Endorsements 2012: State and national races - Page 4

End the death penalty -- Yes on 34. Go Barack, and vote No on 35 for sexworker justice


It isn't just how he votes, which we consistently agree with. Leno has been willing to take on the tough fights, the ones that need to be fought, and shown the tenacity to come out on top in the Legislature, even if he's ahead of his time. Leno twice got the Legislature to legalize same-sex marriage, he has repeatedly gotten that body to legalize industrial hemp production, and he's twice passed legislation that would give San Francisco voters the right to set a local vehicle license fees higher than the state's and use that money for local programs (which the governor finally signed). He's also been laying an important foundation for creating a single-payer healthcare system and he played an important role in the CleanPowerSF program that San Francisco will implement next year. Leno will easily be re-elected to another term in the Senate and we look forward to his next move (Leno for mayor, 2015?)





San Francisco has been well represented on the BART Board by Radulovich, a smart and forward-thinking urbanist who understands the important role transit plays in the Bay Area. Radulovich has played leadership roles in developing a plan that aims to double the percentage of cyclists using the system, improving the accessibility of many stations to those with limited mobility, pushing through an admittedly imperfect civilian oversight agency for the BART Police, hiring a new head administrator who is more responsive to community concerns, and maintaining the efficiency of an aging system with the highest ridership levels in its history. With a day job serving as executive director of the nonprofit Livable City, Radulovich helped create Sunday Streets and other initiatives that improve our public spaces and make San Francisco a more inviting place to be. And by continuing to provide a guiding vision for a BART system that continues to improve its connections to every corner of the Bay Area, his vision of urbanism is helping to permeate communities throughout the region



This sprawling district includes part of southeast San Francisco and extends all the way up the I-80 corridor to the Carquinez Bridge. The incumbent, San Franciscan Lynette Sweet, has been a major disappointment. She's inaccessible, offers few new ideas, and was slow to recognize (much less deal with) the trigger-happy BART Police who until recently had no civilian oversight. Time for a change.

Three candidates are challenging Sweet, all of them from the East Bay (which makes a certain amount of sense — only 17 percent of the district's population is in San Francisco). Our choice is Zachary Mallett, whose training in urban planning and understanding of the transit system makes up for his lack of political experience.

Mallett's a graduate of Stanford and UC Berkelely (masters in urban planning with a transportation emphasis) who has taken the time to study what's working and what isn't working at BART. Some of his ideas sound a bit off at first — he wants, for example, to raise the cost of subsidized BART rides offered to Muni pass holders — but when you look a the numbers, and who is subsidizing who, it actually makes some sense. He talks intelligently about the roles that the various regional transit systems play and while he's a bit more moderate than us, particularly on fiscal issues, he's the best alternative to Sweet.


I enjoy reading the almost laughable excuse making for Obama: his naivete, his stimulus (mostly tax breaks for owners, not income for workers), his great "free market" loving Supreme Court appointments. Would the Afghanistan war be okay if it were "winnable" like Grenada or Panama? As if Romney will be much different.

I don't begrudge anyone for their enthusiasm four years ago, misguided as it might have been. Our choices are so limited in the two party duopoly, and lots of good people who want a different type society also want something positive in which to believe, so they drank the Obama kool-aid.

What happened to the days when the Guardian took a more radical outlook? I vaguely remember you endorsing a third party candidate for President once. Was it Nader? Now you are down to a "shout out." I suppose your evolution into a lukewarm liberal rag reflects the rightward shift of electoral politics of the last forty years.

Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein, really? How about no endorsement. Then again, lets give Feinstein six more years to funnel war, real estate, and education profits to her husband's many business ventures so he can kick back some crumbs to some liberal humanitarian causes.

Posted by Eddie on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 3:36 am

Eddie - Thank you.

BG write: "Obama is at least pushing in the direction of reality, sanity and hope."

I guess these are some examples of that (you can google them):

1. ACLU Report: Obama administration expands domestic spying.

2. ACLU trashes Obama over indefinite detention and torture act

3. “White House Mulls ‘Unilateral Strikes’ in Africa. White House said to be reassessing al-Quaeda’s franchise in North Africa.”

That's sanity and "hope?" (Hope is another form of prayer, BTW.)

Eddie told it like it is. And I'll add to that:

The Guardian staff = Obamabots. They will put up with anything and make excuses for it as long as there's a D behind the candidate's name.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 5:13 am

You poor thing you somehow mistook this for another free periodical, The Examiner. In case you aren't aware, and clearly you are not, most San Francisco citizens pick up The Guardian to get away from far right infidels like you. You could always move to Contra Costa county where your kind of rhetoric is more welcome. In the meantime, do us a favor, and go away.....oh and you be sure to have a nice day.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2012 @ 6:56 am

Obama's been acting like a half-assed Republican, which is better than the full-assed Republican he's running against, but fortunately we don't have to vote for either of them. Obama has a solid majority here in California, so it's safe to vote third party and remind the Democrats of who they're supposed to be. Jill Stein's my second choice, and I'd also vote for Roseanne Barr before voting for Obama.

But I'm a Libertarian, and I'm supporting Gary Johnson - he's against war, against the drug war, against the Pentagon's leftover Cold War budget, against the "tough crime fighting" that has more people in prison in America than the Soviet Union ever had. (And in case you think I'd still support the Republicans, they've long since abandoned any pretense of fiscal responsibility, which had been their main selling point; I disagree with the Greens' progressive view of how much of society should be run by the government, but even they would spend less money doing good things than the Republicans or Democrats are spending on corporate welfare and military empire-building.)

Posted by Bill Stewart on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 5:20 pm

They want America to be a better version of what it already is. They don;t want it to be become France or Sweden.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 4:57 am

A better version of what it already is or of the myth that we are taught to believe?

Posted by Eddie on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 5:12 am

than those cold, wet European principalities. America is great, not least, because of what it is not as much as what it is. We set out to be not-europe and, notwithstanding our cultural and historical ties thereto, we don't want a monarchy, high taxes and an unfettered government.

Just be grateful that you have a choice - another great American trait.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 5:51 am

Venezuela. Yep. Hugo Chavez's Venezuela routinely polls to be either the happiest country on earth or one of the top few. So by your argument we should be more like them. I'm glad we can agree on something!

Speaking of myth vs. reality...
-Most Europeans no longer live in monarchies. Your information is a little dated (as in 19th century).
-High taxes are a myth, at least for the great majority. Europeans tend to have more *progressive* tax structures, with higher top marginal rates. But that obscures the fact that taxes for working class and middle class Europeans (ie., most people) are comparable or in many cases lower than here in the US.
-Government is quite "fettered" actually, in the important ways. There's less spying and war spending and jailing of their citizens -much less than here. What government does more of, is making sure that people's rights are protected from unfettered business.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 6:52 am

While the Bush Dynasty doesn't quite count as a monarchy, the G.W.Bush supporters and their policy wonks were really hot on promoting a "Unitary Executive" whose powers weren't limited by Congressional interference or the Federal Courts, and who could start wars whenever he thought it necessary and declare people to be "terrorist enemies", torture them, and throw them in prison with no possibility of a trial, which pretty much covers the worst parts of a monarchy except for having an unlimited term and passing power to your kids.

The Republican Party really abandoned the values of the Enlightenment that made us America instead of Cromwell's England. On the other hand, financially, they've abandoned any sense of fiscal responsibility, pretending that debts aren't just future taxes - and Paul Ryan says that cutting the military budget is entirely untouchable, showing that he's no more serious about fixing the deficit than his predecessor was and that he probably doesn't realize that the Cold War is over.

And no, Obama's not much better, but Bill Clinton is the closest we've had to a good Republican president since Eisenhower.

Posted by Bill Stewart on Oct. 16, 2012 @ 5:32 pm

A better version of what it already is or of the myth that we are taught to believe?

Posted by Eddie on Oct. 03, 2012 @ 5:14 am

I think it a bit unfair to characterize Elizabeth Emken as a "standard right-wing-nut Republican out of Danville." Purple party people for the purple people party say split the ticket. Emken has promised not to be a party line voter, and having a child in special ed makes her particularly sensitive to education issues.

Posted by Guest SFreptile on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 11:28 am

By endorsing Barack Obama, the Bay Guardian has, for the first time in my memory endorsed someone who, by his actions can be described as a genuine war criminal. His subversion of our Constitution by supporting a pair of illegal foreign wars, as well as continuing the Bush surveilance state, prove to me that this man is no freind of those of us who truly believe in change and freedom.

In the half century plus that I have been on this earth, I have never seen a more deceitful, secretive, and openly manipulated administration than this one. But then, Obama's people were intimidated from the very beginning. His transition team feared a "revolt" from the national security establishment if they prosecuted Bush and his henchmen. And so Obama and his crew rolled on their backs and wagged their tails. Proof again why this nation has not had a real president since a November day in Dallas many years ago.

Posted by Guest JFD on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 4:46 pm


Posted by 99 on Oct. 04, 2012 @ 5:12 pm

Then I guess you were in a coma when George W Bush was in charge since that was the most deceitful, secretive and manipulative administration that I have ever seen.

Posted by Jim M on Oct. 15, 2012 @ 11:15 am

Obama and Biden make Bush and Cheney look like Cheech and Chong.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 6:58 pm

In its glowing endorsement of Tom Radulovich, the Guardian overlooked his enthusiastic support for DPT's recent efforts to blanket the Mission and Potrero areas with wall-to-wall PARKING METERS, which, according to DPT's first study, would have charged until 10 at night with no exemptions for local residents at all. DPT's proposal was backed up with a fraudulent survey taken in the middle of the day of people moving their cars and, yes folks, the people surveyed were commuters or people visiting local businesses. "No residents here" said DPT, ignoring the many working people, students, and artists who live in Mission / Potrero. The public hearing was overwhelmingly hostile to DPT's grab -- except for a supportive letter from Radulovich claiming to be a "private citizen" instead the government official he is. Apparently, Radulovich figured the meters would force area residents to sell their cars and increase BART ridership! (Conflict of interest?) A net search revealed a Tom Radulovich residing in the high heights of upper, upper Castro where there are, apparently, no parking meters at all (at least none that I could see on Google Streets.) If its the same guy, Radulovich's position is really the patrician "parking meters for you down, in the flats, but not for us, up in the hills!" Listen, folks, we may have to hold our noses and vote for the likes of Feinstein and Pelosi, but there is absolutely no reason to vote for someone who would impose this parking meter nightmare on our neighborhoods.

Posted by Nazcalito on Oct. 05, 2012 @ 8:12 am

The amazing thing about SFBG endorsements is that you haven't learned a thing about the nature of American politics over the past 40 years. In fact, Tim et al. used to get (most of) it. Now it's just one apology after another. Pathetic or delusional?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2012 @ 8:50 am

Isn't Tom Ammiano running for State Assembly District 17? You have him listed here as District 13 . . .

Posted by Kozmika on Oct. 24, 2012 @ 12:38 pm

looks like the district numbers for many of these candidates are incorrect. per http://www.cadem.org/vote?id=0006

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2012 @ 9:34 am

Thanks for mentioning Jill Stein. It *is* an important opportunity that we have here in CA to vote for this strong, authentically progressive, articulate voice. The system is rigged to muffle these voices, and that is to everyone's detriment. We do have an opportunity here in CA to give her a boost since, if the Green Party candidate garners 5% of the vote, federal funds automatically kick in for the next go round in 2016. And as you stated, Obama is a clear winner in CA as it is.

As far as I'm concerned, if that's what it'll take for the public to hear these candidates, I'm going to exercise that power. You should consider it too. Here is the last lively, highly watchable (miracles do happen) 3rd Party debate, caught by too few of us:


Posted by Daniele E. on Nov. 03, 2012 @ 2:58 pm

A first term president always has reelection in mind. He will have his final term as president. As such, he will pull out all the stops (as much as he can). He has already come out in favor of gay marriage and health care for all. You'll see, he'll be the president in his second and last term when he doesn't have to worry about pleasing the center for reelection sake. He is smart and has the little guy/gal in mind. He's got what it takes to put the country on the right (and by that I mean left) track.

Posted by Andrea on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 12:15 pm

Obama will cut a "grand bargain" on "entitlements" that will screw Americans in the lame duck session.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 3:32 pm

So why do you care?

Posted by Troll II on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 5:28 pm

Because our liberal friends will vote for Obama over Romney because Romney will decimate Social Security even though Obama is champing at the bit to decimate Social Security.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 6:47 pm

improptu should be impromptu

Posted by Guest on Nov. 04, 2012 @ 4:54 pm

Related articles

  • East Bay Endorsements 2012

    Our recommendations in key Alameda County, Berkeley and Oakland races

  • Endorsements 2012: San Francisco propositions

    Yes (sigh) on Prop B. And vote hell yes to deny corporations personhood -- that'd be Prop G

  • Endorsements 2012: San Francisco races

    Rizzo and Selby for D5 supervisor. Our top choice in D1 is Eric Mar