Lee backs crackdown; Avalos: "I stand with Occupy SF"

|
(136)
One of several trucks leave with Occupy SF belongings after the camp was unexpectedly raided in the middle of the night.
Quinn Norton

Mayor Ed Lee has just released a statement on last night's police raid of the Occupy San Francisco encampment – claiming to basically support the movement but also support the harsh police crackdown and seizure of tents, food, and other personal property – that offers a sharp contrast to the position of his mayoral rival, John Avalos, who is condemning the SFPD's actions.

Once again, as Lee also did this week in defending businesses that seize money set aside for employee health care costs, our “consensus and civility” mayor is showing that if you try to stand for everything, you end up standing for nothing. Yet Avalos understands that there are times when one side is simply wrong and that supporting the people means being willing to fight for them.

On both issues, Lee mouthed the meaningless “jobs” defense, claiming that he was trying to help working people by letting their employers raid their health care funds, allowing restaurants to fraudulently jack up their bills, or directing the police to seize their tents and food. That's not just pandering, it's insulting.

I've tried unsuccessfully to get Lee's office to offer more detailed explanations of his positions, but they're so far sticking to prepared statements that are riddled with contradictions. So we're just going to run the full statements by Lee and Avalos and let you decide who makes more sense and best reflects San Francisco values.

Lee wrote:

“I understand and sympathize with the anxiety and frustration felt by so many in our country caused by a lingering recession and joblessness. That’s why I am doing everything I can to create jobs, get people back to work and make our families stronger here in San Francisco. I support the spirit of the Occupy Wall Street movement that calls for peacefully assembling to protest and bring national attention to disparity issues in our country.
“In San Francisco, protesters are acting within their First Amendment right to free speech and freedom to assemble. While allowing for peaceful protests, we also must ensure that our streets and sidewalks remain safe and accessible for everyone. I will continue to work closely with our Police Chief to ensure San Francisco responds appropriately to these demonstrations.  
“San Francisco is a city that embraces free speech and freedom to assemble like no other city.”

Indeed, no other city among the 60 or so that have followed the Occupy Wall Street example of occupying public spaces has sent police and trucks in to raid encampments in the middle of night, so San Francisco is indeed alone in its treatment of the movement that Lee shamelessly claims to support.

And now Avalos:

“Last night I gathered in solidarity with the protesters Occupying San Francisco. Like many people all over the country, I have been watching this protest gather strength and grow as more and more of us, more of the 99 percent, demand accountability from the corporations and people who are responsible for the destruction of our economy and devastation of our families.

“I came to down to observe the protest last night in response to summons from protesters and a notice from the police accusing their encampment of a number of minor infractions, ranging from open flames on a city street or sidewalk to serving food without a permit. I observed and negotiated with police in good faith to keep the peace and allow the encampment to remain, only to hear of a crackdown shortly after I left.

“This is not the San Francisco that I know. This is not the San Francisco I love. This City has served as a sanctuary for free speech and assembly for generations, and we must protect that legacy. With our unemployment rate nearing 10 percent, we have a responsibility to be a sanctuary for the 99 percent.

"Instead, last night we witnessed that 99 percent being detained, arrested, and intimidated with force.

“My vision is of a true sanctuary city - one that protects our right to free speech and assembly, and one that holds real criminals accountable. This should be a city for the rest of us - for the 99 percent. I stand with Occupy SF.”

Comments

Avalos is opportunistically aligning himself with disruptive fringe elements?

It can't harm Avalos's propsects of being elected, since Both Tim and Steven have already dismissed his chances of winning, even while handing him an empty endorsement (with of course two "real" picks as #2 and#3).

Even so, Avalos will lose more votes than he will gain by this cheap stunt. All he is doing is pleasing his small constituency, whom the voters have already dismissed as irrelevant cranks.

So let him have some fun. It's harmless.

Posted by Bill on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 3:04 pm

Actually, Lee is aligning himself with corporations and the police state that protects them, while Avalos is taking a principled stand for basic rights that are spelled out in the First Amendment. You may be right that it won't win him votes with the docile electorate, but his position in neither opportunistic nor a "cheap stunt." Avalos has been siding with people's movements his whole adult life.

Posted by steven on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

Avalos just got my vote.

Posted by rapture on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 7:46 am

Ed Lee says, "San Francisco is a city that embraces free speech and freedom to assemble" ... yeah, with a chokehold. Now you know how SFPD responds to free speech in Bayview Hunters Point, especially since they murdered Kenneth Harding.

John Avalos is the hero here. I'm proud to support him.

Posted by Guest Mary Ratcliff on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

San Franciscans demand a police presents and protection and they end up with a police force that occupies the city under the guise of protecting it. Hitler did the same thing with the SS.

San Francisco no longer belongs to the free, independent people.

Posted by Jerry Jarvis on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 4:21 pm

Hey, Jerry, here's an idea. Get carried away with hyperbole.

Posted by Bill on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

Someone had to say it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 5:33 pm

This is deja vu. Remember the Food Not Bombs crackdowns? Frank Jordan?

Same BS, supposedly 'liberal' SF can't take a protest.

Posted by q on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 6:37 pm

it was great to showing up to the protest and seeing Avalos out there. it did seem like he was trying to help the protesters be able to stay in their campout. apparently though there was a scheduled DPW cleaning of the area (supposedly posted hours before, somewhere, but unconfirmed), so the police were there to get protesters to move and let the DPW workers clean up, but that wasn't carried out very well, or with much empathy toward the protesters camp, it seems. not a good situation, all around, but certainly not something deserving of being compared to the S.S., Jerry.

Posted by Bordash on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 6:51 pm

it was great to showing up to the protest and seeing Avalos out there. it did seem like he was trying to help the protesters be able to stay in their campout. apparently though there was a scheduled DPW cleaning of the area (supposedly posted hours before, somewhere, but unconfirmed), so the police were there to get protesters to move and let the DPW workers clean up, but that wasn't carried out very well, or with much empathy toward the protesters camp, it seems. not a good situation, all around, but certainly not something deserving of being compared to the S.S., Jerry.

Posted by Bordash on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 6:52 pm

it was great to showing up to the protest and seeing Avalos out there. it did seem like he was trying to help the protesters be able to stay in their campout. apparently though there was a scheduled DPW cleaning of the area (supposedly posted hours before, somewhere, but unconfirmed), so the police were there to get protesters to move and let the DPW workers clean up, but that wasn't carried out very well, or with much empathy toward the protesters camp, it seems. not a good situation, all around, but certainly not something deserving of being compared to the S.S., Jerry.

Posted by Bordash on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 6:54 pm

Seriously Bordash,

I'll give you even odds that Willie Brown was personally involved in the seizure of the tents and food and signs. The present (Ed Lee appointed) head of DPW (they stole the stuff) is one Muhammed Nuru who was Willie's designated thug in City government. An illegal immigrant to boot! Willie put him in charge of an ex-con re-entry program called SLUG (something, 'urban gardeners').

Willie used the crew to tear down the signs of opposing candidates and propositions and to intimidate voters in black neighborhoods. Two van loads of them showed up in City vehicles at a Gonzalez/Newsom debate at Amos Brown's church in 2003. They unloaded their Newsom signs from the City vehicles and began harassing the Gonzalez supporters.

This was too much even for San Francisco. SLUG was disbanded and you'd think Nuru would be fired?

Nope, Nuru became deputy director at DPW where his temper was such that he was banned from senior staff meetings. Newsom brought the worst of Nuru's thugs from SLUG over to DPW where they've continued to do Willie's bidding to this day. Along the way, Dianne Feinstein made Mohammed's immigration problems go away. Nuru returned the favor by giving the Blums the City park and garden in front of the door of their new mansion atop Lyons street across from the Presidio.

So, the reason the cops won't tell you who ordered the sweep and who called in DPW to steal the protestors bivouac gear is because they know that it was Willie Brown who told Greg Suhr and Ed Lee to get these hippies off the stairs of the temple of his billionaire friends.

You can't make this shit up.

Bordash, you have no idea what Willie Brown is capable of.

Go Niners!

h.

Posted by h. brown on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 8:15 pm

Sad day indeed, but not without precedence. Alioto cleared Haight Street when he got back from a Paris trip many years ago. Been going on for a long time. I'm a displaced SF native, don't know this Lee guy...sounds like a weak weenie though.

Posted by Stephanovitch on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 9:05 pm

Ed Lee is a pig, on the wrong side on this as usual. You can't support the protesters and the police state it's one side or the other.

Posted by Jeff Hoffman on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 9:50 pm

John Avalos speaks for me.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 11:04 pm

@Bill, why don't you just hook up with Wanda and blow each others brains out, couple of puffs should suffice. Could be kinda fun, and kinky, especially if 'she' is who 'she' is now reputed to be, 'she' probably needs some tutoring in how to adapt to 'her' new role.
Ed Lee, liar, leach and enforcer for the 1%; pity him and his delusions of 'rising to the top', he's now sour, curdled milk and worth less than 4oz of spoiled yoghurt.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 11:43 pm

Avalos is going to lose the election by a landslide. Weird. 99% of that of that 99% never agreed to let these people speak for them.

I don't understand why the cops or the city cares? The protesters will lose interest in a few week's and wonder off. They don't seem to be hurting anyone, so enforcing these petty laws just add to their conspiracies and martyr complexes.

It is odd that progressives who cheer petty laws around, selling smokes, what people can feed their kids, mandatory recycling laws, micromanagement of people's lives and business, bans plastic bags, goldfish bans, flat earth cell phone laws, are upset that the city tries to enforce petty laws?

Also many a progressive cheered when the BOS passed resolution condemning the equally crazy pro-lifers when they marched here.

Self awareness is not what true believers do.

So weird.

Posted by meatlock on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 2:27 am

is probably the most vapid and passive and ineffective leader the left has had in a long time. He will do badly in the election because even on the left, few are really inspired by him. He's a lowest common denominator wishy-washy candidate, mostly just going through the motions.

He knows he won't finish in the top six, and so do the rest of us. The left has become irrelevant, even in San Francisco. Which is why we're seeing kids behaving badly on the street rather than substance and creativity.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 7:15 am

Ummm, have you even checked out Avalos' legislative record? You seem to not be familiar with all the amazing things he's already done, so I'll give you the skinny: He is the only mayoral candidate to have brought money into SF through a 1% tax on real estate transfers over $5 million (it brought in $40 million last year and will continue to do so annually). That means that our city didn't have to cut $40 million in programs and services that support our community.

Avalos also passed landmark legislation last year (working with community groups) to create a local hire law, ensuring that 50% of city-funded construction jobs go to local workers, including a workforce development plan to help currently unemployed workers to gain construction skills and enter the workforce.

Avalos has secured tens of millions of dollars for affordable housing for seniors and renters.

Avalos took a stand against the destruction of thousands of rent-controlled apartments in Park Merced this year (unfortunately David Chiu voted for the demolition and for the high-rise market-rate condos/apartment to replace)

Avalos has a plan for a municipal bank (check out the hearing at city hall this month, October 24th), to get our $6.5 million budget out of BofA and Wells Fargo and use the interest to support local businesses, community support services, and schools.

Any there's much more that Avalos plans to do. Just check out his platform for yourself. Is that enough information for you to take back your statement?

Posted by Amy on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 1:07 pm

on businesses, increased the City's deficit and opposed improvement of our housing stock.

I guess that explains why he's polling just 5%.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 1:28 pm

Ummm, have you even checked out Avalos' legislative record? You seem to not be familiar with all the amazing things he's already done, so I'll give you the skinny: He is the only mayoral candidate to have brought money into SF through a 1% tax on real estate transfers over $5 million (it brought in $40 million last year and will continue to do so annually). That means that our city didn't have to cut $40 million in programs and services that support our community.

Avalos also passed landmark legislation last year (working with community groups) to create a local hire law, ensuring that 50% of city-funded construction jobs go to local workers, including a workforce development plan to help currently unemployed workers to gain construction skills and enter the workforce.

Avalos has secured tens of millions of dollars for affordable housing for seniors and renters.

Avalos took a stand against the destruction of thousands of rent-controlled apartments in Park Merced this year (unfortunately David Chiu voted for the demolition and for the high-rise market-rate condos/apartment to replace)

Avalos has a plan for a municipal bank (check out the hearing at city hall this month, October 24th), to get our $6.5 million budget out of BofA and Wells Fargo and use the interest to support local businesses, community support services, and schools.

Any there's much more that Avalos plans to do. Just check out his platform for yourself. Is that enough information for you to take back your statement?

Posted by Amy on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 1:08 pm

This is going to hurt him in the election.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 7:31 am

Guest,

Credit where due. The morning Chron failed to note that the Bay Citizen's Gerry Shih broke the story on 'Lorrie-Gate' and actually got candid interviews with some of those involved. Because Shih got there first.

The original story:

http://www.baycitizen.org/sf-mayoral-race/story/shuttle-drivers-boss-mad...

Go Niners!

h.

Posted by h. brown on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 7:45 am

Mr. Ed seems to be on the defensive with the return of campaign donations from Lorries van service with Lorrie's encouragement. Thanks to the Bay Citizen and SF Chronicle for reporting and off course the Bay Guardian. Is the front runner on defense? Guess all those questions that Yee and Herrera have been asking in print, on commercials and lastly, through mailers is putting him on the defense. His only commercial shows a picture of Herrera and Yee with mud-slinging charges and real mud being thrown at Mr. Ed. Asking questions and shedding more light on contracts, like those 67 mentioned by Herrera on Tuesday, isn't mud. It's attempting to get at the facts behind a candidate many people really don't know. Smiling Mr. Ed, the nice guy who is all about civility may be wearing thin on voters who are beginning to ask the same questions about who he really is and who more importantly is behind his change of heart to run for mayor after months of denying his interest.

Whoever becomes our Mayor will be in Room 200 for perhaps 8 years and getting the right person is critical to make sure Room 200 is run for all of us not just a small hand full of wealthy developers who are privitizaing our public space.

Thanks Leland and Dennis for taking the risk of asking our 8 month incumbent Mayor the tough questions that need to be asked before we vote him into office.

This race is going to go down to Lee, Yee and Herrera with Avalos and Adachi closely behind. If Labor unions work hard, like last year when we were faced with the prospect of Proposition B passing easily in September, then my bet is either Yee and Herrera could cause a major upset or at least causing a close election.

Posted by Guest lucretiamott on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 9:05 am

I believe the theory posted here that Willie Brown and his DPW thug friends were behind this. Interesting that SFPD is clamming up about who gave the order. And of course the Chron has no interest in finding out. They've barely covered the protests, saying not a word about it till 1000 people marched in the street Wednesday.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 9:33 am

And it doesn't help that the next three candidates don't like each other and are ill-defined.

But why should the Chronicle report that 99.99% of the Bay Area population didn't join a "protest"?

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 10:01 am

Lee is not a lock, and I wouldn't count out Avalos just yet.

If the election were held today, my guess is it would look something like this in the first round:
Lee 30, Yee 18-20, Herrera 14-16, Avalos 12-14, Adachi 9-11, and nobody else above 5. And I think Lee would win, though not by as much as people think, because those not voting for the incumbent in the first round are basically those who have an issue with him.

Here's the thing though... the election will NOT be held today, and a month is a long time.

As for Avalos, a lot of folks say he can't pull it off, and I confess I have my doubts. But he's the only candidate who's come out in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and for that he deserves a chance. That's why I'm making another contribution to his campaign.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 8:55 pm

Incorrect on one key point.

Both Avalos and Baum are strongly supporting the Occupy Wall Street protests.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 9:14 pm

To put it mildly, Baum is not ready for prime time. Sorry Eric... I know she means well, but that's the truth. I may yet waste a vote on her, because there's not much else there for that third slot. But she's seriously, seriously fringe. And unlike some lefty candidates like Nader, Camejo, or Barry Hermanson, she's not even serious about putting together a coherent platform.

I ran into a few Green supporters of hers the other day at the protest, and everybody was just shaking their heads about the Guardian interview. The fact that when she was asked about her plan for taxes, and instead of having a coherent answer, she turns to Sue for help... that just doesn't look good. And it would be bad enough if this is the first time she was asked, but that's just it -it's not! She's been asked the same question multiple times at multiple forums, and she never has a coherent plan for generating revenue. You'd think she'd have one by now. So I'm wondering, is she just dumb?

Sorry to be blunt, but somebody needs to say it.

OTOH... who else is there? Adachi???

I hope it's Avalos or Yee and this all becomes academic.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 9:48 pm

You know sometimes man you are really a major horse's ass.

As I said in the thread under her interview, Terry got totally unfairly hijacked in that thing. She answered the fucking question Greg, saying that she would reach out to other mayors to work to get state law changed.

Only a typical Democrat ditto head like you would ignore that.

Thanks for being so supportive man. You're a real winner.

How about instead, next time you open your idiot mouth, think about the fact that Terry Baum has in fact been kicking ass in the debates and getting lots of applause, and that the better -she- does in this election, the more progressives will get -excited- and turn out to vote and -those- are voters who will also rank Avalos in their choices.

There is something called a team player Greg, and you are not it.

Either be supportive, or get the fuck out.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 11:39 pm

Which she and all of the local active Greens worked on and developed in detail.

It's a damned good platform.

So you don't know what you are talking about, and you should actually try asking the candidate herself.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 11:58 pm

The week before, she was asked the same question -repeatedly -at another club I belong to. And she had the same answer -none.

Look, I have no problem voting for Greens. I have before and I will again. But Baum simply isn't ready for prime time. I calls them as I sees them. So please don't take your anger out on me. If she has trouble winning over voters as progressive as myself, then she's not going anywhere. And calling potential voters names isn't helpful.

Seriously, Eric, it was a pretty progressive club. Folks wanted to like her, but she just came across as clueless.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 7:22 am

Will you wake up...

First of all, whether or not Baum can spin a perfect answer on an issue that -has- no good answer is not the issue.

The issue here is to draw Green and decline-to-state voters into the polls by helping Baum, who has an -excellent- policy platform, to become exciting to them.

Of course, it is unlikely that Baum will win. Therefore what this race is about is building excitement around her and John so that we can get as many voters to vote for both as possible.

You are now torpedoing that objective by picking on petty vulnerabilities when instead you should be -helping- the Baum campaign come up with a better response instead of biting at her achilles tendon like some overblown self important yapping poodle wired on coffee.

The more I see you write on these blogs the more I realize you aren't really interested in promoting progressive victories Greg.

You are nothing more than a dishing, gossiping twit, a lot like the cheap crap participants on a reality TV show.

Your latest posts with H Brown show that your real agenda is only to make yourself feel important by getting in public pissing matches.

With friends like you, the progressive movement needs no more enemies.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 10:40 am

Sorry you feel the need to attack people personally. I don't have an "agenda." I just disagree with you. Is that OK?

I find it ironic that you call me a "Democrat Dittohead" in one breath, and chide me for not being a "team player" in the next. Well the second is at least somewhat correct. I never claimed to be a blind follower of any "team." I'm capable of working hard for an issue or candidate I believe in, but if I don't think very much about the "team captain," I'll say so and I won't be on that team. With that attitude, if we were living in post-revolutionary times, I'd probably be one of the first to be shot in the purges for questioning the dear leader. But fortunately, we're not, and fortunately that particular model of revolution has been thrown on the scrap heap of history.

Really Eric, I think progressives do themselves a big disservice when we viciously attack someone who disagrees 10% of the time. It serves to marginalize the movement.

I can agree with you on Avalos and Yee, but the more I hear from Terry Baum, the less I like. If you think her revenue plan is just amazing, then fine -vote for her. I don't. It doesn't mean I'm a dittohead, a twit, a chihuahua on coffee with an agenda, or whatever else you call me. It just means I don't see it your way. Hurling vitriol won't convince me to see it your way... and I don't think it will convince many other readers.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 7:35 pm

You deserved every word of that bile.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 10:30 pm

the left can never win any true power in SF. They hate each other more than they hate the political center and right. Just like in communist Russia, squabbling and in-fighting devalues their message and their ability to win.

In this case, Greg is correct. Baum is an extremely weak candidate. Not totally surprising as all the real talent has left the SFGP, so they have had to resort to a candidate who couldn't win a seat on a school board, let alone be Mayor. And Baum's fumbles on straightforward questions is as good an indicator as anyone could wish for.

A vote for Baum is a wasted vote that could let Lee win.

Posted by Anonymous on Oct. 09, 2011 @ 6:09 am

Go back and reread what I wrote. The hate and venom is going entirely in one direction.

I can't speak for Eric, but I don't hate him at all, let alone hate him more than the right. Yes, I don't like his tendency to lash out at anyone who disagrees with him in the slightest... but to say that everyone on the left acts that way is to paint the left with a very broad brush. And while I probably wouldn't want to live under a regime where he's in charge of state security, I don't think that's going to happen.

There are a lot of reasons why the left has trouble gaining power in SF... the fact that the right controls most of the wealth, media, courts, state security, etc. has more to do with it than the Erics of the world.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 09, 2011 @ 7:58 am

And I'd certainly agree that Eric has little influence here or elsewhere.

The SFBG has gotten it's endorsement correct in not picking Baum. Her idea of doing well will be to not finish last.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 09, 2011 @ 9:02 am

But I didn't write those things; Eric did.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 09, 2011 @ 10:11 am

Actually Greg I almost never lash out at other progressives, which ought to tell you something. You are not using your head and badly undermining us by unnecessarily attacking an ally when that ally needs our support instead.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 09, 2011 @ 10:06 am

isn't lashing out? Then what do you say when you do lash out?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 09, 2011 @ 10:21 am

Yes, of course it is lashing out. The point I was making to Greg is that as a 'progressive' you have to be a -real- idiot to get me to go after you like that.

People who know me can tell you that I do not suffer fools easily, and Kamin just put himself at the top of the A-1 all time fools list.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 09, 2011 @ 10:46 am

Eric and Greg,

Is this one of those strange male bonding rituals we hear so much about? First you fight, then you're friends?

I hope so, because I really look forward to your comments every day. You're both highly astute and thoughtful~ that is, when you're not getting involved in some silly pissing contest. Frankly, it's gumming up the threads with negativity. So dudes, could you like, take it to Daly's Dive or something?

Geesh, I thought h. Brown was the only one macho enough to insult every male in sight...and a few women just for good measure. Of course, nobody could dream of carrying his jock strap (it's full of hot air ;-)

I'm sorry, I'm not from your planet.

Posted by Lisa on Oct. 09, 2011 @ 4:42 pm

Look at the tenor of my comments, and look at the tenor of Eric's, ok?

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but sorry I think painting us with the same brush is being grossly unfair.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 09, 2011 @ 7:51 pm

I was trying to inject a bit humor into the mix to get you both to lighten up. But I just read the thread again, and you're right. Eric was engaging a meanspirited personal attack. Just a sample: "You are nothing more than a dishing, gossiping twit, a lot like the cheap crap participants on a reality TV show," "Democrat Dittohead", "open your idiot mouth", etc. (yikes!)

I support Terry Baum, but I don't think that every progressive has to think like I do. Frankly, this is something that really troubles me about Eric and h. Brown. They appear to take it personally when anyone dares to criticize their preferred candidates. But if someone is running for office, they must face a certain amount of criticism~ it's par for the course. And the voters have every right to make up their own minds. It's insulting to tell someone -- progressive or otherwise -- how to think.

I think Eric would be more convincing if he could stick to the facts about Terry's record/ platform and stop attacking people. The irony is that anyone reading his crap is likely to get turned off, and will probably dismiss anything else of value that he has to say (which is a shame). He's not doing Ms. Baum any favors by going ballistic on people. I do believe that Eric owes you an apology. I don't expect you'll receive one, but I am truly sorry for judging you, Greg. Hope that helps.

Posted by Lisa on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 4:23 pm

Any politician who hopes to acquire some measure of power and influence has to learn how to listen to and respect those with contrary opinions. It's an essential skill in public life.

By espousing often extreme policies and engaging in vituperative rants when called on them, Eric damages the very cause he claims to support. I hope he listens to you, and Greg.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 4:41 pm

Look. I take your point. More bees with honey. But honestly, for you to behave as if Greg did not do exactly as you are calling me out for doing (and worse, his doing it toward a great progressive leader who we should all be rallying behind right now) is just ridiculous.

If you want me to accept your criticism, make it even handed for god's sake.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 5:00 pm

I cannot believe you are actually falling for his passive aggressive victim routine.

Did you actually READ the stuff Greg wrote about Terry Baum.

That is one of the very rare times that I have lost my temper with another supposed 'progressive' and it was in response to his making outrageous, deceptive, attacks on Baum, almost as vicious as those I leveled at him.

Wake up...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 4:43 pm

I am omnipotent. Do not question me. Anyone who does is an idiot, a twit and full of nonsense.

There's a reason that after 25 years of "working" in politics I make $22,000 a year and spend all my time commenting on online message board - it's because I'm a success. I know how to win friends and influence people and events. Watch me - LEARN from me.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 4:49 pm