D5, Mirkarimi, and 8 Washington


Everybody knows that the timing of the Board of Supervisors vote on ousting the sheriff for official misconduct is bad for Ross Mirkarimi. We're talking about a huge, high-profile decision just weeks before some of the key board members are up for re-election, two of them in hotly contested races. For Sups. Eric Mar and Christina Olague, it's going to particularly difficult: Mar's in a moderate district, and he'll be attacked from the more conservative David Lee if he supports Mirkarimi. Olague's in a progressive district where Mirkarimi was a popular supervisor, so no matter what she does, she'll take heat.

But I was a little surprised by Randy Shaw's analysis, which suggests that Olague will be motivated entirely by political spite:

D5 Supervisor Christina Olague once faced a tough decision on Ross, but since Mirkarimi allies have attacked her on a number of issues it would be very unlikely for her to support him.

That's pretty insulting. Shaw, who has supported her in the past, is saying that Olague won't make up her own mind based on the actual issue and case in front of her. She was pretty clear when I called her: "I will vote on the merits of this issue," she said. "If I was motivated to vote based on who had pissed me off I'd have a hard time voting on anything."

I've disagreed with Olague quite a few times, and one could easily argue that she'll be under immense pressure from the mayor. ("The mayor doesn't want a lot from Christina, but he does want this," one insider told me.) But is it impossible for Shaw to imagine that, in one of the toughest matters she will ever have to handle, the supervisor might actually listen to the testimony, consider the merits of the case, and vote to do what she thinks is right?

Meanwhile, Joe Eskenazi at the Weekly has already announced the Guardian's endorsement in D5 -- which is interesting, since we're barely started interviewing the candidates. Eskenazi calls Julian Davis "the Guardian's fair-haired boy" (which, speaking of insults, is not a terribly appropriate way to refer to an African American man), indicating that he's already our candidate.

For the record: We have not made an endorsement in District Five. We plan to endorse a slate of three candidates for the ranked-choice ballot, and we'll publish that endorsement the last week in September or the first week in October.




While alternatively trashing Olague. Give us all a break here - your bias in the race is overwhelmingly obvious to everyone.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:03 pm

Unlike the Chron, SFBG has never pretended to be an "objective, unbiased" news source. This is a leftist paper as pretty much everyone knows besides yourself. That said, the "bias" you speak of is more of a well-reasoned preference for a good progressive candidate, which Julian Davis clearly is. Why do you think SFBG does endorsement interviews? So they can figure out who will be the best progressive candidate in the running. If you don't like it, why don't you go post your troll droppings on Rush Limbaugh? I guarantee you will be far more appreciated there.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 3:36 pm

Yes but the SFBG should label their content as 'Opinion'. There aren't a lot of sources covering local SF politics so someone interested and searching via Google or Bing might very possibly be sent here and read a Tim Redmond piece without your knowledge that it is biased and subjective material. You can pick apart the Chron's reporting and find things that you consider biased but most of the shots that they take are clearly labeled as opinion.

The SFBG does not match those standards.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 4:02 pm

The folks who care about this stuff, namely the voters and residents of SF, are clued in about the politics of the Bay Guardian. You must be positively the last person in this city not to know, Mr. Van Winkle. How long have you been asleep, ya old dinosaur?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 4:16 pm

since the SFBG has been biased from the start on Ross, simply because he is a liberal, you can hardly whine when the Supes do the same thing.

It is obvious that Avalos will back Ross, while Farrell will vote Ross out. It's not rocket science, and we even saw that in SCOTUS with Gore versus Bush.

So for all the "evidence" (which frankly is fairly damning of Ross anyway) this will be another one of those party-line votes - not just Olague but the other ten too. So why pick her out?

On that basis, Ross may just fluke it, if Avalos, Mar and Campos hold firm while the others vote him down. But it's hardly going to make it easy for Ross ot get anything done when he has been politically neutered.

Too bad so much political capital gets wasted on a doomed, self-destructive politican.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:35 pm

Progressives and SFBG supported Ross because it was the right thing to do. No one was defending his behavior, just his right to due process and a fair hearing. The media circus around the case made it impossible for him to get a fair trial before an impartial jury and violated his right to a fair hearing before Ethics. Some of us don't even care for Ross all that much, but we believe that if you really care about justice, you need a just process (check the U.S. Constitution). That never happened. But go ahead, put your own spin it. It just serves to betray your own bias against progressives.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 3:52 pm

right-winger assaulted his wife?

I don't think so.

Ergo, bias.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 4:07 pm

MOMENTARILY GRABBED his wife's arm? Nobody believes that, ergo you are a tool.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 4:50 pm
Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 5:04 pm

under a generic identity, there is *no* way to verify that is true and *no* way to prove it is false; in other words, your statement is a semantic null.

I will come right out and say that I don't support a man grabbing his wife's arm in anger; but I also don't believe that a momentary act -- which does *not*, incidentally, demonstrate any intent to cause an injury -- should occasion the judicial breakup of a family and the public crucifixion which Sheriff Mirkarimi has been subjected to.

Again, since you are posting under a generic name, there's no point in interrogating your opinion regarding Fire Chief Joanne Haynes-White altercation with her husband where she wailed on the back of his head with a beer stein.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 6:05 pm

Seriously- give it a rest- two very different circumstances- 1. The "Victim"- recanted shortly afterwards- signed a statement to that effect. 2. The Fire Chief passed a lie detector test that she didn't do it. 3. She was never convicted or plead guilty to a crime- Ross did. 4. She is the fire chief- not a sworn law enforcement officer - like the Sheriff is.

Posted by D.native on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 7:34 pm

In the Mirkarimi case, the victim *never* recounted, right? That's because *SHE* *NEVER* *CALLED* *THE* *POLICE*. And lie detector? Administered by her own lawyer's agent.

Seriously, you anti-Mirkarimi haters have no limitation on hypocrisy. If there'd been a lie detector administered by Lopez's or Mirkarimi's attorneys, you'd have said what, exactly?

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 8:01 pm

lilli wants to see the police report for the stolen dog and birthers want to see the president's birth certificate - we all wanna see something.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 8:48 pm

To all the Trolls,

Obviously you think you got the best viewpoint. That's just it. It is only
your viewpoint. You expend too much wasted energy and we disagree with you!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 3:05 am


Posted by GrannyGear on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 10:47 am

The I Totally Agree (ITA) was in response to the original "SFBG supported Ross because it was the right thing to do" posted by guest. It is a little unclear here what I meant due to the placement of the comments.

Posted by GrannyGear on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 10:52 am

admits that he "committed an act of violence against my wife" then why is it inconceivable that the SFBG would have gone to such lengths to support a right-wing politician in the same situation?

Surely if it were a matter of principle, they would support any Republican so accused?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 11:36 am

Ross Mirkarimi, during a momentary error in judgment in an argument regarding to his wife's intention to take their son out of the country, grabbed his wife's arm. There was no intent to do her injury -- as in the case of another highly-placed city official who bashed her husband over the back of his head twice with a heavy object and still remains in her highly-paid city job -- but Ross correctly identified the character of his behavior in that case and apologized for it.

Ross Mirkarimi did *not* though, say those exact words at any time and I've asked repeatedly for proof to the contrary, but have never received the slightest in reply. You seem to be following a flawed script.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

You repeat the lie about the quote because the plan is to use it on a bumpersticker or other political collateral; that which can be printing in volume with Pak/Brown machine money.

The quote is false, but you desperately needed that sound bite enough that you are trying to create it where it never existed.

All because the plan to overturn an election based on a momentary arm grab and political witchhunt isn't going as smoothly as those who imperiously wield the levers of power had expected.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 12:59 pm

a DV perp was a right-winger.

So it's not a matter of "principle" for SFBG at all - it's pure [political ideology and opportunism.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 3:03 pm

You cannot point to a single case even slightly analogous to the Ross Mirkarimi persecution in which the SF Bay Guardian editorial staff has exhibited the hypocrisy you so opportunistically impugn them with.

Therefore, *YOU* are the hypocrite. *YOU* are the unprincipled one, lamely attempting to capitalize on the issue to further your political ideology.

Lame bullshit from reactionary stupids.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 6:33 pm

when have they ever stood up for the "rights" of a republican caught in a sex, drugs, gay, violence or criminal scandal?


Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 11:51 am

Okay..because people Google this stuff and the SFBG irresponsibly fails to properly label Tim Redmond's articles as opinion/fiction:

Redmond: " Joe Eskenazi at the Weekly has already announced the Guardian's endorsement in D5"

No, that isn't true. Eskenazi said:

"Candidate Julian Davis is the San Francisco Bay Guardian's fair-haired boy and the choice of the progressive establishment. "

Steven Jones, writing in the SFBG on Aug 10 used almost the same language as Eskenazi: "Julian Davis is emerging as the progressive standard-bearer". The Bruce Blog was devoted to a giddy announcement of Davis' entry into the race on May 22 (Has Bruce done that for any other candidates?).

SFBG readers know that there have been other posts talking up Davis and down Olaque. Eskenazi's words are not at all unreasonable, despite Tim's weak effort to ridicule them. In fact, what Eskanazi said had greater journalistic integrity than what Tim said about announcing the SFBG endorsement.

(I know...I used the words 'journalistic integrity' and 'Tim Redmond' in the same sentence. Mea culpa.)

What's happened is that the Progressives voted Olaque off the island too soon, before they realized that they would need her vote on Mirkarimi.

But Tim wants to circle back. Hey, we have not endorsed a candidate, even though nobody said that we did. And when we do, we'll list 3 candidates.

Do you hear that, Olaque? We might not send you home if you do what we say.

Or can you hear anything above the din of people laughing at the SFBG weak flailings?

Posted by Troll on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:45 pm

Go home, troll, back to Sfgate where your kind belongs.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 12:50 pm

Nice refutation. You know, just because someone disagrees with the Guardian's stance doesn't mean they're a troll.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 31, 2012 @ 7:07 pm

Its all well and good that the BOS will get to vote on what happens to Mirkarimi because of his "official misconduct" related to open government. But...should the 4 supervisors with findings of official misconduct against them be permitted to vote in this matter? Seems a little hypocritical. These 4 should recuse themselves.

Oh...but wait...then there wouldn't be a sufficient number of remaining Supes to convene on this matter. Sort of like what's happening with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force at the hands of at least one of the 4 supes with a finding of official misconduct against him.

You can't have it both way BOS.

Posted by roflynn on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 12:58 pm

Jason Grant Garza here ... "But later, when attorney Scott Emblidge — who is volunteering his legal services to both the Ethics Commission and Board of Supervisors on this case — offered his interpretation that the charter language requires removal of officials found to have committed official misconduct, the commission accepted that and opted not to consider recommending a lesser punishment to the Board of Supervisors. "

GREAT ... now the ETHICS COMMISSION can move against the FOUR SUPERVISORS found GUILTY of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" that was decided and sent to ETHICS per sunshine for violation prior to ROSS' December date while he was NOT in office. Here clearly the SUPERVISORS were in office and FOUND GUILTY by SUNSHINE. Check out on city website http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=11889 ... go and check out case # 11048.

Then ETHICS can call all the cases that it failed for "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" as found guilty by SUNSHINE ... re-open them ... apply the same NEW STANDARD and RULE interpretation ... and APPLY EVENLY. They can start with my NURSE RATCH case see http://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com where the paperwork is on the web. There is also the paperwork the ETHICS COMMISSION specifically asking about the "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" phrase and you will NOTE ... NO RESPONSE. Was the COMMISSION UNETHICAL then and made up now ... then where are the calls and re-opening of the cases?

So, before the FOUR SUPERVISORS can sit in JUDGMENT of ROSS ... will it be heard in ETHICS ... for their "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" according to the MINISTRY of SUNSHINE that happened before ROSS' ....

Why is NO ONE asking this questions ?

At the very LEAST the FOUR SUPERVISORS MUST recuse themselves from voting or go through the NEW RULES and STANDARD process at ETHICS as did ROSS before they can sit in JUDGMENT. These (supervisors) sitting in JUDGMENT must be "ABOVE REPROACH" and this MUST be addressed before or then already found guilty of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" by SUNSHINE (the fact finders) will decide. THEY MUST be cleared by ETHICS before under the same INTERPRETATION of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" that they used against ROSS. Shall we see how the INTERPRETATION of "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT: plays out in this ETHICS proceeding for the FOUR SUPERVISORS?

"LIVE by the SWORD ... DIE by the SWORD." I can just hear the ETHICS COMMISSION when it comes to this "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" against the supervisors ... they will probably say "THAT IS NOT WHAT WE CLAIMED WHEN WE INTERPRETED the OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT definition THAT WE USED AGAINST ROSS. or maybe they will say on;y the MAYOR can remove for "OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT" even though the SUNSHINE found them guilty and referred to ETHICS just as the MAYOR ... shall we wait and see ???

As another point ... my prediction regarding the MAYOR'S possible perjury and the BOMB threat can TRUE ... preliminary, perfunctory , no real investigation ... move on ... we are waiting for another crises so that the MASSES will forget. Yes, a perfect ten (10) on the 1 to 10 "STINK FACTOR."

Oh, and for the NAIVE, KOOL AID drinkers ... the SUNSHINE TASK FORCE has been closed (not operating ... not performing ... and NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE) since June 2012 it is now going to be September 2012 ... are the COMPLAINANT/VICTIMS not entitled to speedy process ...ha,ha,ha. The sheer INSANITY belies all the LIES of CONCERN. COMPASSION, MORALITY, HUMANITY, CIVILITY ... the list goes on and on.

However nothing NEW ... go to htpp://www.myownprivateguantanamo.com to see JUST how far the city will go to WIN. Enjoy ...

P.S. Shall we see how NO ONE addresses these issues or better yet responds and tries to divert by saying WHAT a NUTTER I am in order to deflect/divert from the TRUTH.

A nation of FOOLS deserves what it receives ...

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 6:42 am

actually has some connection to their editorial board.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 1:51 pm

You're OBSESSED with me. I understand why as I am both charismatic and brilliant so I often pick up stalkers and starry-eyed fans that way. But seriously - the SF Weekly editorial board? Surely you picture me someplace like at the NY Times or at least the Chron for God's sake.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 2:03 pm

I picture you on the National Enquirer. Can't wait to hear about the latest invasion of space aliens. Coffee, TII?

Posted by Call me Lil on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 4:30 pm

Get back to me in September 2013 darling.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 6:08 pm

and never has done space alien stories..You are thinking of the "examiner". different rag..different issues

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 8:33 am

Never, eh? What do you have to say about these space alien stories in the Enquirer, fool? And many others, which anyone could have found out through a quick google search:



Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 1:03 pm

Whether mod or prog, it appears we all take ourselves a bit too seriously around here. Doesn't anyone here have a sense of humor anymore?

Posted by Call me Lil on Aug. 30, 2012 @ 1:14 pm

Naw. Mentioning SFWeekly was really a jab at them; though I could see the possibility for confusion.

SFist. Get it?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 9:49 pm

You are a bit obsessed with Troll II

Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

Right, I could never resist a little bottom-dwelling troll, especially one with delusions of grandeur. Hey, what's not to love about an internet stalker? Oh, here's a little confession -- I was secretly filming you when you jumped out at me from under your bridge, Troll II. Look, I caught you on tape, you little hottie...


Posted by Lil on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 4:10 pm

but not only are you a retard, you are the worst type of retard. You are a retard, that doesn't realize that you are a retard and believes you are in fact, a genius...delusional, I believe the word is :-)

Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 5:20 pm

So yelling "retard" is your best shot? Ha,ha,ha...you must be really riled. Love it! :))

Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 5:48 pm


Posted by Daniele E. on Sep. 02, 2012 @ 7:24 am

Why is 8 Washington in the title? Is Christina also gonna get beaten over the head for voting to support the project? She's actually a LOT more progressive than the SFBG on this topic!!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 2:16 pm

That's why Olague has raised over $75,000 from special interests, about half of that money from a fundraiser thrown by Rose Pak. Real progressive, that one.


Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 4:51 pm
Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 5:05 pm

tughest matters she will ever have to handle

Posted by Corvus Conrix on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 4:37 pm

"... one of the tughest matters she will ever have to handle..."

Oh, it will be tugh. About as tugh as you asking someone to edit your copy before you post it.

Posted by Corvus Conrix on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 4:39 pm

Or a spell check pre-post would suffice.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 4:43 pm

Stand with GRoss!

Posted by Georgie Tirebiter on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 5:10 pm

The adult way to look at Mirkarimi's predicament is that any criminal conviction makes a pol ineligible to hold elective office. Had Mirkarmii fought the case at trial, knocked down one of the charges and hung others he might well have held onto the Sheriff's office and survive the recall. Instead, Mirkarmi pled guilty to false imprisonment charges. There is a cruel side to politics, and no doubt this is a tragic loss for Mirkarimi personally. It's hard to see how this movie ends well for him.

The Bay Guardian holds onto the delusion that somehow Mirkarmi can be Sheriff because progressives Avalos, Campos and Mar will walk the electoral plank and vote for him. PPP which is a Democratic polling firm Nate Silver says has a "house bias" for Democrats is slammed as a push poll operation. Judge Kahn has already rejected the Mazzola decision's application to Mirkarimi's facts. The Ethics Commission has voted 4-1 to sustain two of the charges against Mirkarimi. Yet the delusion persists like the Nixon Whitehouse in June 1974 he will somehow hang on. Unlike Nixon's end, there is no adult in the Mirkarimi orbit who can tell him the truth. The price of this paper's delusion is conceding electoral opportunities in 2012 on the College Board, Districts 5 and perhaps District 7 that could be the start of a progressive fightback. Clinging to a past that is gone appears to be more comforting. More tortured stories about what is or is not DV, political conspiracy theories and arguments about the applicability of "official misconduct in office" are sure to follow.

True, Avalos and Campos can vote to keep Mirkarimi in office and avoid political retribution in 2012. That would be fine if their ambitions ended with holding office at the Board of Supervisors, and unlike Mirkarimi they are both fine with being termed out of office and going the way of Jake McGoldrick or Sophie Maxwell. However, if either wants to run for higher office their vote becomes one they'll be attacked for as long as Beverly Upton, Andrea Shorter or Mary Morgan breathes. There is also the sober fact that unless Avalos and Campos pair their vote with a third, support for Mirkarmi is meaningless. If Mar wants longer odds than his 50-50 chance of being re-elected, he can vote for Mirkarimi. Mar could but his campaign consultant would be guilty of misconduct.

The next delusion is that Olague votes for Mirkarmii. Olague is bankrolled by Rose Pak and the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. She is advised by two political operatives close to Willie Brown, one a former Planning Commissioner. Those who actually followed politics during the Brown years remember the Brown operation demanded and got a high yield on all political investments. Olague voted for 8 Washington even though her vote was not needed to pass the project. The idea a Lee appointee can undo a decision he spent political capital on is absurd. The women's community will provide Olague with all the necessary cover she needs to say, "if it were any other office but the Sheriff's department is responsible for running DV treatment programs and ..." That is an easy yarn to spin.

The omission in this story is what David Chiu does. Chiu has a score to settle with Ed Lee and Rose Pak. He was played by both in 2011. Chiu has an independent source of campaign money locally and from classmates & old colleagues on the East Coast. Chiu doesn't need to rely Pak's money, just as Gavin Newsom did not. If there is a scenario for Mirkarimi to get 3 votes it runs through Chiu. It's unlikely because Chiu is conscious a vote for a one time male colleague with a DV conviction is 30 second ad material forever. It's more likely than Olague, however.

For argument's sake, let's suspend disbelief and just go with the delusion Mirkarmi survives. What happens then? The progressive community is tagged in the November 2012 election with hundreds of thousands of mugshot mailers. The Chronicle piles on and the SF Weekly can't help itself and gets a few more elbows into the wounded Guardian. Downtown in all likelihood consolidates its hold on the Board of Supervisors. After that San Francisco faces a recall campaign that lands on the November 2013 ballot. Just so no one forgets, every Board member who votes for Mirkarimi gets to defend that vote for another year and the progressive community and this paper are defined by Mirkarmi's actions on December 31, 2011.

The problem with this piece is that advocacy for an outcome, preserving Mirkarimi and saving a paper's sunk costs, is not matched with a journalistic responsibility to give readers insight into either what is going or or what is at stake.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 5:17 pm

Whenever reactionaries start talking about the "adult" way of looking at things, right thinking progressives have good reason to feel doubtful.

A midemeanor false imprisonment conviction might not be the best item on a long-serving and respected public servant's resume, it certainly isn't a death blow for Mirkarimi's political career -- especially in view of the political nature of the investigation and prosecution.

Ross Mirkarimi is *not* Dick Nixon; the chief delusion might be that you think you can paint him in that light. And for the record: Ross Mirkarimi did not plead guilty to a "Domestic Violence" crime.

You make a bunch of "inside politics" type assessments, but are they as valid as the amount of effort you exerted in making them might suggest?

For one, you claim that since PPP is a firm with a "house bias" for Democrats, that any suggestion that the poll was an unreliable push poll is absurd. *That* is absurd.

Ross Mirkarimi is *not* a Democrat, and he has *not* been a Democrat since 1990 when he co-founded the California Green Party; put then again, with all "inside politics"-type insights you have, I expect you really knew that.

Posted by lillipublicans on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 6:36 pm

He is, in fact, now a member of the Democratic party.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 29, 2012 @ 6:56 pm