If the first political ad of the 2018 mayor’s race is any indication, this is going to get ugly, fast.
The ad put out by a superPAC that has yet to disclose its donors attacks Mark Leno for a secret deal to put Mark Farrell in the Mayor’s Office – although Leno wasn’t a member of the Board of Supes, which took that vote.
It seeks to portray the deal as something orchestrated by two men – Sups. Aaron Peskin and Jeff Sheehy – to help Leno, although in reality three of the six votes for Farrell were women. And Sup. Hillary Ronen was at least as involved in the discussion and debate over the vote as Peskin or any other man.
Sup. Jane Kim, who also voted for Farrell, also benefits from the decision not to allow Breed to run as an incumbent.
But it’s a well-produced ad, very effective, and we may see a lot more of this in the months to come.
The superPAC ad demonstrates one of the big differences between the candidates: Leno and Kim have agreed to oppose and distance themselves from any “independent expenditure” committees that seek to use unlimited funds to attack their opponents.
Breed has not.
At some point the superPAC will have to disclose its donors; by then, if in fact, those donors are white male billionaires or their allies, the damage will have been done.
It’s no secret that these “independent expenditure” operations, the biggest and most effective ones funded by the local tech and real-estate plutocracy, have changed the politics of the city. David Campos might well have defeated David Chiu for state Assembly if Conway and his friends hadn’t spent hundreds of thousands of dollars attacking him. Kim suffered a withering million-dollar assault by white male billionaires who wanted a white man, Scott Wiener, instead of a woman of color in the state Senate.
Behind all of this, of course, is politics: The existing establishment is very happy with the way this city has been run. A small number of people have become very wealthy while the rest have suffered.
Leno held a press conference today and renewed his promise to
denounce, renounce, and reject all Super PACs made on my behalf or against any other candidates Despite this disgraceful attack, I will continue to reject the special interests that are trying to exert their influence on our elections. It’s time to say ‘enough is enough.’ That’s why I am running a campaign to shake up City Hall and return it to San Francisco voters, not billionaires and their special interest Super PACs.
Leno told me that these kind of negative ads let candidates have others do their dirty work. “If London Breed wants to attack me, she should do it,” he said. “There is no need for this kind of thing. If people want to support her, they should donate to her campaign with the same $500 limit we all have accepted.”
He also said Breed should demand immediate disclosure of the donors who paid for the ad.
Breed has not commented – and sadly, at the mayoral debate Saturday, Chron Editorial Page Editor John Diaz didn’t ask her whether she would agree to the clean elections pledge.
And so it begins.
The facts have been verified by more than one present. And it is totally consistent with Conway’s past behavior. I realize that there is a strong desire on the part of some to deny this, and hand wave it away, but sorry, it is not fake news.
The so- called facts need to be checked out in this day and age of fake news and the arrogance of those who confuse opinion (theirs and others) with the truth.
SF Squirrel doesn’t even use her own name and in these days of fake and inflammatory news, I prefer to do my own research and thinking thank you. SF Squirrel did nothing for me other than argue her opinions.
h.,
Thank you. You’re a walking encyclopedia and I look forward to doing some work together. I’m at my folks homestead on Lake superior right now, but I’ll see you next week.
Rosh
Rosh,
For me, you’re the sharpest Progressive voice since Marc Salomon. Hmmm, how do you spell Soloman?
Why do I forget things?
Here’s hint from T.S. Eliot …
“I grow old.
I grow old.
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.
I will wear white flannel trousers and walk along the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing each to each.
I do not think they will sing for me.”
These are great exchanges.
More info in one thread on D-5 than I’ve seen ever.
Go Giants!
h.
Two years ago one of Breed’s aides told me that 555 Fulton is among Breed’s proudest accomplishments.
555 Fulton is years behind schedule (compare its status to that of the new building at Van Ness and Hayes which is bigger, started much later and is almost done). And the much vaunted neighborhood grocery store at the site backed out. Who could blame them? 555 Fulton is a failure in pretty much every regard.
Just like progressives, then.
You might be interested in my point at https://48hills.org/2018/02/mayors-race-attack-ad/#comment-3751243718 … “Kraus” actually criticized London Breed’s actions in regards to One Oak, and sided firmly with the YIMBYs, who want to dump all the zoning restrictions, even though such a thing would hurt a ton of people and create widespread housing instability.
Obviously, we need more housing… but not by kicking people out to the streets, and building highend condos.
This is almost the exact opposite of what a person called Kraus — you? — wrote on Curbed, at https://sf.curbed.com/2017/9/27/16373152/one-oak-parking-housing-sf .
“what this is really all about is extortion — the kind of opportunism that is afforded by our current so-called “system”… The One Oak project was 100% Code-compliant in terms of parking and it’s EIR was rock solid. Breed nevertheless used the appeal as a ruse to extort more money from the developer.”
“Kraus” also wrote:
“The only chance at real reform… is through comprehensive higher-level, i.e. State-level, action. The YIMBY’s get that… That is why the initial successes on this front, like Senator Scott Weiner’s SB-35 (soon to be signed by Governor Brown) that supercede all this balkanized local BS are so important — but they are just the beginning.”
Given Weiner’s plan, which would basically remove zoning requirements for nearly the whole city, you believe in unrestricted development everywhere, without local oversight, no matter who gets evicted in the process.
If I didn’t know better, I would think you were, say, a developer, who advocates aggressively for London Breed, as the big developer’s candidate of choice.
Can you muster the facts to support your claims here? Show me the money.
SF Squirrel already did that for you in the comments. All of her positions were well publicized at the times measures were voted on or came up at all – Geek___Girl just confirmed the head Capitalist of SF backs her and announced it at Ed Lee’s funeral. He couldn’t even wait until Ed Lee’s body was cold to figure out his next political actions to preserve his interests –
Definitely. I stand by my accusations that Kraus is Sonja K. Strauss. She can reference Hanlon the same way that Squirrel can reference Preston, but people protect their personal accounts. It’s all Trauss. (There are only a handful of people in town who understand the new housing billd as well as the commenter Kraus)
I’m assuming Squirrel referenced Preston btw (Squirrel has D5 ties, like me), but I have all sorts of proof Kraus is Strauss. She, Hanlon, and Foote are amazing lobbyist. They are set up and ready for action in Sac. That’s why it’s important to note how they are spinning the language.
More like false bravado. Simply put, you are still full of crap. All you actually do is shout loudly, and throw out a lot of supposed evidence in an attempt to bury the truth. Bottom line, can you offer ONE example of a city that has used your approach that drastically lowered its rents?
So you’re saying Kraus is LB?
Disability seems to be legit boring
A good politician gets that the clock never stops and works 24 hours a day. A good lobbyist gets an extra hour signed into legislation and works 25.
Kraus is legit a kook. “beat down”? Narrating some invisible non-existent war on 48 hills between teams he has himself picked? Hyping said war to himself? He probably does push ups in between replies.
Why do you even respond you guys? You’re too nice.
Or commenting late at night, drunk at the bar. I hate it when that happens. 🙂
That is for SF ‘affordable.’ Kraus is indicating that these new building are going to qualify for the tax break she linked to, but it hasn’t been decided (that I’ve seen) these buildings are going that route.
If they did go that route they would have to be managed by a 501c3 (can’t be managed by the city). Calvin Welch and Tim Redmond have recently profiled the ethical conflicts these nonprofits are engaged in. Profit has shown to be paramount.
Anyone in SF who uses the term ‘affordable’ without indicating it’s legal definition should be called to task. Kraus has indicated she is using the definition defined by CSTAC, but can’t provide links that the projects in question are going that route.
I understand. I hate trying to comment from my cell phone. I usually end up with spelling errors, and such.
I already deleted that. I’m visiting my folks homestead and working off my cell phone .. which always gets me in trouble. I’ll let the link speak for itself.
The term is used by different government branches that all have their own legal definition.
The city overhauled its language in 2014, and Breed relied heavily on the term ‘affordable’ for her re-election. When she said in 2015 that she would increase ‘affordable’ mandates for developers to 20%, she was banking on the fact that her constituents were unaware of the recent changes that had been made to the legislation, which actually lowered the subsidy cost to developers.
Are those amounts given, income, or are the rental rates? It appears that they consider “affordable” for one person who is “very low income” to be $900 a month. For people who are on SSI, which would be a lot of the people in need of housing, that would be most of their income.
The facts are simple:
At Ed Lee’s private funeral, Ron Conway announced that he was backing Breed.
Shortly after that, he contacted moderate supervisors and threatened them if they interfered in Breed’s ascendancy to the mayor’s office. I don’t know how much, if any, support Kim got in the past from Conway, but he set out to destroy her politically after she voted to not fire Ross Mirkarimi, and he did the same to Campos. He is a very vengeful person. He does not like to be defied.
You’ve quoted the California State Tax Allocation Committee, which the projects you mention have not qualified for. If the did qualify, they would have to be set up in a manner similar to mid-town. Mercy Housing is chomping on the bit in hopes of vastly increasing their portolio.
Here, from your very own link, is how San Francisco defines the term affordable: http://sf-planning.org/affordable-housing-defined
What it shows is a family of four can have an income of over $500,000 and still qualify for ‘affordable’ housing.
No, not really. Granted, the Board of Supervisors does not have a lot of power. Most of it is with the mayor. In fact, surprisingly, they cannot even impeach the mayor, though he can pretty much remove others who are elected if the BoS approves.
Kraus trolls on the clock and thinks the rest of us have as much time as they do.
ROTFL! I am sure
The entire Breed/Conway thing, with its endless speculations and yet to be proven accusations and the counter attacks, is beginning to look like a reflection of the Trump/Democratic Party/Russia/ hate fest. I can hardly wait to find the time to actually research Breed’s voting record. Some of the other candidates fall short of my standards such as Kim whose record includes voting for the hi-tech tax breaks, which was a major cause in the gentrification of SF- her support of the so-called pension reform Prop C – that anti–worker and retiree union busting prop sold to the San Francisco voters with the help of BILLIONAIRE Warren Hellman – and then there was Kim’s disinterest in the eviction of the entire island of Yerba Buena with tenants screaming for meetings after finding out that the option for some of them to move to Treasure Island forgot to mention that the T.I. has high levels of toxicity – and more. Why Kim lost had nothing to do with Wiener’s backers as many of us voted for neither based on their records. Hopefully so it will go in this election if people can find time to research and rely on their memory instead of listening to the politicos or the press.
However, the term affordable housing is bandied about politically in a cavalier fashion as Rosh HoshHosh suggests.
Right, which is why Kraus’s constant use of the term 100% affordable is full-blown spin. She can’t provide a link to back up her <60% claims for the McDonald's site. I've asked her repeatedly.
Katy Tang would never have agreed, (nor would Malia Cohen).
I think the point is that white male billionaires will use race and sex when it is convenient and ignore it when it is not.
Many, many D5 residents are unhappy with Breed but unfortunately many who don’t pay attention voted for her in the last election because they thought she was the Democrat, and because she was the incumbent. Many were fooled by her demographics and personal story, which is why she uses it over and over and over.
As for the name-calling? Practice what you preach — “malinformed,” “ideologue” and “hapless” count as name-calling in my book.
I don’t think that project has been finalized. Who know what it will be in the end?
Gosh, I feel left out! How could you forget me? Here are some things to consider about Breed’s record, courtesy of a friend.
Refused to support Proposition G, the anti-speculator tax, to deter speculator evictions
Voted against requiring developers to pay an increased fee to fund transit impacts of development
Voted against creating an Office of Public Advocate, an independent watchdog over the Mayor and City Hall
Voted repeatedly against regulating Airbnb, making rent-controlled homes in the city more scarce
Voted against conditioning a portion of SF Police Department funding on police reforms
Introduced
amendments to weaken tenant protections by giving less relocation
compensation to people being evicted through the Ellis Act
Voted against regulating “tenant buyouts” which have displaced thousands of San Franciscans
As Board President, used appointment power to hand control over key board committees to the most conservative supervisors
Opposed ballot measure to give residents a say over waterfront development
Sponsored legislation to reduce from 25% to 18% the amount of affordable housing developers are required to build
Refused
to call for former Police Chief Greg Suhr to resign amidst police
killings and racist text scandal, despite community demands
Sponsored
legislation that gave huge density increases to developers on
Divisadero and Fillmore without increasing affordable housing
requirements
Voted against post-Ferguson resolution recognizing racial bias in Police Departments, calling the resolution “divisive.”
Voted to allow private tech shuttles in public bus stops in violation of state law
Only supervisor to vote against sunshine legislation requiring supervisors to keep and release work calendars
Supported realtor-backed slate for conservative control of the SF Democratic Party
Called
ballot measure to make SF the first city in CA to guarantee a right to
counsel for tenants facing eviction a “waste of time”
Beat down? What, we get an hour to respond?
I want a link that shows the percentages for the buildings in question, not a quote mentioning ‘target’ recepients and no mandates.
Also, if you’d like to throw in SF’s legal definition of ‘affordable’ it’ll show a far different explanation than you report, and I’ve never heard you mention the ‘affordability dial,’ which SF passed in 2014 at the same time we legally re-defined ‘affordable.”
I want links for numbers to the specific projects that you mention.
Can you show me where it says the McDonald’s site will be 100% less than 60% AMI? Are you not aware of SF’s legal definition for ‘affordable?’
Who is your district supervisor? Do you live in San Francisco?
Kraus: what district do you live in?
Others on this thread can see. You cannot. I’ll keep the focus on London Breed’s record as D5 Supervisor. I’ll shine a bright light on her campaign donors.
Google “London Breed-Midtown.”
Google “London Breed- Ron Conway.”
Google” London Breed-Marcus Books.”
Google “London Breed- Pastor Yul Dorn.”
Google “London Breed-Iris Canada.”
But you won’t. You like to sit in your arm chair while breast feeding and troll San Franciscans who think London Breed is a phony.
Like I said, you can’t muster the facts to support your position, name-caller.
Look them up real estate troll.
London Breed hangs her constituents out to dry.
1. Midtown residents have been on rent strike for 2+ years. 139 families and people of color are fighting the Mayors Office of Housing to save their homes. London Breed has yet to lift a finger.
2. When the oldest African American bookstore, Marcus Books, was evicted, Breed did little to nothing.
3. Breed chose not to help Iris Canada in her struggle to remain in her home until her death.
4. The Church of St. John Coltrane was evicted, a community jewel in the Western Addition. Breed was no help.
5. Breed consistently voted to gut Airbnb legislation that would have created a central registry. She was on the wrong side of history.
Sonja/Brian: you offer up your opinions like they are fact. Your infomercials for London Breed are tiresome. You know little about her actual record. It is obvious that you don’t live in D5. Do you even live in San Francisco?
Prove it.
Show the data.
Provide the links.
The real story is that London Breed’s votes on the Board of Supervisors have actually caused a decline in the number of affordable homes in District 5. Indeed, had some of her proposals not been defeated by her fellow supervisors, even more rent-controlled apartments would have been lost in the district. Breed has favored the plans and programs of developers and real estate speculators to convert rent controlled apartments to condos or hotel rooms, removing them from the reach of working and lower income residents.
Like I said, it’s impossible for you to argue the case on the merits. The facts don’t support your position.
All you have is your anger and failed “ideology”.
That’s right the residents of D5 don’t like London Breed so much they elected her twice — both times defeating your preferred anti-housing, NIMBY candidates — Olague in 2012 and the hapless Dean Preston in 2016. 🙂
Once again, no facts from “Heart”.
And unfortunately you cannot minimize the stark reality that D5 residents don’t like London Breed because she doesn’t represent or respond to her constituents. Breed has thrice no showed at the Midtown community meetings after saying she would attend. Why? She doesn’t respond to phone calls. She doesn’t respond to emails. She smiles for the camera and waves. If you can’t manage your district, you cannot manage a city. I stand by what I said about Breed’s record as D5 supervisor.
Kraus responding to himself. Kraus launching attacks against anyone who has a different opinion. Kraus dogwhistling to YIMbots and trolls. What district do you live in Kraus?
Disingenuous should be called out. Your bullshit piles up beneath blog posts and articles everywhere. Build at any cost, but couch it in terms helping the disadvantage. And then bash the disadvantaged in alternate comments. You’re a fraud. How’s that for name-calling?
Except that Katy is too capable of a pro-housing advocate and legislator.
(i.e., she’d be too “dangerous”, even as an interim-Mayor, to the so-called “progressive” NIMBY crowd.)
In one fell swoop a massive beat down to the malinformed, so-called “progressive”, anti-housing, NIMBY troika of “Heart”, “Regazzu” and “Rosh HoshHosh” (along with their timid sidekick, “Geek_Girl”) .
There you go, how’s that for efficiency?
So typical and predictable for a NIMBY anti-housing ideologue.
“Ragazzu” can’t advance inform, rational arguments on the substance of the matter, so they resort to name-calling.
Per our local laws and those of the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee: “Affordable Housing” is to be targeted to 0% AMI to 60% AMI in order to serve very low-income families & seniors, transitional age youth (a.k.a “TAY” coming out of the foster care system) and currently homeless persons; including kids and families.
People don’t pay much attention to polls or pols these days and political ads are fighting for time against some powerful media mind magnets. Way too much junk mail and robo-ads are infringing to pay any attention to the papers in the mail box. Not too any people expect the truth or even facts out of politicians these days. For that we can thank Trump.
What are the ‘affordable’ AMI percentages? San Franciscans will no longer be duped by the co-opted term ‘affordable.’ Provide a link with numbers or shut the fuck up.
The author of your linked article is selective, aside from being a turd.
First off, I don’t believe anyone who refers to Ed Lee as ‘Asian American’ should be taken seriously on race nuances. He would definitely prefer to have been referred to as Chinese American.
Second off, the author notes Chicago mayor John Daley’s successors without mentioning that their terms were a blip before John jr. became mayor — serving the longest tenure in Chicago’s mayoral history (second to his father). Not a minor oversight.
ROTFL! I am sure she is not acceptable to a right wing-nut such as yourself.
I bet the Pelosis know who funded that ad.
Yeah, the “damage will have been done,” all right–to London Breed’s candidacy. I knew little about her before people started illogically screaming that she was a victim of racism and sexism and that everyone should have followed orders and let her breeze through 7 months of incumbency and be whooshed right into the mayor’s office, and if she doesn’t get it, then everyone’s racist and sexist and white and male (even though most of her opponents are women and her main competition, Jane Kim, isn’t white, and though the guy only a percentage point behind Kim is a white male, he’s also a gay man, hardly some neanderthal whose sole purpose in life is stepping on women and people of color for entertainment).
They’d have done better by taking the high road. All this is doing is making them look fake, and making their candidate look low. I wish they’d knock it the hell off and run a high-road race.
Kraus, the great champion of tenants and the homeless! Give us a break, real estate troll.
Actually, London Breed has been the exact opposite of “disastrous”.
She’s been outstanding.
Last Fall she successfully held the developer of One Oak’s feet to the fire and extracted another 30 units of affordable housing — for a total of 100 units — plus a childcare center in Hayes Valley.
And she successfully negotiated an excellent price ($15.9 Million) for the Haight-Ashbury MacDonalds site in order to create upwards of 300 family-sized 100% affordable homes at the site (that’s about $53K/door — way below market-rate — which is an outstanding deal.)
What has your pal Ronen done on the affordable housing front during her tenure in the Mission? Absolutely nothing! Not even a “progress report” on her promised “5000 units of affordable housing within 10 years.” Zilch.
And Peskin’s busy trying to stop a 100% affordable project — including critical housing for the homeless — at the behest of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers (which his wife is the secretary of.)
Heart, you’re a totally clueless ideologue.
it’s a very low bar though.
From what I can see Scott W is doing some good work – he’s not a lay-about. I can only imagine what Karate Jane would do (bust up the woodwork?)
That is quite a load of crap. The acting mayor is intended to be TEMPORARY. The person in that position is eligible to be considered for Interim Mayor, but has no special claim or preference. In fact, as shown when Newsom resigned, it can be ANYONE who is otherwise qualified.
I don’t think anyone has denied that there were what you refer to rather disingenuously as “back room” dealings. Funny how you seem to only have a problem when it is the progressives being clever, and playing the game…and doing it according to the rules.
Funny, I suspect you are probably quite aware of what would have happened under different circumstances. But, Tang was not going to run. She had already not filed to run, though she was considering it. Of course, that was after Conway threatened any so-called moderate who stood in Breed’s way. And she does not want to damage future political chances. She needs someone like Conway on her side. I suspect that Farrell was fed up with the whole mess, and decided to enjoy a few months as Mayor to cap off his political career. He probably did not appreciate Conway’s heavy handedness. And was certainly not happy with Breed’s power lust/
Funny though that Kim didn’t play those cards that I recall. Breed and her backers, pulled out before a decision was even made. You simply keep dodging the fact that the real issue is Ron Conway. Farrell was who was available. Tang wouldn’t have done it, she is also influence heavily by Conway. Cohen wouldn’t have, because she is supporting Breed. Only Farrell was willing to take it, in order to prevent a conflict of interests, and only Sheehy was willing to break ranks and make it so.
The ad is well made, but it is basically crap. It is basically the same crap Breed and company have been spewing all along.
The issue, that you are trying desperately to avoid, was support of AirBnB and allowing it to continue to break the law.
You are trying to impute something that wasn’t there, and you know it. You are a bit more subtle than some of Breed’s more, uh, enthusiastic, supporters, but you are still using the same tactic.
No, it doesn’t. You among others, have a prolific tendency to put words in people mouths in order to create straw man arguments. Not very clever, as that is a common logical fallacy.
No, bloody kidding. There was no one running that would have served Conway’s purpose, EXCEPT Breed. I think it is pretty obvious that Farrell was not willing, otherwise Conway would not have reacted as he did, and basically forbade him from running.
You are welcome to your opinion, but I disagree. Kim is not perfect, but she is one of the better supervisors we have.
He didn’t bring it up, Breed and her backers did. Funny how Kim did not play that card. Admitting, “Hey, sure, I am willing to follow Ron Conway’s lead in exchange for massive amounts of spending,” would not be a good strategy.
Funny thing. London Breed is the one who started using being a “woman of color” to counter her removal from being acting mayor, a supervisor, and President of the Board of Supervisors, and being denied the position of Interim Mayor. But she never raised a single peep when the same thing was done to Kim. Hmmm, could it be that in both cases, the real motivation had nothing to do with race or gender? Conway wanted Weiner over Kim because Weiner was wilingl to give Conway whatever he wants, and Kim was not. And could it be that the Board of Supervisor’s progressive wing, joined by two so-called moderates wanted to remove Breed because, well, she has been, and is, willing to give Conway whatever he wants? Tim is quite right in point this out. And Breed, and her backers, are quite disingenuous in their supposed outrage.
oh look at this turd: https://www.lennyletter.com/story/san-francisco-is-failing-london-breed
I would feel extremely dirty hinging my entire campaign and skills on my gender. But I guess that doesn’t bother London Breed…. If pushing candidates based on their skin color or gender is considered progressive, then I guess I’m not progressive.
GROSS!!!!
See you on the Westside!
Alioto opposes SUPER PAC’S and the new poll has her in third and climbing to 2nd.
Doesn’t it seem likely this ad came from the pac group who recently said they want to focus on women? I’m not conviced it’s a winning strategy. Leno and Kim need to team up and squash it.
I think something else for 48hills to watch for is AFW getting money thrown at her from surprising directions. She should change her slogan to ‘vote your conscience.’
But Farrell has a roll on a very important project that Tang isn’t. The citywide Internet which was his first act in office. Everyone believes this is hugely essential.
Let’s not jump the gun. We don’t know if it is effective yet just like the Nunes’ memo ‘dud’. Wait until some polls come out after it circulates awhile.
He brought up the woman of color angle because Breed supporters are making the decision to appoint an actual interim mayor, all about her ethnicity.
Yeah. A preponderance of “would haves” and “could haves.”
Keep it classy London. Anything to distract from your disasterous record as D5 Supervisor and your billionaire donors who don’t live in D5 or San Francisco.
The attack ad would have been identical had Ammiano been appointed instead, they would just have changed the photos.
They could just as well have supported Katy Tang. She isn’t running for mayor either, and ticks all the “woman of color” boxes.
You wrote “white male billionaires who wanted a white man, Scott Wiener, instead of a woman of color in the state Senate”. The innuendo is clear.
And, yes, they were self-interestedly judging politicians by their positions rather than their gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, birthplace or other irrelevant factors. That’s a good thing in my book, even if their ability to spend essentially unlimited amounts to further their agenda isn’t.
I think Jane Kim’s positions on almost everything are nonsense, but unlike Breed, or Campos she hasn’t attempted to impose racial quotas to grant affordable housing patronage to her personally favored in-groups.
Sorry, I keep reading your words and I hear Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying them:
“The President did not say that the committee supported Weiner because he was a white man. He simply said that the committee prefered a white man”
Ammiano wasn’t nominated.
How could you know that Sheehy wouldn’t have voted for him. Unless there were back room dealings like the ad says.
But you’re right… should have said that they were trying to help the Leno/Kim entries in a RCV election.
I read the language. It doesn’t say a single word about Airbnb or any other policies.
It just says that they wanted a white male over a woman of color. That’s what it says, sorry. Maybe you were thinking something else but that’s what you wrote.
He’s saying they wanted a white man. He’s not saying they wanted him because he was a white man
Oh, OK. It was about policies. You just brought up the woman of color angle…well, I’m not really sure why, if it was really about policies.
Please read the language. I said “instead of.” We all know why Ron Conway didn’t want Jane Kim; she wanted more regulations on Airbnb. Wiener didn’t.
I don’t see how Jane Kim would have voted to help Mark Leno. The progressive supes wanted an open race with no incumbent. The best deal they could get was a guy who many of them didn’t agree with. The big question here: why wouldn’t Jeff Sheehy vote for a more progressive caretaker (say Tom Ammiano)? there were five votes for a long list of alternatives; Sheehy held the swing vote and he would only go for Farrell
They wanted Wiener instead of Kim not because she was a woman of color but because she favored regulating Airbnb and took other political positions they didn’t like. I said “instead of” not “because of.” Like so much else these days, it had everything to do with the political positions of the candidates
Really? Here is what he said:
Sorry, that says exactly that they attacked Kim because she was a woman of color and Weiner was a white man.
Maybe you should read it a third time.
Yes, but there is a big difference between the two situations.
In the case of Jane Kim the gender/race card worked in favor of the progressives so it is worth bringing up. In Breed’s case it works against them; hence it is deemed irrelevant.
The ad is awesome. Ties into the recent women empowerment movement beautifully. It is worth looking at via the Facebook link Tim provided.
And yeah, it implies backroom dealing by the progressives, who nominated and voted unanimously for a guy named Mark Farrell. Are we supposed to believe that supporting Leno’s campaign wasn’t on their minds at all?
I had to read that twice, too. He’s not saying they opposed Kim because she’s a woman of color. He’s saying that the organization, “It’s Our Time, S.F. Women Supporting London Breed for Mayor 2018”, are a front for people (presumably including Conway) who would pick the whitest and malest person, if he supported their agenda.
It’s a little incoherent to claim the tech billionaires wanted to bar Kim because she is a woman of color in the same paragraph where they are accused of nefarious deeds in favor of London Breed, who was a woman of color last time I checked.