perps would not have been able to throw money at the problem.

    But you are right that it was not a felony. Much easier to get a misdemeanor expunged and I would guess that Mirk already did that.

    Not that that helped him very much.

  50. Ah, yes, that pinnacle of sober decorum, Aaron Peskin? Do you even read what you write after you press enter? Or does your empty drivel transport you to a place where down is up and cold is hot?

  51. Totally agreed. Still doesn’t mean Peskin is clean. And anyone who knows anything about the guy knows that. And is proud of it…For goddsakes people, who the hell do you think you are kidding?

  52. I can not believe Jane Kim would allow this sort of half truths to become public, and to state that Weiner has a degree from a fancy school is pretty childish. Shame on Kim and her campaign for starting the campaign with such a negative release.

  53. Cootie politics. You’re an evil rapist, because you endorsed someone who didn’t support removing someone from office who was accused by someone of domestic violence.

  54. Actually I kind of agree with John Kozone on this one point. I don’t think Christensen had much control over anything. She got her marching orders from Conway and Lee, and did what she was told.

  55. I agree we should change the term limit law… as in, scrap it. If people want to keep re-electing someone indefinitely, no one should tell them they don’t have that democratic right.

  56. The Chinese newspapers will print stories other sources wouldn’t dare touch…but they also publish gossip, and fiction.

    Also…ahem…Term Limits. Peskin’s campaign should never be mistaken for clean.

  57. “The majority of us who voted in district 3 voted for Peskin because we disagreed with Christensen. End of story.”

    Another ringing endorsement!

  58. “but you endorsed Jane Kim?” The reaction Holly Mitchell and Hannah Beth Jackson deserve the next time they utter the words “domestic violence.”

  59. Nobody, absolutely nobody ever printed a quote where she said that “rent control is the problem”. You guys made that part up. She was talking about A problem with rent control (a legitimate one that you might understand if you turn 80 and live in a 4th floor walkup), and that was close enough for people who are ethically challenged to have a field day.

    But yes, she ran a terrible campaign. It was embarrassing. But if she was doing it for the third time and Peskin for the first it might have been a different result. Which is one reason that we should change the term limit law so that disasters like this don’t happen in the future.

  60. Not a convicted felon. “On March 13, Mirkarimi pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment. The charges of domestic violence and two other misdemeanor counts were dropped. Under the plea agreement, Mirkarimi was sentenced to three years’ probation, one year of weekly domestic violence batterers classes, parenting classes, a hundred hours of community service, and fines and court fees nearing $600.”

    But great hyperbole. I’m sure those hundreds of thousands of women lived in fear while he was sheriff.

    Shame on you for lying.

  61. Multiple sources said that is what she said. Are you calling the Sing Tao Daily liars?

    And it really doesn’t matter. She lost. She ran a lousy campaign. The majority of us who voted in district 3 voted for Peskin because we disagreed with Christensen. End of story.

  62. How could she ever imagine that Conway would support doing something like this? Because he’s never done it before, right?

  63. Jane Kim allowed a convicted felon, a wife beater, a kidnapper, to not only keep his job but to keep his gun and his position of authority over hundreds of thousands of San Francisco women.

    shame on her.

  64. >”saying rent control is the problem”

    Yeah. She never said that. Sara Shortt wrote an opinion piece in which she said “as I heard it” Christensen was talking about the problem that people get locked into their rent controlled units. They can’t easily move somewhere else if they have kids or become infirm.

    So you guys went wild saying that she said that “rent control is the problem”. Because that’s what you guys do. You lie. Constantly.

  65. >”the Christensen hit piece on Peskin, calling him a misogynist.”

    You mean the one that exists only in your poisoned imagination?

    Christensen isn’t responsible for everything that her supporters/IECs said, any more than Peskin is for his.

  66. >”Tim’s propaganda for the SFIC/CCHo masquerading as journalism is irrelevant”

    I don’t think that it is irrelevant. I saw hit pieces against Christensen that said absurd things, and the source given was 48 Hills. Tim Redmond weakens the public political discourse by posing as a legitimate journalist. The causal voter doesn’t even know who he is and could falsely accept what he writes as being true.

  67. I don’t suppose that you could produce one mailer sent by Christensen saying that Peskin was a misogynist.

    And holding Christensen responsible for internet comments made by her supporters is absurd. Is Peskin responsible for the lie that you just told about theChristensen misogynist mailers?

  68. The assertion that Aaron Peskin never did a single attack piece on Julie Christensen was how this thread began.

    Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Tim’s propaganda for the SFIC/CCHo masquerading as journalism is irrelevant

  69. But Christensen was in denial about the eviction crisis.

    “Christensen said, “Jane can bring out these horror stories — most of which have not taken place, even in California — and the property owners have their own horror stories.””

    Regardless, saying that she talked like a conservative is hardly a smear, unlike the Christensen hit piece on Peskin, calling him a misogynist.

  70. I’m looking at 2 pieces right now, @Ragazzu:disqus , paid for by the International Union Local 1021 supporting Aaron Peskin. One says that “Christensen is in denial about San Francisco’s eviction crisis”. The other says “Christensen even talks like a conservative” and has her next to pictures of Schwarzenegger, Whitman and both Bush sons.

    Yes, these came from IECs, which are ‘allies’. Such as the one that Tim refers to in the headline of this article.

    Look, Tim Redmond openly claims to be a journalist and not a propagandist. It’s entirely fair game to point out what a joke that is.

  71. What attacks on Julie? She pretty much did it to herself, with her constant stream of gaffs. Calling tenants lower-class, saying rent control is the problem, solving a problem by old people living in converted boiler rooms, her flub with saying the evictions crisis is being overblown, she just was a font of idiocy, campaign-wise.

    Do you live in District 3?

  72. At least on of Christensen’s supporters was all over the blogsphere calling anyone who disagreed with Christensen a sexist.

    And then there were her mailers, saying that Peskin was misogynist. It was disgusting and, thankfully, it cost her some votes.

  73. “….Aaron Peskin never did a single attack piece on Julie Christensen,
    although her campaign and her allies went after Peskin mercilessly. And
    he won…”

    Really, Tim? Are you that desperate to clean Peskin’s slate that you really believe that Peskin’s team didn’t green light some of the attacks on Julie that DIDN’T come directly from the campaign? Who the hell do you think you are convincing with such nonsense?

Comments are closed.

Sponsored link

Top reads

A new dark-money group with GOP support seeks to raise crime fears

A misleading mailer attacking the record of DA Chesa Boudin hits the streets—but who paid for it?

Robots in the crash pad: The twisted takeover of the Red Victorian Hotel

How Haight Ashbury countercultural ideals were distorted by a tech "co-living" experiment, and a trans performance community was displaced.

Arts Forecast: Folsom MEGAHOOD Fair plays safely naughty, Litquake erupts in verbiage

Plus: Whiskies of the World, The Bad Plus, Public Works' 10-Year, "Bacchae Before," more upcoming events.

More by this author

A new dark-money group with GOP support seeks to raise crime fears

A misleading mailer attacking the record of DA Chesa Boudin hits the streets—but who paid for it?

While people sit in jail cells, SF courts delay criminal trials

Judges hear civil cases while violating the law and delaying the right to a speedy trial for criminal defendants, public defender says.

A car-free JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park is finally close to reality

But there are some complicated equity issues that will require a lot more discussion.
Sponsored link

You might also likeRELATED