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.







What's sad and hopeless here are efforts to hijack a thread by a troll via wilfull misinterpreting of a post, effectively changing the subject.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 9:44 am

Worth noting that just as with the behavior of the polyonomous troll here who preemptively accused others of being multiple alternate identities of the same person, the allegation that one or more of us non-trolls are actually "bots" has been made.

Might "Guest" actually be a pimply-faced kid at the root of it? (I don't mind filling out more CAPTCHAs if that will silence the noise.)

Posted by Or did the "troll" here on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 12:09 pm

A person could easily willfully misinterpret posts and reply accordingly with intent to add distractive noise, hijack a thread and reduce the signal strength of the entire forum.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 12:21 pm

It's what you do best, Marcos.

Posted by anon on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 4:04 pm

I don't think I've ever read a poster on any chat board, including those dominated by 15 year olds, who have a higher noise to signal ratio. Tis a pity that there's nothing better in your life than paTROLLing this board 24/7. No wonder no one takes you seriously. All bluster, garbled rhetoric, misery, and anger.

You and lilli have hijacked this board for seemingly forever with your daily endless hate-filled, angry posts. The Chamber of Commerce types are howling with laughter. If you're not being paid as one their most effective tools against the progressive team, it's even more hilarious you can't figure it out that you're the best poster child of the SF left they could ever hope to find. Priceless. So much stupid rhetoric and so little self-awareness. Even Daly seems to figure it out when he's tarnished the left with his inopportune comments and boorish behavior.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 02, 2013 @ 12:02 am

A typical formulation might involve the troll's invocation of a site's espoused ideals alongside a perceived example of hypocrisy (such as contrasting "we value free speech" with the banning of a "dissenter"), and with a call for some relevant reform by the troll. This reform will frequently be burdensome or silly - the concern troll's message is: "I have some concerns about your methods. If you did these things to make your message less effective, it would be more effective.". Surprisingly, there are people who spend so much time on the Internet that this is actually a thing they worry about.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 10:01 am

It's a "slow day" day.

Posted by anon on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 4:05 pm

Elect that new potty-mouthed supervisor from The Haight.

We miss Chris Daly's fuckfests. She will have to do for now

Posted by Guest on Dec. 29, 2012 @ 9:50 am

Running the Board is a seniority post. Chui has done a decent job, and deftly handled the mayoral transition.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 29, 2012 @ 10:30 am

Chiu hasn't been sufficiently rewarded for his service to the corporate elite. He was very instrumental in putting the current administration in power. Without Chiu, where would Ron Conway be? No, he definitely needs more reward for being such a "team player."

Breed has a lot of potential to effect more upward redistribution of wealth, but it would be too early to reward her till she actually delivers for the billionaires the way Chiu has.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 12:59 pm

your personal taste. But Lee and his team sits well with most SF'ers, hence his easy election in 2011 and his cocnsistent 70% plus approval ratings.

Chui put the city first and should be commended for that. You might have preferred Daly as mayor but that was a non-starter for more rerasons than I can throw a stick at.

Posted by guest on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 1:15 pm

Not Chui. And Chiu doesn't give a rats ass about "the city." He cares only about himself and always has, just like Kim.

Avalos and Campos actually do put the city first.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 3:52 pm

That will get you far in SF.

Posted by guest on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 4:38 pm

This has nothing to do with race. I'd be fine with Mar too (in fact I helped with both his campaigns). Anyway, at least I know the correct spelling of "Chiu."

Posted by Greg on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 8:47 pm

Asian Supes to support each other is a well-observed aspect of local politics.

The Anglo-Asian bloc is dominant.

Posted by guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:16 am

I was responding to the comment that you made about me specifically -telling me that I'm "anti-Asian" and "pro-hispanic." I'm well aware of the political realities of identity politics, but what I've written just on this thread should make it perfectly clear to anyone that for *me* it's not about race but about values. In the face of that, to ignore that and throw the race card at me shows that you're just a troll who's not interested in legitimate debate, an asshole who uses ad hominem attacks to dumb down the discourse to the lowest common denominator.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 10:54 am

Ad Hominem trolls strike again. Who wants trolls anyway?

Posted by marcos on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:00 am

many. And we're considering practical dealmaking here, and not purist ideologies about ethnicity.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:09 am

Breed still has to earn her keep. Conway invested big bucks in her, so she needs to show him a good ROI before he gives the OK for the City Family to shower her with more rewards.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 1:11 pm

Kim and Wiener, who are independently minded and sometimes vote with the establishment, and sometimes against.

What we don't need are more kneejerk ideologs like Campos and Avalos.

Posted by guest on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 1:56 pm

When has Weiner ever gone against the establishment?

Kim is just a social climber. Kim does what's good for Kim's career.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

must be cluelessly, hopelessly left-wing, because both are probably more elft-wing than 90% of the US population.

Posted by guest on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 4:34 pm

Deep down, Kim's probably more progressive than not, but more than anything else she cares about her own climb up the ladder. If selling out to the billionaires facilitates that, she seems fine with that. At this point, her progressivism amounts to not much more than lip service. For practical purposes, she really *is* neutral in the class war being waged by the 1% against the 99%, and that's not a good thing.

Weiner... Weiner's not neutral. He's an ideological warrior on the side of the 1%.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 8:54 pm

Leftists don't oppose nudity. Wiener and Kim voted to ban nudity. They are therefore not of the left, progressive or liberal. End of discussion.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 9:08 pm

I might have a rooting interest, but little more (and I like sports, especially soccer.) I think the last time I worked on a campaign for a candidate for office was 1988.

But I always vote because I can't shake off my socialization. I respect candidates who resist the two party duopoly. In this city, that has meant most recently Greens, like Matt Gonzalez, Jane Kim, Ross Mirkirimi, and the Sanchez guy who lost to Campos in District 9, where I live.

Unfortunately, personal ambition trumps principles in electoral politics. In San Francisco, if you have electoral ambition, you must be a Democrat. So Mirkirimi and Kim jumped ship as their eyes have gotten bigger.

I'm not sure about Gonzalez; I voted for him for VP with Nader on the Peace & Freedom ticket in 2008, but he seems to have gone over to the dark side, scapegoating public sector workers and their pensions during this current economic depression.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 9:18 pm

It is gonna take populist grass roots organizing, both to give elected officials power and to hold them accountable, to bring any measurable change.

There are many interests on the progressive/liberal side not to mention the usual suspects on the right that will go to any lengths to stop this.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 9:59 pm

Lee walked the last mayoral election simply because his pragmatic, pro-jobs platform resonated with the silent majority of SF voters who see "Progressives" as extreme and dangerous.

Posted by guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:20 am

Progressives were weak and divided, Lee cheated and barely won, not a resounding mandate for much of anything.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:32 am

the progressive. That's technically a landslide and, ergo, a mandate.

I saw no "cheating" but of course the left always claims either fraud or "buying" votes when they lose.

Posted by guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:44 am

I guess you didn't "see" it.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 10:55 am

victory was massive, and far beyond any alleged technical flaws.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 11:10 am

Ross Mirkarimi got more votes than Ed Lie did, clearly a landslide and a mandate.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 5:57 pm

There were a dozen or more alternatives to Lee.

Don't you get sick of being refuted all the time?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 6:54 pm

It's only democracy when the right wins. When progressives win, there are always excuses on hand.

What part of "more votes" do you not understand?

Posted by Greg on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 7:16 pm

there is no way to credibly and reasonably infer that his mandate was stronger than a mayor who crushed a strong field of opponents.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 7:47 pm

This reflects their sense of entitlement where they treat government as private property and expect to control that which they are under the impression that they've purchased.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:22 pm

The numbers do not support your rationalization.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 9:00 pm

Mirkarimi's mandate was much stronger than Lee's criminal campaign.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 9:13 pm

There is always some extraneous excuse you all trot out when it is shown that there is not that much support behind Ed Lee. Opinion polls have Ed Lee down below 50%, San Franciscans are catching on.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:14 pm

and of course you will no doubt recall Lee's landslide election victory in 2011.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:58 pm

When was the last time you saw a poll showing Ed Lee at 70?

Posted by Greg on Jan. 01, 2013 @ 10:23 pm

it is feasible. None of those you named are still Greens.

But thanks for voting for the Greens to help defeat Gore and bring us 8 years of W.

Posted by guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 8:18 am

The two party/one ideology duopoly rules. "Progressives" like Kim and Mirkirimi switched to the Democratic party because it was the only move that would foster their careerism.

I doubt anyone is interested in reopening the Nader/Gore/Bush discussion.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 6:08 pm

The Democrats had frank conversations with Ross and Jane.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 6:21 pm

had victory "stolen" from him in 2000.

Sore point, apparnetly.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 6:58 pm

so called "right wingers" here would disagree that politicians will follow the money and will vote what is best for themselves at times. Greg and the true believer crew seem to think that Avalos, Campos and the rest of the gang is true blue. Following mindlessly progressive doctrine is a sign of individual thinking and honesty?

The progressive have just as much to gain by toeing the line and being servants to various agendas. Avalos and Campos probably look at Daly and his failed attempt at the private sector and think to themselves, "I need to be a better flunky to non profits and public employee unions in case I can't keep feeding at the trough."

It's only true believer progressives who believe this golden boy nonsense.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 31, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

Please! More than 200 San Franciscans signed a petition to ALL the supes to NOT elect Wiener as Prez! This may be a city first where the electorate is so annoyed with a supe that they petition to NOT have him in ANY leadership role.

Posted by PWA, SF renter since 1987 on Dec. 29, 2012 @ 3:04 pm

If you're impressed with that, I can easily understand why you're still just renting after 25 years here.

Posted by Anonymous on Dec. 29, 2012 @ 6:10 pm

Insensitive, elitist, classist, clueless commentator.

Posted by Eddie on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 9:04 am


In SF you could get 200 people for legalizing heroin or child molestation.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 30, 2012 @ 12:39 pm