The new board president

Chiu: Can he go for three?

The last time the San Francisco supervisors elected a new board president, the progressives got a swift kick in the ass. David Chiu, who had been elected to the top slot two years earlier with the unanimous support of progressives, disappointed some of his allies and wasn't going to get their votes. But he wanted to keep his job, so he turned to the conservatives -- and with the support of the folks on the right, he won another term. The he turned around and put the center-right folks in charge of some key committees. Price of the deal.

Now he's looking for a third two-year term -- but this time there aren't any easy alliances. Several of his colleagues are also in the running, from across the political spectrum. And nobody right now has the magical six votes.

Scott Wiener on one side, David Campos on the other, Jane Kim closer to Chiu ... somebody's going to have to back down or cut a deal. And that's where these things tend to get squirrly.

Me, I think Campos would be perfect for the job, not only because I agree with him most of the time but because he's reliable, fair, and cares about public empowerment and input. That wouldn't be to Chiu's advantage -- the two are likely to be facing off in a tough state Assembly contest when Tom Ammiano is termed out in two years, and the last thing Chiu would want is to have his rival in such a high-profile spot. So it's not likely either of those two will be voting for the other.

I haven't always agreed with Kim, but she's more on the progressive side than not, and she's really smart. You could see that as she took apart the city attorney's arguments during the Ross Mirkarimi debate. Wiener has one of the most ambitious legislative agendas of any current board member and has proven to be an effective (sometimes dangerously effective) politician.

Wiener can probably get votes from the most conservative side, Mark Farrell and Carmen Chu, and might be able to line up, say, Malia Cohen and possibly even newcomer London Breed. But that's not six -- and that assumes that Chiu doesn't make a play for those votes the way he did last time. Campos will get the progressives (John Avalos and likely Eric Mar), but that's not six either. And with Kim and Chiu going after some of the same people, nobody's going to come close in the first round.

That is, unless somebody cuts a series of backroom deals.

So my suggestion is this: Let's demand that all of them tell us up front who they would put on which committees. Sure, it looks like pandering if Wiener promises Budget and Finance Chair to Cohen, who then votes for him -- but that stuff is going to happen anyway, and I'd rather have it out in the open.







Avalos is his only sure supporter, and Campos is seen as far tooe xtreme and divisive to garner broad support.

Wiener has proven to be effective at getting things done, as even you concede, and if Kim backs him, he's home free. I don't think Kim is as left-wing as you like to think, and has made some crucual pro-Lee and pro-growth votes. And, while you crow about how Kim supported Ross, she clearly stated she wants and supports a recall.

Chiu has done a decent job and he's probably as neutral as you can get. If Wiener doesn't get it, let's leave Chui there - he's a safe pair of hands.

Posted by guest on Dec. 28, 2012 @ 5:45 pm

Based on her rambling, self-serving "have it both ways" speech at Mirkarimi's hearing.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Dec. 28, 2012 @ 10:29 pm

break. But it did show she is way deeper and more independent than the average kneejerk progressive.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 29, 2012 @ 6:47 am

She's positioning herself well to receive a generous sinecure in the private sector after her illustrious career in politics, in return for the largess she showers upon them now. Win-win for everyone... Twitter, Kim... everybody except us taxpayers.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 29, 2012 @ 10:21 am

Sometimes she votes with Lee (e.g. with Twitter) and sometimes against Lee (RossGate - altho Kim supports the recall).

That makes her, like Wiener, a much better Supe and potential Chief Supe than the predictable kneejerk Supes - Campos and Avalos.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 29, 2012 @ 10:53 am

then that just goes to show how far right you are.

Besides, who ever said that being "neutral" is a good thing. Being neutral in the face of a class war being waged by the 1% isn't a virtue.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 10:20 am

wing and conservative shows how left-wing you are. He'd be a liberal in most US cities, but you just cannot see that.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 12:38 pm

... the economic issues, the issues that his corporate masters care about, there is absolutely no difference between Weiner and a right-wing Republican.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

Wiener represents the Castro.

See the difference there?

Wiener is right-wing only in your jaded, skewed, jaundiced political spectrum.

Posted by guest on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 1:16 pm

What if you're a corporate shill who happens to be born gay? That's Weiner.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 3:49 pm

That is easy to disprove because Wiener is in favor of gay marriage and abortion. Please think before you issue such obviously invalid nonsense.

Wiener is not as left-wing as you'd like him to be, perhaps, but he'd be throw out of the Republican Party for his liberal, progressive views.

There are no republican Supervisors - just different shades of liberal.

Posted by guest on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 4:37 pm

Economically, Scott Wiener is consistent with the right wing Republican tea party's policy prescriptions.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 5:54 pm

prevent any true republican from doing that. Wiener is a liberal but just not insanely and self-destructively left-wing like some here.

Posted by guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:15 am

Except that the Republicans, right now, agreed to a fiscal cliff scenario where they are right now allowing across the board tax hikes to take effect, not to mention "massive" cuts to the pentagon and with no impact on social insurance, so there are no absolutes.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:34 am

They are voting to minimize the effect of the tax hikes that were already built into law.

Posted by guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:39 am

They're trying to wiggle out of their pledge, but a tax hike by any other name is still a tax hike.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 10:44 am

with voting for anything that looks like a tax hike even though, of course, it's a great improvement on the default option - taxes up for everyone.

Looks like it's only a hike over 400K-500K per annum, which will wrankle with them, but politics is all about compromize, right?

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:06 am

Republicans could make sacrifices to keep taxes from going up on everyone, but their ideology blinds them to any cost benefit analysis. Scott Wiener's politics are similar, very similar, and he, like the Republicans, will accede to tax hikes.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 10:46 am

blind on spending cuts and entitlement reform. Both parties are as bad each other. Wiener is well to the left of either mainstream party.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:07 am

Don't talk to me about abortion. As far as the issues which actually come before the board, you've yet to explain in what way Weiner would vote differently than if a generic Scwarzennegger Republican were sitting there in his seat?

Posted by Greg on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:11 am

Except that we're going to be seeing cuts to the Pentagon AND tax increases on billionaires, no immediate cuts to Social Security and Medicare and Scott Wiener's trickle down, supply-side economics dominant in San Francisco, modest tax increases notwithstanding. When was the last time that Wiener cut the SFPD or SFFD as Obama is poised to cut the Pentagon?

Take your right wing trolling elsewhere.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:17 am

So why would he vote to do that?

What you overlook is that a Supervisor should not be inventing his own ideology and certainly not taking your extreme version of one.

Rather, a Supe should listen to his constituents and do what theyw ant, not what he wants. So when we told Wiener (I live in the Castro) that we want the naked old queens gone, he acted accordingly.

Why would he be a better supe if he had ignored us.

I see Wiener as an apolitical pragmatist and a good listener.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:24 am

association is one purely of convenience on their part; a Punch and Judy show.

There is only one fundamental goal of the Right Wing and everything else is opporuntistic adaptation: the goal is the concentration of wealth -- and therefore power.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, The Progressives/Leftists naturally support gender equality because of the logic behind all such Enlightenment aims. All attempts to divide the 99% -- along race, ethnic, or class lines -- are ultimately for the benefit the top group.

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:24 am

As an economic conservative (and, by the way, a liberal on social matters like gay marriage and abortion) I do not favor inequality at all. At least, not as an intention, although it might be a result.

Rather, I believe that providing the right level of incentives ensures a much stronger economy, meaning that everyone is better off even if there is more inequality.

Obsessing about others having more than you isn't sound policy - it's envy and sets classes of people against each other. It's not healthy or effective. The poor in America would be considered quite wealthy in most of the world - the focus should be on how our economy brought that about and not on whether the guy next door has more money than you. That shouldn't matter to you.

Posted by guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:42 am

massive inequality, whatever its stated "intention" might be. Your argument about the relative conditions of the poor across different countries is meaningless.

The poor in the United States would not be considered wealthy in any other similarly situated industrial nation, in fact income and wealth disparity is greater here.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:55 am

rather than on what you have. Policies predicated on envy do not build wealth because they instead focus on redistributing it, thereby disincentivizing those who create that wealth.

Posted by guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 9:32 am

Studies (linked to many times on this board) show that after a certain point, it's the inequality that matters, more than the absolute wealth. Inequality is the root of a host of social ills.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 10:47 am

prefer to have $10 as long as everyone else has no more, than have $200 where others have more than that.

Where's the sense in that?

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:08 am

After a certain point, not $10. Anyway, this has been hashed and rehashed. You're aware of the arguments. You disagree with me and I disagree with you. At this point, you're just trying to score cheap rhetorical points.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:40 am

Can't we just leave it at "Shut the fuck up?"

Posted by lillipublicans on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:40 am
Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:52 am

Skinny Minny sure is making the comments thin and hard to read!!

Posted by Guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

It's the New Year, and yet Lilli still hasn't found a new hobby...

Posted by Demented, Yet Terribly, Terribly, Persistent on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 7:53 am

It would certainly be a shame if board members went into the private sector after spending time on the board. Alas in the Bay Area they often continue their public service at the tax payer expense failing up.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 1:44 pm

but that stuff is going to happen anyway, and I'd rather have it out in the open.

Posted by Pagerank Checker on Mar. 24, 2013 @ 4:34 am

"Wiener has one of the most ambitious legislative agendas of any current board member and has proven to be an effective (sometimes dangerously effective) politician."

Rewrite: Attention-craving Wiener has one of the most conservative and opportunistic legislative agendas of any current board member and has proven to be a very dangerous, divisive and polarizing politician. Someone like that has no business being Board president.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 28, 2012 @ 9:53 pm

terms of his approach, pragmatism and balance. He's a moderate and most SF'ers are moderates. He listens to his constituents' concerns, like with the public nudity, and acts accordingly.

But as long as the new chief isn't Campos or Avalos, we should be in good shape.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 29, 2012 @ 6:49 am

A few short years ago the progressives attempted to scheme "one of their own" into the mayors office, when the past mayors few mayors were not progressive, then went back to form and whined when they got out schemed. They played the game by it's rules and the whined when they lost.

Weiner represents a broader cross section of San Franciscans than the progressive cranks. No matter how you buzz word it up to be about the people, Avalos and Campos are essentially shills for the SEIU, Weiner has a greater cross section of views as opposed to the doctrinaire progressives.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 1:50 pm

Campos is being bankrolled by Progressive Rose Pak...who would have guessed?

Posted by Richmondman on Jan. 07, 2013 @ 4:57 pm

He may have some marginal influence over whether Chiu, Wiener or Kim gets the chair although, as far as we can tell, they are all much of a moderate muchness.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 07, 2013 @ 5:12 pm

Jane Kim vewwwwwwy ambitious. Jane Kim not stop until the top!! Jane Kim fow Pwesident!

Posted by Guest on Jan. 07, 2013 @ 5:47 pm

A soft pitch, perhaps, but not bad anyway.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 07, 2013 @ 7:02 pm

This site is used to be a Southern Pacific railroad yards, but in the early 1980s, the old robber barons realized that a lot of their property had more value as real estate than as railroads.

Posted by DeWalt Power Tools For Sale on Apr. 19, 2013 @ 2:34 am

You deserve the appreciation "Several of his colleagues are also in the running, from across the political spectrum"

Posted by Buy Measuring Tools on Apr. 03, 2013 @ 12:03 am

The time is now for Scott Wiener.
We need new blood in the leadership of the Supervisors seat for 2013.

Posted by Matt on Dec. 29, 2012 @ 8:57 am

He's my Supervisor, and I've been impressed with how he listens and learns from his constituents. Most Supes try and lecture us, but Scott is responsive and empathetic.

He gets my vote.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 29, 2012 @ 9:17 am

Fortunately for you, Ron Conway agrees with you, and he gets about 5 votes.

Unfortunately... he *only* gets about 5 votes.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 9:41 pm

people to have more influence than they would otherwise have. But Scott would have won in any scenario because of the hard work he put in knocking on doors and talking to people.

You may not like his policies but they are the policies that a majority of his constituents wish to see. and that is how democracy is supposed yo work.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 8:24 am

Just when you thought that Guest could not demonstrate denseness of comprehension to any greater extent and then this!

Posted by marcos on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 8:35 am

How typical. How sad. How hopeless.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 9:31 am