Friends of London Breed

|
(97)

Got an interesting email invite: A group of the most pro-downtown, pro-landlord, conservative folks in town is holding a fundraiser for Sup. London Breed, who represents the most progressive district in the city.

Oh, and none of the members of the Host Committee lives in or has any direct connections to District Five.

The Feb. 25 event is at the home of Wade and Lorna Randlett. Wade Randlett is a scorched-earth political operative who created a group called SFSOS with the late Republican GAP mogul Don Fisher. His wife was the spokesperson for disgraced former school superintendant Arlene Ackerman. Randlett tried to shoot down a school bond after Ackerman was fired. He was the secret force behind an effort to recall former Sup. Sophie Maxwell.

Also on the list: Ron Conway and Anne Moeller Caen, who is a terrible, pro-PG&E member of the SFPUC.

Oddly, powerhouse lawyer Joe Cochette is on the invite, as is 49ers tight end (and generally cool guy) Vernon Davis.

Oh, and Mayor Ed Lee, who, I'm told, can't stand Wade Randlett. Which puts him in good company.

I called Sup. Breed and asked her about the event, and she told me she met Randlett working on the first Obama campaign, "and he volunteered to do this." She said she needed the money for office essentials like extra computer screens and a couch, and she has to pay off her inaugural celebration.

As she normally does, Breed went out of her way to say that her votes are not for sale, and that she won't do the bidding of the people who give her money. "If you want to hold a fundraiser for me, I'd be happy to take your money too," she said. As for a host committee that might be offensive to the majoirty of her constituents, she said "it is what it is."

In the end, of course, Breed will be -- and should be -- judged by her votes, not by her associates, and we'll have an excellent indication of where she's headed when Sup. Scott Wiener's TIC legislation comes before the board. But in the meantime, the reason this is all relevant (other than the fun of watching Ed Lee and Wade Randlett try to get along) is that it indicates that some very bad actors think (rightly or wrongly) that Breed is their ally.

 

 

 

Comments

If you're the typical white liberal here, you're a single guy, over-educated but under-employed, renting a shitty flat and totally lacks the courage to commit to a woman let alone have kids.

As such, you are not an expert on what kids know or don't know, nor on what reasonable expectations parents have about what their kids should be exposed to.

Posted by anon on Feb. 09, 2013 @ 4:02 pm

not a very classy thing to do.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 09, 2013 @ 10:12 pm

Do you really need to ask which way she'll vote?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 09, 2013 @ 4:44 pm

platform. So Breed has no rational basis to vote for anything that is contrary to that clear mandate from the people.

Posted by anon on Feb. 09, 2013 @ 4:48 pm

because it is just a small -- yet pernicious! -- manifestation of the larger claim which is always in the top ten most-often-told troll lies! "Progressive ideas are not popular."

Lee didn't campaign on being a rabid attack dog for Rose Pak or going on his trophy hunt of Ross Mirkarimi. Lee didn't campaign as an insider of Willie Brown's ethically challenged shenanigans in re: City purchasing as he was revealed to be subsequent to his election.

For all these reasons it is particularly foolish to speak of his "landslide" when he didn't even garner the requisite 60% of the vote.

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 09, 2013 @ 5:22 pm

The smelly, annoying pet who no one ever wants to touch.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 09, 2013 @ 5:45 pm

Ignore the right-wing imposter troll (who wants to bring Topeka to San Francisco) by the name "anon." The pleb wrote that Lee won by a "landslide." Delusional.

Just to clarify the facts of that election:

Round 12 of that election:

Lee: 84,457 59.64%

I hardly call 59% a "landslide." It's only 9% above 50%.

75% would be closer to a "landslide."

In Round 1 of that election, Lee only had: 30% (59,775 votes)

All of this is according to the Department of Elections.

I guess the imposter pleb troll "anon" thinks that no one ever looks anything up...the same way he/she trolls....ignorantly.

International Troll Society Member #12360969212

Posted by International Troll Society Member #12360969212 on Feb. 09, 2013 @ 5:47 pm

returns. This pet craves Lucretia's attention.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 09, 2013 @ 6:11 pm

Lee won just slightly less than 60% in the final runoff round of counting.

Getting 60% requires 50% more votes than the 40% final tally that Avalos got. Put another way, three SF'ers voted for Lee for every two who voted for Avalos.

That's about as close to a landslide as you can get in SF, and I can only recall one more clearcut victory for a mayor, and that was Newson's second term when he ran almost unopposed.

Lee has a mandate for growth, development, jobs and business.

Posted by anon on Feb. 10, 2013 @ 2:24 pm

Lee-bot,

The only "mandate" your Lee has is to Rose Brown and Willie Pak, and that's what it amounts to.

Did you have a good service today at Westboro, pleb?

International Troll Society Member #12360969212

Posted by International Troll Society Member #12360969212 on Feb. 10, 2013 @ 4:54 pm

the losing candidate Avalos proposed and had rejected by the people?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 7:41 am

And 30% first round in IRV is a pretty damn good start.
Ask anyone who really knows campaigns. Not someone who's just carried a few signs, knocked a few doors, hosted a house party or sat on a kitchen cabinet. Ask someone who has made decisions that won and lost elections. 59% is a 18 point swing, nearly 20%. That's a landslide.

I also have to say that all this name-calling has really diluted the value of this board. Same thing that happened with the Wall. I appreciate the passion that some posters bring but all this calling people trolls is a turn off. I read these comments because it's interesting and enlightening to see the different viewpoints, especially from folks who see good and bad ideas and efforts from both the mods and the progs. When people become so entrenched that they dismiss any and all ideas and perspectives from those who disagree with them, and when they devolve into name-calling, it just cheapens the whole concept of a "marketplace of ideas."

So put down your insecurities and step up your game folks.

Posted by BeckyBayside on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 10:13 am

a landslide, but I believe he got about 52% of the popular vote, versus 48% for romney. Elections are often decided by the odd percentage point and, by that standard, 60/40 really is a landslide.

And yes, I fully agree with you that this endlessly calling of people as "trolls" or worse is not helpful in any forum that claims to be genuinely interested in politicald ebate. Politics, like religion, evokes strong feelings at times, but there is never an excuse for calling someone a troll, moron, nazi and the rest we have seen here.

And especially while trumpeting San Francisco values of tolerance, patience and diversity.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 10:38 am

We don't tolerate libertarian busybody trolls.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 10:44 am

you are as intolerant of those you personally or politically dislike as any homophobe or racist

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 11:27 am

Eric Mar won with a landslide. Ed Lie did not win with a landslide.

Becky, you are a troll, there is no bayside in San Francisco.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 10:43 am

In fact, the entire reason the elft wanted district elections is so that they could benefit from the "kook vote" i.e. the tendency for some SF districts to be unpredictable and whacked.

Even that couldn't help losers like Walker, Davis and Olague tho.

Mar's saving stroke of genius was to vote for firing Ross.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 11:29 am

which put the murderer Dad White into office.

I think the two main reasons progressives went for district elections was get better representation, and to lower the need for candidates to suck up to big money campaign fund donors like Chevron and PG&E.

The known problem of "kook voters" was already known and not looked upon as advantageous.

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 12:16 pm

that is the real reason you like district elections. 100% self-serving.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 12:22 pm

Fifty-nine percent has *never* been called a landslide. The only reason it's being called a landslide now is to re-tell the big troll lie that Progressive Ideas Are Unpopular

As a matter of fact, it used to be that "landslide" meant *near-unanimity,* but the sense of the word got expanded to include percentages *as* *low* as sixty percent. Fifty-nine percent is *not* a landslide.

The reason the word "landslide" is used metaphorically in regard to elections is that it conveys the sense of nearly everything being swept away.

That's what the original landslide was about. It didn't happen on the level of popular vote, but *only* in relation to electoral votes, as a presidential candidate might have a credible chance to capture nearly every single one.

Lee did not win in a landslide and his popularity far closer to the toilet now anyway.

BTW: you are a troll.

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 11:05 am

remains was that when SF voters were given a clear chocie between moderate pro-growth policies and Avalosian ideas of social engineering and class warfare, 3 voters went for growth and jobs for every two who wanted the government in everything.

It takes courage to admit defeat. It takes cowardice to insult everyone with a different viewpoint anonymously from behind a keyboard.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 11:32 am

Avalos got *more* than 40 percent of the vote, and Lee got *less* than 60 percent.

That part is really just that fucking simple.

As for your account of the voters' intent and the question as to whether Ed Lee has a "mandate" -- that's similarly useless but for a variety of reasons.

Voters didn't see clearly who Lee is until they learned from his testimony in the GCSI computer scandal trial last year: "I don't recall."

http://www.sfbg.com/2012/02/14/how-business-was-done

He had not been the innocent administrator during the Willie Brown years and he hasn't been "moderate" in his term as mayor. Lee is waging class war and must be stopped.

An every growing plurality of San Franciscans are beginning to see that.

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 11:58 am

error. The 3 to 2 margin is a couple of standard deviations away from a close race and not only represents a mandate but reflects the moderate wishes of the silent majority of Sf'ers who would never dream of posting here or heckling at a BofS meeting,

Lee is your mayor and the election was not remotely close. You would serve your cause better by not being in denial and rationalizing every defeat.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 12:16 pm

Bold Lying Guest, why don't you simply just make up some baby-talk words and tell us what you mean by them rather than adopting terms such as "standard deviation" and "rounding error," which already have meanings?

Oh, that's right: it's because you are a fucking troll.

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 12:53 pm
Posted by anon on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 1:00 pm

Call your favorite friend in the campaign trades and ask them if 59/41 is a landslide, if a 19 point spread is a landslide. You've said nothing to demonstrate any depth of knowledge on this topic so you should access a resource you trust rather than spouting off and insulting people.

And stop doing a Wikipedia search and then touting that as if it's real research. C'mon dude. What's this, 10th grade? It's okay to be wrong sometimes, okay to not know absolutely everything. That's why some of us just read many of these articles and discussion threads instead of debating at every turn. Personally, I like to learn about opposing views and supporting ideas that I may not have previously considered.

BTW, speaking for myself, I've never said "progressive ideas aren't popular." I think progressive ideas are still the standard here in SF and are just occasionally tweaked to make things workable and liveable. I just think the progressive politicians and their boosters are terrible at marketing those ideas. Even when Daly and Peskin were running the show, they relied more on cleverness than mass appeal to move the ball.

Posted by BeckyBayside on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 1:58 pm

to back up your ridiculous claim that someone who does not even achieve 60 percent of the vote can be said to have won by a lanslide.

I haven't used a Wikipedia article as a primary source in ages -- though to be sure many of the articles are highly useful -- so your presumption represents a personal insult. I guess you have no URL to back you insouciant claims, so you are forced to resort to such.

Lee did *not* win by a landslide, and Lee does *not* have a mandate to change the face of the city.

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 2:20 pm

it is as close to a slam dunk as makes no difference.

Grace in defeat. Try it.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 2:35 pm

1) EVEN SIXTY PERCENT IS NOT A PROPER LANDSLIDE

2) LEE DID NOT WIN SIXTY PERCENT

Of course I've already covered the sense of "buyer's remorse" which has already taken hold following Lee's conduct, but there's also the matter of fraudulently cast ballots in Chinatown. In reality Lee received less than 59% of any honestly-tabulated vote.

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 2:54 pm

error". It's a comprehensive, thorough, absolute, unmitigated humilaition for your candidiate.

Wanna spin that and dig a bigger hole for yourself, loser?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 3:03 pm

Can you produce an example of a reputable news agency calling a 59/41 loss "humiliating"?

I suspect not; just the same with every other thing such a loss has been said to count for.

John McCain and his little mini-skirted bible-strumper were said -- by some -- to have been humiliated, but that's because Obama got *more* *than* *twice* *as* *many* electoral votes as the Repug duo!

No reputable news organizations have ever described outcomes which are split 59/41 in any of the aformentioned ways.

Are rightie propagandists trying to blur the meanings of troublesome words to suit their agenda again? Can they just not leave the meanings of words ALONE?

This is, of course, a riff on one of the most commonly occurring big troll lies: Progressive Ideas Are Not Popular.

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 4:00 pm

Pick your own label for your loss. I could care less.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 10:09 am

gratifying to see many of you egged faced when you realize & D5 voters realize that a nice little "ghetto girl" story does not a honest politician/pawn make. Ms. Breed is burning the candle at both ends with these shady characters and she is gonna burn D5, and low income residents before she herself gets burned.

Funny how none of her benefactors won't just sign her a check for her little diva supervisor party. This move of hers is so transparent that it isn't even debatable really. Common sense. Like London said: "It is what it is". And it is. Another San FRAUDcisco slickster pulling the covers over the sheeps head. You'd think that all you "insiders" on SFBG would see through her charade. ALL HAIL! THE RUBBER STAMP QUEEN!

Posted by GuestT Moreland on Feb. 09, 2013 @ 6:36 pm
Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 09, 2013 @ 6:57 pm

Its cute that London has got her " Protect Motherfucking London Breed" comment posse out to protect her bitch ass, but the non-sheep of D5 will reclaim the districts real moral & social compass. Just wanna say hi to "trolls disguised as" Lucretia and others. Hi Conor Johnston. Hi Ahmed & Hi Gabe Z....these are London's internet "friends" who are trying to protect her shabby honor.LOL.

She's a "turncoat"...period. To all those she is sworn to take care of. Watch.You'll see.

Posted by Guest tmoreland on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 9:45 am

The lefts obsession with race and purity mixed with conspiracy ravings.

So much for the comical left to be proud of here.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 09, 2013 @ 11:24 pm

No one i know on the left thinks this way or would write the post you're referring to. It's obviously a planted post to discredit the Bay Guardian and its many informed, thoughtful readers.

People on the left respect other points of view even if they vehemently disagree with them, and more importantly, respect people who are genuine with their differing viewpoints. But as you know since you post here so often, most of the posters here who are against the Bay Guardian and its lefty readers are either not very genuine in their beliefs or are sociopathic haters such as anon and Lucretia.

Since you're one of the many persistant posters here who mostly despises the left, you know very well that the majority of the hateful posts come from that side of the aisle, not from the lefties.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 12:02 pm

Ms Breed was interviewed by another local website last Fall and she pledged (does that mean promised?...if so, we're in trouble) to protect tenant’s rights and to oppose any attacks on rent control if elected to this septic Board of Supervisors.

Now considering politicians often (if not always...depending upon the politician) do the exact opposite of what they "promise" to do, we know where that "pledge" is going.

She was asked about the money from the mega Real Estate Industrial Complex (REIC) being spent on and for her and whether the REIC was going to get anything from her for that money. She said:

She didn't understand what they would expect to get from her.

Well we'll find out, won't we?....soon enough. The interviewer kept focusing on all this and asked many questions about this in as many ways/variations as possible, but her answer was always the same.

International Troll Society Member #12360969212

Posted by International Troll Society Member #12360969212 on Feb. 09, 2013 @ 7:20 pm

She knows what kind of a district it is. so do her financial backers. She knows that if she's perceived as a rubber stamp, she'll never be re-elected. So during her first term, she'll vote with tenants whenever her vote doesn't matter, and she'll vote with her backers whenever they need her. Come election time, she'll say what an "independent thinker" she is, because she'll have some CYA votes behind her. The result is the same.

Of course Olague tried to play that game too, but she messed up. She voted against her backers on the Mirkarimi vote when they really needed her, and paid the price. Problem with Olague, she really did try to play both sides, and in the end neither side trusted her. Breed will learn on Olague's mistakes. She knows exactly what team she's really playing for.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 09, 2013 @ 10:02 pm

Everyone but pure of heart progressives.

Looking for the conspiracy around every corner and under every rock is hard work for people like Greg, nothing is at it seems, nothing is real, everyone but progressives have an agenda. Only progressives and their election losing are true friends of "the people(1)."

1. as defined by white middle class liberals who see racism in everything but their own quaint proclamations about race.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 09, 2013 @ 11:39 pm

So what? Guess who is bankrolling Progressive favorite David Campos? None other than Progressive favorite Rose Pak....

Posted by Richmondman on Feb. 10, 2013 @ 6:34 am

And who bankrolled you...Rosa Parks?

Posted by GuestEd on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 2:05 pm

If true, I can't wait to see the opposition mailers to voters depicting Rose Pak as a power broker behind Campos. That should go over well in the Mission and Telegraph Hill.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 12:06 pm
Wow

judging by the mean spirited, arrogant comments that people are leaving, is it any wonder that our city is in the shape that it is.

Posted by GuestEd on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 1:39 pm

and the fact that Sf is now a moderate city who prefers jobs and growth over ideological dogma.

Posted by anon on Feb. 11, 2013 @ 2:02 pm

lmao...mean-spirited.GTFOH. Whats more mean-spirited. Talking shit about a major shit-talker (London Breed) and being mean-spirited, what? Like the mean-spirited attacks and character assassinations that were made on Christina Olague to get her removed because she dare speak for herself? So if Christina would've cussed more and let us all know Willie Brown never " wiped her ass" then she would've been re-elected? How mean-spirited is it to be for the " sit & lie" law? Your thinking is why the city is in the shape it's in. Common sense & critical thinking is dead in Frisco.

Posted by Guest tmoreland on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 9:57 am

....furthermore...why don't ALL you SFBG commentors in support of "Bad Mama Breed" help the broke sister pay for her over-blown, self-indulgent inauguration party that she's now having to have another fundraiser to pay for. LMAO! are you people serious (Breed Lovers). Mismanagement of funds, already. Oh...she needs office supplies too because her allotted $ 2,500 for that...went to the party too. Guess D5 will "party" it's way to success and political relevance. Who's ass needs wiping now?

Posted by Guest tmoreland on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 10:34 am