Sponsored link
Wednesday, April 17, 2024

Sponsored link

Home Featured Scott Wiener’s deceitful Guardian mailing

Scott Wiener’s deceitful Guardian mailing

State Senate candidate changes the words from the newspaper and uses a quote radically out of context to make it appear he has tenant and progressive support. Which he doesn't

Here's the mailer Wiener sent out; looks like the Bay Guardian loves him and so do tenants!

The campaign of Sup. Scott Wiener is taking the concept of misleading information to a new, and astonishing level: He’s putting out a reproduction of a Bay Guardian cover from 2013 with the text changed to suggest that the paper supports him.

Politicians use quotes from newspapers all the time, sometimes out of context. But this is another whole level.

The Bay Guardian endorsements are here. The paper supports Jane Kim for state Senate.

Here's the mailer Wiener sent out; looks like the Bay Guardian loves him and so do tenants!
Here’s the mailer Wiener sent out; looks like the Bay Guardian loves him and so do tenants!

But that’s not how this mailer looks. It’s got a nice picture of Wiener next to the headline “POLITICAL MACHINE.” In the original story, by then-editor Steven T. Jones, the subhed made clear the context:

Scctt Wiener is relentless, driven, prolific – and changing San Francisco in sometimes alarming ways

That’s not what the version Wiener’s campaign is putting out says. In his fake Guardian cover, the subhed reads

“Wiener has a history of supporting pro-tenant legislation.”

There’s also a quote from Sen. Mark Leno on the bottom, which is fair enough – Leno supports Wiener.

This is the actual cover, with a very different subhed (and the story has a very different quote)
This is the actual cover, with a very different subhed (and the story has a very different quote)

But the implication that the Guardian wrote a cover story saying he supports tenant issues is just wrong. Here’s the actual quote from that story:

“Gullicksen [that’s the late, wonderful Tenants Union leader Ted Gullicksen] acknowledged that Wiener has a history of supporting pro-tenant legislation, particularly during his time on the DCCC when tenants were at war with Wiener’s predecessor, Bevan Duty, and then-Mayor Gavin Newsom. But he said that Wiener changed after the progressives took over the DCCC and prepared to run for supervisor in a district that has gentrified, largely because of apartments being turned into TICs and condos.

“He made the decision that he was not going to be with the progressives and to ally himself with the conservatives, moderates, and real estate people,” Gullicksen said.”

That’s the actual honest quote. To say that Wiener took Gullicksen’s words, and the Guardian’s, out of context would be a stunning understatement.

I used to be the executive editor of the Bay Guardian, although I was gone by the time this story ran. (Another nonprofit I am involved with recently regained rights to the paper.) Over the years, I saw a lot of politicians try to take advantage of nice things we had said about them even when we were endorsing somebody else.

But I’ve never seen anything remotely as bad as this. It’s just dishonest; there’s no other way to describe it.

I texted Wiener today to ask for comment, but he hasn’t given me a statement.

I’m also interested in the story that CW Nevius (hasn’t he retired yet) did about Wiener this morning, quoting Rep. Barney Frank on the importance of LGBT representation in elective office. In this case, Frank is backing Wiener for state Senate.

I agree with that sentiment. But I find it a little hypocritical: When Sup. David Campos, a gay man, was running for state Assembly two years ago, Wiener endorsed his opponent, Sup. David Chiu, a straight man. If Wiener wins the state Senate race, the city could for the first time in years have no LGBT representation on the Board of Supes – unless Kimberly Alvarenga, a lesbian mom, wins D11. Who is Wiener backing? Her straight opponent, Ahsha Safai.

Tom Temprano, a former Milk Club president who is running for Community College Board, put it this way:

“If you are talking about the need for LGBT representation but you didn’t back Campos and you aren’t supporting Alvarenga, please take a seat.





  1. Well happy success and new year along tears, Scott yes I’m critical using heritage. Friends with REITS paradox Scott simply conveying,social responsibility or personal political goals which later is effort of Scott. Laughing 2016 when taken credit if HIV/AIDS you can’t be evicted where is law? Regarding prior evicted tenants whom lost housing during lotteries for TIC, Scott elated to approve them ordeal. Many LGBTQ not following Scott mischief which apparent,pretense making sense listing to residents actually circumventing ways. Appease the opponents to destroy social justice ask yourself why REITS Castro unresolved fires Castro Scott impartial are. Ideal GAY Mayor candidate for 2020 or Lt.Governor using LGBTQ your insult reason animosity which increasing LGBTQ society many. Conservative GAYS making brownie points pro-Scott reason, disparity,gentrification and discrimination increase term” used while go referring to LGBTQ Simply tax payers incurred irresponsibility of health bonds for whom? Saying LGBTQ are dependent housing and jobs non essential Scott can hold (forum) since Mr.Micro Senator insult. When spoken Ellis Act evictions,response MICRO Housing…contrary refuse downsize sq ft! Dear Scott friends of Christine Quinn N.Y and Robert Garcia Mayor of gentrified Long Beach Democratic machine cause disparity expect. Triumphant victory using statistics reserve upon,passing “appropriate” laws to balance social equality Scott your determine to become mayor? LGBTQ progressing or segregation where
    divided not only San Francisco as whole how, business class whom support gentrification. Identify with LGBTQ impartial upon,social bigotry we incur,Scott you failed assist us liar!

  2. I voted for Kim, but only because I didn’t want big money real estate and body shamers running California any more than than they already do. I live in d6, and have never voted for Kim as my Supervisor. I was pissed how she carpetbagged my neighborhood. What was it, six months after she moved in that she ran for the seat?

  3. The sad thing about progressives, and also Scott Wiener, is that when the topic turns to the most fundamental basic right to body autonomy and freedom nudity, they are not progressive, but uphold sexism and ageism as the right of one parent to use their boy’s penis as a signpost for their parental, religious, societal beliefs. This especially includes those involved with 2011 AB 768 which makes forced circumutilation legal to age 18 for whatever whim of one parent. And because no other limits are stipulated, this means anything goes, meaning circ can be anywhere, without pain relief, with anything, taking any amount and structure, of any duration. Good luck suing if you’ve been made to sport a remodeled wreck. This progressive bill is obiviously pandering to religion

  4. Egrarious? It’s a pretty good endorsemen of Scott Weiner. Redmond fails to mention that progressive Jane Kim is now big soda’s whore. I guess she likes fat kids of color with diabetes.

  5. Mark Leno was appointed to the board by Willie Brown, but immediately earned his ire by voting with his conscience and brain. Scott shares his values, which is why Leno endorsed him. Even if I didn’t know Scott, I’d value Leno’s endorsement.

  6. Obviously. Scott is an independent on the BoS, and the “progressive” cult doesn’t like him b/c he doesn’t automatically goose-step with them. He’s been an effective supe, supporting progressive positions in housing and transportation.

  7. The Chron reports today that the CHARTER SCHOOL MOVEMENT is pumping money into Weiner’s campaign.

    Charter schools suck funds from traditional schools and should be abolished in San Francisco.

  8. So, Supervisor Kim didn’t get Mr. Redmond’s authorization before running for the State Senate seat? That’s disrespectful. But, I will still vote for Supervisor Kim for State Senate.

  9. Yes, but he also wrote about the possibility of Ed Lee resigning so that the tech bosses could choose his replacement. And Jane Kim winning would make that more likely because we’d lose a seat on the board.

  10. Why? They did it last time and none of the slimy politicians who supported it had any price to pay. Traitor Chiu got a promotion, and progressives are sucking up to Bevan Dufty.

  11. Prop. D appears to go into effect for this cycle. But from a political standpoint, pulling off the stunt you describe would yield very ugly consequences. Anyone who supported it could kiss their political career goodbye.

  12. Proposition D, assuming it wins, changes that. The mayor can appoint someone, but they are prohibited from run for re-election.

  13. Tim Redmond shares my fear. He proposed the prospect of just such a scenario in an earlier article.

    When progressives first gained the BOS majority, there was a certain consciousness that this is something to nurture and cherish. You didn’t throw away a hard-won seat to the Brown machine, when people gave countless hours of their labor for it. It was just something that you did not do, because every one of the Class of 2000 understood that that office was not theirs. It belonged to the people.

    It was even considered bad form for Matt Gonzalez to not run for re-election. But there was a difference. Matt wasn’t abandoning the seat to an appointed crony, and he groomed a successor. The only one of the Class of 2000 who ever broke that unwritten rule, was Gerardo Sandoval. And he was widely panned for his decision, he lost a lot of progressive support, and rightly lost that race.

    Sadly, Jane Kim is cut from a different cloth than the Class of 2000. She happily abandoned her seat to Mayor Lee and his tech bosses, without any plan on how to keep it in progressive hands. She happily puts the thin progressive majority at risk for the sake of her own career. And if she’s willing to do that, do you really think she won’t abandon her progressive “principles” for the sake of expediency once she’s in Sacramento?

  14. Supervisor Kim’s time is NOW. She will win the State Senate seat and do what she can in Sacramento. I don’t foresee your scenario as probable. It would be better to let Supervisor Wiener term out next year, rather than having him spend two terms in the State Senate.

  15. And what happens in the meantime if progressives don’t win every single seat (1,3,5,7,9, and 11)?

    I’ll tell you what happens. Ed Lee replaces an OK-ish supe with one of his cronies, gets a 6-seat majority on the board, resigns, Ron Conway picks his successor, who is then upheld by Ed Lee’s 6-seat majority, and then runs for re-election as a “fresh-faced outsider.” And the cycle begins anew.

    But hey, Jane Kim will be happy because she’ll be in Sacramento and climb up the political ladder will continue unabated.

  16. For someone with quite a history of only telling a part of the story, you sure are whiney when it happens to you. And you have to be kidding with the gay stuff. As if a gay person must somehow be obliged to support another gay person based on their sexuality, as opposed to how they’d perform in office?

  17. Yes its 2016, and we have Trump running, and Republicans wanting to undo the gains during the Obama years. San Francisco had same sex marriage briefly in 2004, then it was invalidated, we had it again briefly in 2008, then lost it, and now we have it once again. I feel better having a member of the LGBT community representing us in Sacramento, but more importantly, its Scott’s advocacy and work on housing, transit, health, water and environmental issues as we move forward in the 21st century that are most convincing to me. Also, he just called for investigation in a non profit housing provider using Federal, State and City funds which created a LLC to fund its political agenda, and even pay for flyers promoting Jane Kim. Where is Tim Redmond’s article about that? http://sfbamo.com/news/dark-money-from-subsidized-real-estate-faces-calls-for-investigation/

  18. “And as a gay man, I’d like to have family representing us.”

    As someone who respects your opinions, this makes me wince. It is 2016.

  19. Even though I support Kim, I was shocked at the homophobic mailer featuring Wiener as being in the pocket of the porn industry sent by the proponents of prop 60, the condoms in porn proposition.

    They all suck. It is San Francisco politics. Everyone ends up with a shitstain by election day.

  20. I am just the opposite. Send Supervisor Kim to Sacramento. Supervisor Wiener will be termed out at the end of 2017.

  21. Sigh….Kim’s attack on Gary McCoy was dishonest, and now, Wiener’s changing the quote on the cover of the guardian….politics are nasty. I suppose both Kim and Wiener are actually nicer in person. I am supporting Wiener, as a progressives, not because of rent control, but because I like his interest in environmental, healthcare, and housing issues, he just seems to be the future looking candidate. And as a gay man, I’d like to have family representing us. I also supported Campos, he failed to win, now I am hoping Wiener wins. Plus once Wiener is out of the fish bowl of progressive, liberal and radical local politics, I expect we’ll see he is actually progressive in the whole scheme of things.

  22. Yes, that’s an egregious practice. And all the fliers in the mail are full of them as the election approaches.

    What’s a “subhed”? Is that a subdued head?

  23. David Campos, Bevan Dufty, and Aaron Peskin can all bite me anyway. They talk about being pro tenants rights and anti gentrification, but SPARC (a gentrifying business) recently sited them as supporters while pushing out small businesses in the Lower Haight.

    Yes, Weiner sucks, but those others aren’t much better.

Comments are closed.