Davis needs to drop out


EDITORIAL Kay Vasilyeva, a member of the San Francisco Women's Political Caucus, has come forward with the allegation that District Five candidate Julian Davis grabbed her and put his hand down her pants at a political bar crawl in 2006. That was six years ago, but it's still important — and more than the incident itself, the response we've seen from Davis is highly disturbing. He's utterly denying that it ever happened, and retained a lawyer to send Vasilyeva a letter threatening her with legal action if she continues to talk.

While we endorsed Davis for supervisor, we take these charges very, very seriously — particularly coming at a time when relations between men and women in the progressive movement are badly strained.

Since the SF Weekly, which broke the story, suggested that we knew something about Davis's behavior, we need to state, for the record: When we endorsed Davis, we had heard nothing even remotely close to this type of allegation. Yes, we knew that in his 20s he was a bit of an arrogant ass. We knew that at one point, he actually got into a tugging match with another person over the ridiculous question of who got to hold a campaign sign. We'd heard that, in the past, at somewhat debauched parties, he'd made advances toward women who weren't interested in his affections.

Those could be the acts of an immature man who has since grown up. And since, on a level of policy, knowledge, and positions, he was by far the best and strongest progressive in the race in District 5, we — along with much of the local progressive leadership — thought he was demonstrating enough maturity that he was worthy of our support.

But this new information, and his response to it, is alarming.

We don't take last-minute allegations about a front-running candidate lightly; people have been known to dump all sorts of charges into heated races. When we learned about Vasilyeva's allegations on Oct. 13, we did our own research. We spent two hours with Davis and his supporter and advisor, former D5 Supervisor Matt Gonzalez. We realized that allegations without corroboration are just charges, so we tracked down everyone we could find who might know anything about this incident — and, as we discovered, other similar events. And we have to say: Vasilyeva's account rings true. Davis's categorical denial does not.

More than that, we were offended that he in effect threatened with a lawsuit a woman who, at some peril to herself, came forward to tell the public information about someone who is running for elected office. What was the point of that, if not to intimidate her? It's highly unlikely he's going to sue (and drag this whole mess into court). He says he was just trying to send a message that he has a legal right to respond to defamation, but this is a political campaign; if he didn't want to deal publicly with what he must have known were these sorts of potential allegations, he shouldn't have run for office.

This is a bad time for progressives in San Francisco. The Mirkarimi case has brought to the fore some deep and painful rifts; a lot of women feel that (mostly male) progressive leaders have pushed their issues to the side. For the future of the movement and the city, the left has to come together and try to heal. This situation isn't helping a bit.

Davis needs to face facts: Supervisors John Avalos and David Campos have withdrawn their endorsements. Assembly member Tom Ammiano is almost certain to do the same. With his inability to handle the very credible charge that he not only groped a woman but lied about it, Davis no longer has a viable campaign in the most progressive district in the city, and we can't continue to support him.

We have said it many times before: People on the left need to be able to put their own ambitions aside sometimes and do what's right for the cause. Davis can't win. He's embarrassing his former allies. He needs to focus on coming to terms with his past and rebuilding his life. And for the good of the progressive movement, he needs to announce that he's ending his campaign, withdrawing from the race, and urging his supporters to vote for another candidate.


Elsewhere with that inscrutable Strom Thurmond reference... did he mean to bring up the baby that Strom fathered with his family's sixteen-year-old maid who -- owing to her skin tone -- wasn't deemed good enough to drink at his same water fountain?.... not even his own (presumably lighter-skinned) daughter years later when he served in the House fighting for segregation?

Was the point that Strom Thurmond should never have been chased out of the Democratic Party due to those new fangled civil rights concepts? Would matlock have lamented the divisive policy goals?

And we must gloss over Avalos' clearly expressed -- and not a little bit obsequious -- apology to the "DV community" community in the recent Op Ed piece in the Examiner to follow matlocks tidy critique o apologist stooges and progressive dogma?

Not really. matlock isn't even close to intelligent enough to pull off a decent concern troll. Delving into racist terminology "for impact" is just creepy.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 7:19 am

All right, enough with these allegations! Frankly, I can see both sides of the issue, and no way to reconcile it. I just find it tragic. When you get right down to it, no one knows the truth, except the parties involved. So, must we drag this out for the next three weeks? What a waste... honestly, here was enough vitriol to go around with the Mirkarimi case. Pues...basta! Let the voters decide!


Posted by Ana on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 6:07 pm

and ignore all things that might cost progressives an election.

I picture that going over if it was Strom Thurmond said the same thing about the Clarence Thomas thing.

So entertaining.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 8:19 pm

groping here, groping there, groping everywhere for decades, holding women down in elevators(false imprisonment) Everybody knew it, they made him governor,twice. Remember?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 6:53 pm

Kay = That Madison woman.

She's another faux feminist working clandestinely for the Brown/Lee machine.

PRETENDING she was groped by a man. She'll back off soon enough after the Progressive community puts enough heat on her.

Posted by Craftoid on Oct. 18, 2012 @ 8:02 pm

"Americans have a long history of believing baseless accusations against black men when levied by white women about sexual misconduct."

Absolutely. It's like the Old South. Why can't we all admit that?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 6:24 am

Agreed, this ratifies the existing racist and sexist notions that black males are the prime threat to the sanctity of white vagina and that it is inconceivable that white women would ever make themselves sexually available to black men.

Have I been thrust back into the Texas that I fled more than two decades ago, what with a Tea Party mayor and the antebellum pedestalization of white women to protect them from the ongoing scourge of the sexually rapacious black male?

Posted by marcos on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 8:11 am

And the Bay Guardian has completely abdicated its traditional role among the vanguard for progressive change to run to the back and join those pulling in the opposite direction.


Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 8:29 am

I quit hanging out with white women due to this. As a black man, you touch the leg of a white woman you are friends with and who says she hasn't had sex in months (where are the hormones? Are you human?) and half the time she makes out with you and you have great sex for hours, and half the time she acts all bitchy and offended like you're Willie Fucking Horton. Touching a leg is not touching a breast or anything like that, it's an attempt to get a woman out of her shell and horny and turned on. Women have not responded to feminism by taking half the responsibility for sexual initiation, as Camille Paglia encouraged. But when we do, because we have to, if they don't want us it's some horrible crime. Come on, he touched a leg, it wasn't for his benefit, you can pay $20 to touch two perfect legs for a song at Crazy Horse, plus $20 for admission. It was to try to turn her on. What an uptight, selfish, racist, snooty, entitled, arrogant white bitch! Ruining a guy's career because someone touched her leg. I bet the last guy she had sex with made the first move like this. She liked him. She didn't like Davis. Whatever. I'm voting for Julian Davis 100%. This is pure racism! It reminds me of the scene in Birth of a Nation where they show the crazy black guy trying to rape a white woman and the heroic Klan saving her. FUCK YOU VASILYEV YOU RACIST HONKEY BITCH!

Posted by Fred Dobbs on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

The crazy horse part was a good add-on. Really upped the dose.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 1:16 pm

Am I the only person who actually read Fred's post? Can't anyone else understand how serious this is? Fred Dobbs has quit hanging out with white women! When a situation has reached this level of tragic magnitude, we must, as a community, search for the cause and rectify it immediately.

I think we can all agree that Fred has shown remarkable restraint and perseverance where white women are concerned. Up to this point, Mr Dobbs, with true stoicism and dignity, has accepted the fact that touching a white woman's leg only leads to "great sex" 50% of the time. He is, after all, an enlightened man. Did he not say that he sometimes tips the strippers at the Crazy Horse up to $20? Does that not prove his egalitarianism towards the fairer sex? But the racist treatment of Brother Davis by this arrogant white woman leaves no doubt that Feminism has failed. It's like you white bitches don't even appreciate Fred's tireless and selfless efforts to turn you on!

Enough is enough! I can no longer stand idly by and allow the dolefully dry fingers of our African American male community to go un-wetted by white women's juices. I'm planning a march and a protest next weekend. Please join us, Brothers! It will begin on Saturday at 8 PM at the Gold Club and we will work our way over to North Beach and we won't quit until we've hit every single strip club in town!

Posted by Snoozers on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 6:12 pm

As a white woman I totally agree. Grabbing and trying to get women excited happens every night thousands of times in the bars on Chestnut, in the Marina, everywhere in this City. Men do have the burden of having to initiate because we're taught that we are supposed to wait and be subtle. I think this is a huge deal over a pretty minor issue. He didn't rape her, he didn't take her clothes off, he touched her leg in a bar and she said to stop and he did. If a white guy had done this, no one would have said anything.

Personally, I don't want all men to turn into shivering cowards afraid to offend me or flirt with me. In fact, the more nervous a guy seems, the less interested I am. I may play around, but I don't like guys like that. Julian did nothing wrong and his career was ruined by offending the white woman on the pedestal. This woman did nothing for women and her actions are racist. I mean, she didn't go to the police at the time, barely made mention of it, but now that the black man is uppity (trying to get elected to public office) she has to lynch him. People like this woman want this to become an all-white Disneyland and want all the blacks forced out of their utopia.

If a guy hits on me too hard I stand up for myself and tell him I'm not interested, if I have to rudely to embarass him a bit. I don't hold a grudge for six years and lay in wait to ruin it if he ever achieves anything. This woman is like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, a total psycho, but in this case a racist one.

Posted by Katie on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 1:35 pm

As a white woman, I totally agree. Men do have to initiate, and I don't want all men to be shivering cowards, in fact I blow off men who are. They're boring. This is a case in which a white woman didn't press charges and only complained years later. What a psycho. When a guy hits on me and I don't like it, I tell him no, if he grabs once, I can get over it and don't give it a second thought, I may turn him down loudly to embarass him, but I don't keep a notebook and lay in wait for 6 years and bring it to the media if the guy ever becomes successful. You're like a racist version of Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, total psycho. I'd have hundreds of men and be waiting to pounce.

I don't want all men to become afraid to hit on women. I say no a lot, but like it when they try. And I say yes sometimes. It's 2012, we're not supposed to be so easily offended and it's true, we don't hit on men so we put men in that situation. You probably gave mixed signals.

This is really about a black man being uppity (trying to be elected to office) and the desire of the elites to drive all the blacks out of San Francisco and make it a Disneyland.

I worked as an escort for 2 years and know many men pay because they are scared to be labeled if they hit on someone they know at work, barely know anyone outside of work, and don't have a girlfriend at the time. I found it funny how much money I made because it's so much harder for men to get sex in this supposedly liberal city than where they came from, and how scared they become of women like this one ruining their lives. It would have sure been worth it for Davis to pay $200.

I think this is pure racism. I took a class at SF State about this. Men grope women in the Marina every night thousands of times, and most don't get sex, but some do. Some women grope men. You'd criminalize half the men in the City, but not many Asians or Ivy League whites. That's the goal. They don't want men who are men. I can hardly find real men in Noe Valley. I used to be an escort and love sex and have gone a month without because men are such wimps here. Maybe this is why. What a racist! You set us back as women 50 years to the white woman on a pedestal bullshit! I hope you sleep well, you're no worse than a paid assassin, and the word assassin has ass in it twice.

Posted by Katie on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 1:47 pm

I don't know if any white man has ever been charged with sexual harrasment or had their political career killed because of their poor skills at getting laid. Bob packwood doesn't come to mind here.

Truely getting to the real good irony or tin foil hat stage here.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 4:04 pm

-- pretty severely in fact -- by the fact that Bob Packwood sexually harassed women working in his office; women who were being paid to be there by Jane Q. Public et. al.

And Packwood resigned rather than disclose the contents of his personal diary which some have supposed contained quite more embarassing details than those related to som simple sexual predations: i.e. felonious criminal acts.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 4:38 pm

mitigating fact to let you losers off the hook.

"The cop got the date wrong so I don't have to pay that ticket"

Posted by matlock on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 9:46 pm

I can see why women who are victimized don't come forward.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 4:27 pm

So when racism and misogyny clash, sussing out the details is "ugly" and must be resolved in favor of gender over race?

The flip side of this statement is that black men must show appropriate deference to white women lest they get what's coming to them?

No. Contradictions are part of life and are either resolved or embraced in their entirety. Anything less is intellectual laziness and political manipulation.

How about we dispense with these distracting proxy fights instigated by the misogynist party of bimbo eruptions, deportations, incarceration and the Stupak Amendment and together confront power that attacks women, people if color, queers and the unrich in general?

But that's not the goal of any actor in this mix.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 20, 2012 @ 5:57 pm

But I don't see how it helps to attack a woman who may be telling the truth. How does that advance the cause? John Avalos wrote an opinion piece saying he stands with Kay. I think he qualifies as a "person of color". Daly is as progressive as they come, and he says that Kay is "one of us" -- that she is a progressive who has fought hard to get progressives elected. If we allow men (of whatever color) to get away with sexually assaulting women, what does that say about us and our so-called progressive cause?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 2:33 pm

When racism and sexism clash, sexism wins and racism loses. Meaning the white woman is the victim everyone rallies behind. I was shocked but thrilled when Obama beat Hillary because that is the only exception to this rule I have ever seen in my lifetime. When I was in college, my friends and I would be pressured to act differently than we had in our neighborhood growing up. When we flirted with black girls, if they didn't like it they just told us no and blew us off, but white women acted like it was a crime and we should go to jail. We tried to argue it was our culture and we never hurt anyone. I mean, at best, you have sex, and every woman who has ever had sex with me has enjoyed it and wanted it again, and at worst, you don't want sex and you reject someone, an unwanted hand touched you for a few seconds. Black women just say get off me, move on with their lives. White women are permanently scarred, get a psychiatrist, spend days crying and complaining to their friends, bitterly hang onto resentments for years hoping to get revenge for this "crime", this "violation", even start a movement and hold seminars about it. They start marching through the streets banging pots and pans and hanging out of windows screaming "I'm mad as hell...and I'm not gonna take it anymore..." You had a hand on your leg for ten seconds and rejected a guy. Somehow I think your entitled on a pedestal ass will survive. This is a bunch of racist bullshit!

Posted by Ty on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 12:13 am

It is like we're going back to the idealized image of the 1950s where everything is prim and proper on top but the scaly underbelly that was as much the 1950s has been surgically removed.

What I'm seeing here, to put it back into that vernacular, is that a black man and a white women were in a single's bar, a Single's Bar, how scandalous, and they might have been drinking, and the black man actually had the nerve to make a pass at the white woman, the nerve!

Posted by marcos on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 6:24 am

more than making a "pass". It's an indecent assault, and Davis is lucky he is only losing an election as a result, rather than his liberty.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 6:58 am

She was a paid staffer of the campaign, he was a volunteer, and this happened after her hours.

They were not "work colleagues" in 2006, at least not in the same way that she was and now is a work colleague with Bill Barnes.

Whenever anyone precludes an avenue of political inquiry, that is a prime indication that some portion of the truth lies in that direction and all the reason to probe further.

It is political suicide to declare that only the personal is political when the political is only reactionary.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 7:22 am

These laws were written by progressives, I believe you have worked in the corporate world some, I assume you have sat though sexual harresment training bi yearly. It doesn't matter if you are off the clock or at a private event, or even an intern etc... According to the handbook if you feel you are harassed you are.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 11:52 am

"When racism and sexism clash, sexism wins and racism loses."

Right on! This is always the way it works! One needs to look no farther than the history of voting rights in the U.S. for a clear example of this. Just how many years after Women's Suffrage had been enacted was it before Black American men were given their own constitutional right to vote? I mean, have any of you honkies even read the 15th Amendment?

Ty, educate these people!

Posted by Snoozers on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 11:08 pm

"When racism and sexism clash, sexism wins and racism loses. Meaning the white woman is the victim everyone rallies behind."

So true. The Machine (Willie Brown/Lee) has played its ace card in the fight to wrestle District 5 away from its profound progressive roots. It understands that the underlying racism of WhiteFolks holds tremendous sway among Whites, who constitute 95% of progressives in District 5.

Step back folks. Take a deep breath. The woman came forward SIX YEARS after the supposed "incident", but THREE WEEKS before a major election. Only Matt Gonzalez among progressive leaders seems to understand that.

Posted by LongTimer on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 8:59 am

This political strategy could have worked had he not unleashed the ugly legal threats. Too late now.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 10:06 am

the fact that he tried a drunken fumble with an aide. And that goes to judgment and perspective - if he over-reacts this much to what some here are claiming is a trivial slur on his name, how will he handle the rough and tumble of city politics?

I think we just got the answer to that question. He's not ready for prime time. Probably not even close.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 10:22 am

So purely a matter of table manners, just like Daly and Sanchez' table manners were not up to the high standards tolerated by Migden, Shelley, Newsom, Gomez, etc, etc.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 10:43 am

This is San Francisco.

With the left in this city being a minority of some sort is a qualification for office, unless of course you are Thereasa Sparks. These last few racialist posts mixed with the paranoid style of American politics are disgusting.

The progressive need to make everything about race has really scrambled many of their brains. You do recall that Anita Hill came forward years after her run in with Claranece thomas? If you are not old enough I suggest you look into that, the parallels of the right wing conspiracy clowns and the left wing conspiracy clowns here are quite interesting.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 11:33 am

No, Matlock, there is a difference.

Thomas-Anita Hill was black-on-black, so therefore not racist.

This is clearly a case of a whitewoman crying foul just before an election, after waiting for six long years. She (and the Brown/Lee machine) knew that progressives (overwhelmingly white, hardly any Asians or Latinos in the bunch) would return to their white roots and support the lady in these completely unsubstantiated claims.

Posted by LongTimer on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 3:11 pm

John Avalos and David Campos are white?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 4:25 pm

and probably more agsin would except that it's handy in modern America to be able to play a race card.

You know, all those Spanish and Portugese than relocated to South America had children, you know?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 10:35 pm

Is this irony? I can't tell anymore.

Anita Hill is to believed because she is black, while this progressive Chris Daly Volunteer is not to be believed because she is white? What???? Your link to some Brown/Lee machine is heresay so far.

The district is claimed by progressives, for progressives being a minority is a qualification for office if the person running has the correct belief system.

Your reverse racism is in all seriousness, disgusting. Unlike progressives and born againers I find politics put in moral terms to be vacant and vile, but you are a moral zero.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 10:12 pm

EMBARRASSING OTHER ALLIES?! It's not about allies. It's about the criminal behavior of "progressives" who are not progressive. It's about violating other people. It's about putting people in danger. It's not about Tom Ammiano's ego, John Avalos' political ambitions, which the author seems to have greater concern with than with basic human safety.

It's about being a good human being and a progressive citizen.

It's about a man like Mirkarimi putting his hands on his wife during an argument, yet few men think that's a major deal breaker: for a husband, a progressive and let alone, a sheriff. That behavior is violent. Is a deal breaker. Is not acceptable.

Shame on every man who supports Mirkarimi, shame on every man who engages in aggression towards women, shame on everyone who doesn't call bullshit out the minute they see it or hear about it.

I think with Davis, at present, these are serious allegations. I look forward to a resolution before passing making any decisions. Considering his gawd awful support of Mirkarimi though, I find his judgment dubious.

And where is the conversation saying - If you feel violated, SPEAK UP. If you see someone feeling violated, intervene. That's the conversation I feel these allegations and Mirkarimi's behavior have sparked. Progressive men truly becoming progressive men.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 3:31 pm

It's NOT ABOUT ALLIES. It's about "progressives" violating other people's safety.

Mirkarimi put his hands on his wife during an argument. Bruises or not, that's a deal breaker not ONLY for a husband, but for a progressive and especially for a sheriff.
Men in the progressive movement fail to recognize this, and it's not good enough.

These allegations, and Mirkarimi's behavior should start a conversation around consent. Around boundaries. Around speaking up!

If you feel your boundaries are being crossed, SPEAK UP! If your friend, fellow volunteer or local sheriff is getting aggro with a woman or a man, SPEAK UP! Don't be a bystander.

Mirkarimi said domestic violence was a private matter. Fucking wrong. We have to wait and see the truth to these allegations, but considering Julian's support of Mirkarimi, he clearly has poor judgment.

League of Young Voters, what the f?

Posted by I'm a guest on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 3:36 pm

Well, actually, what we know -- based on sworn testimony, as opposed to anonymous internet innuendo -- was that Ross Mirkarimi grabbed his wife's arm momentarily with *one* hand. There was no intent to cause an injury. This act he apologized for, and admitted it for what it was: wrong.

That said, a man does have the right to touch his wife, no? The act of being aggressive is what marks his act as wrong, but it seems most people differentiate it from "wife beating" -- whether you like it or not.

As for "deal breakers," it's a deal breaker for me when law can be twisted and used as a tool by those in power to further their own agendas; to be used against political enemies (Ross Mirkarimi) and not used against political allies (Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White, Library Commission President Jewelle Gomez, etc., etc.)

Its a deal breaker for me that because it seems convenient and proper to *you* that you can falsify the city's charter to overturn an election.

If you wish to recall Ross Mirkarimi, go get the signatures. Don't lie to me and claim that this wholly political dog-and-pony show that the mayor put on as a cynical ploy to enhance his machine's grasp was for "protecting women." Don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

I've been weighing this for the past few days, and I strongly disagree with SFBG's editorial stance urging Davis to drop out of the race. I'm not defending him, but then I don't know the truth behind these allegations. How am I, or any other voter, to judge? I do know that I dislike and distrust an October surprise designed to torpedo the most progressive candidate in the race. I don't think it is fair to sit on such serious allegations for six years, and then drop this bomb on the voters at the eleventh hour. There is a reason for a statute of limitations in cases like this. People's memories are notoriously unreliable, and when you have something like this dragging on for years, one's ability to recall the facts is even more fallible. Chris Daly says that he faintly recalls a conversation he had with Ms. Vasilyeva concerning the alleged incident but is “very certain that sexual assault was not part of it.” Daly’s campaign manager, Bill Barnes, remembers the political side of the campaign, nothing about the interpersonal aspects. Is it fair to the Mr. Davis or SF voters to dredge up something like this when people's memories are this hazy?

I do not like or condone the vicious attacks on Ms. Vasilyeva's character, and I am speaking as a woman and a person of color. I take the charge very seriously. Still, I think that she should have resolved this sooner rather than letting the wound fester for six years. She had a responsibility to herself and to the progressive community to do that. She is a grown up, not a child. I do understand that it is never easy to confront someone who has (allegedly) assaulted you, especially right after the incident. But she's had more than enough time (several years!) to sign a police report and/or work up the courage to confront him. And I think she had a duty to do so.

As I said, I have no idea whether these allegations are true or false, but the timing is awfully suspicious. In fact, it stinks. I don't think it's right, nor is it fair to those progressives who have worked so hard to get Davis elected (I am *not* among them, but I may vote for him). So I call on Tim Redmond and SFBG to stop calling for Julian Davis to drop out, or at least, explain your reasoning better. What I've seen so far is extremely sketchy and vague. It is not Tim Redmond's perogative to determine who we cast our vote for, nor keep us from voting for the best progressive candidate. That choice is solely for the voters to determine.

Posted by Ana on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 4:02 pm

I've had previous doubts about the validity of his positions in recent years -- and it's been over a decade since I used to carry the SFBG slate card into the voting booth with me -- but the recent weakling analysis of the Ross Mirkarimi reinstatement vote, and this calling on Davis to drop out based on such a thin rationale puts me over the edge.

Now I find myself confusing Tim Redmond with Marc Sandalow; he's gone the way of Christopher Hitchens and P.J. O'rourke, it seems.

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 4:29 pm

And he thinks it's Tim Redmond.

The circular firing squad I predicted 10 months ago as a result of the Mirkarimi imbroglio has begun.

Posted by Troll II on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 5:43 pm

she thinks dude is unqualified for office? I don't think a drunk antic should bar a person from office, of course that has never kept progressive from ranting on this subject in the past when it came from out politicians.

So strange, you think people shouldn't attack the woman for coming forward, you "as a woman of color," but then you do it anyways.

This is getting so comical because so many progressive commenters are looking so much like the right wingers around Clarence Thomas.

I thought Clarence Thomas was unqualified for office because he was a hack, the Anita Hill thing was a side project to me, I got nothing but shit from lefties I new at the time on the subject. Now SF "progressives" are taking the Strom Thurmund angle, so comical.

Can't tell if you idiots are just posting to be ironic sometimes.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 10:23 pm

"""Don't lie to me and claim that this wholly political dog-and-pony show that the mayor put on as a cynical ploy to enhance his machine's grasp was for "protecting women."""

Spot on, Lilli. The Pubes and The Machine have duped Tim Redmond into believing that a black man who "touches" a woman is somehow groping her and coming on in an overtly sexual way.

Tim did not fall for The Machine's ploy in the Mirkarimi case, however. In that one, Tim et al clearly understood that "touching" his wife's arm does not constitute spousal abuse. So why did he fall for The Machine's lie in the new case? You tell me...

Posted by LongTimer on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 7:15 pm

Kinda makes me feel dirty to have you responding to an earlier comment of mine --complete with a quote -- ostensibly agreeing with me in parallel with your racist cant.

The quote and the comment it was excerpted from was made specifically and solely in regard to Ross Mirkarimi. Anyone with a lick of sense who read it (just a bit up the page from here) wouldn't have had any trouble determining that.

It was no doubt as an intentional affront that you drew in the Davis story, facetiously deriding the premise that a "black man touches a woman is somehow groping her"; that's where your racism reveals itself clearly.

Nobody who isn't racist or who at least recognizes their potential for racism and practices to stifle same would mention race in that context.

Obviously you as well as perhaps all others who are promoting this story against Davis, are hoping appeals to the scourge of racism will further your political goals.


Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 21, 2012 @ 8:23 pm

If a guy hits on you and touches your leg or breast, and it's happened to me, you throw a drink in his face or say leave me alone or tell him off or slap him, and you leave. End of story. You don't keep a binder of every guy who ever hit on you too agressively and try to ruin his life if it ever goes well. As a woman I can say, what a bitch! What a psychotic, bitter, vengeful bitch! It's not only racist, it's just inhuman. I've made mistakes, I hope people aren't keeping binders on me. Also with Ross, he grabbed an arm, that is very different from punching or kicking.

I don't want to go back to the '50s and '70s where sexual harassment was rampant, wifebeating was accepted and women had no voice. I don't. But an arm grab or an unwanted grab, that's life. We are holding people to so much perfection and few people are inspirational speakers, we're essentially infighting and letting the Republicans win. Olague and Breed could never get elected outside of San Francisco. Davis and Mirkarimi had national potential. Mirkarimi's 50, how long should he wait and work and live in the Tenderloin for minimum wage before he should be able to try to run for sherrif again? Should he have any job? Is 6 years enough? Or 10? Or 15? Or would you only be happy if he shoots himself in the head in front of your charity's headquarters? Or would that not be enough, he must gas and burn himself, not shoot himself, or else he "got away with it"?

This is becoming nazi ish. Let it go. A grabbed arm, a grabbed leg 6 years ago. Let it go!

Posted by Katie on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 12:24 am

Something tells me that any guy who gropes you will most likely find himself holding a handful of your cock.

Gentlemen, for the last time, just because you happen to be wearing pink panties when you type out your BS on here doesn't mean you're a woman.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 22, 2012 @ 12:55 am

Hi, thanks for sharing.

Posted by dog trainer on Apr. 11, 2013 @ 5:51 am

Related articles

  • Sorting out a strange election

    What the Nov. 6 results mean -- and don't mean

  • District surprises

    Big-money efforts could unseat Olague -- but not Mar

  • Is the tax revolt over?