- FYI: I sent this to the Bay Guardian this morning. Steve
I'm very disappointed at the Guardian's endorsements for this
election. These are some of my disagreements:
The Guardian's endorsement of Proposition A is a real drag. Most of
what the Guardian's staff wrote about it seems to indicate that they
strongly disagree with the proposal. Yet, the "whoever-takes-the-
decision" endorsed it. C'mon, there is no plan for the money and the
control of the funds will be in the hands of a corporate-controled
non-profit. What is next, the Guardian switching to support the
privatization of the Presidio. This runs directly against previous
District 6: Chris Daly over Beryl Magilavy?:
Here, again, the Guardian's is inconsistent. Preferring Daly over
Magilavy secures Dittenhafer a shot at the runoff. Bad choice. Since
then the Guardian split from Ammiano's choices? Since then they
switched to divide the opposition to the machine?
Leland Yee for Supervisor?
I do understand that Leland is no friend of Willie, but he is a right
winger, anti-union, who tried to be on Willie's side and was
rejected. I also understand that he is running against right winger
Hsieh supported by the machine. He was instrumental in creating the
right wing group SF Neighbors Association and helped run it until
Brown took control of it and booted out Yee. Is there any principple
in calling for a vote for a right winger because he is no friend of
Willie? What's next? An endorsement of a Republican?
I do understand that the Guardian hates Carlos Petroni because he'd
been a thorn on the side of the Guardian from the left (he is
actually the only progressive running in that area of the City). But,
endorsing Sandoval who made two contributions for the maximum allowed
under the law to Willie's re-election campaign against Ammiano? Check
it out, the paperwork is available at the Ethics Commission. He is
being dennounced as a carpetbagger and as a matter of fact his
$70,000 campaign funds came from outside the District, mostly from
corporate donors, including alcohol interests, law firms linked to
Brown and lobbyists. Sandoval has also publicly defended Brown in the
District's forums and, according to a Chronicle reporter he ardently
supported Willie when they interviewed him.
School Board Endorsements:
The Guardian endorsing the same people for the School Board than
Willie Brown? Almost, Brown endorsed three of the four candidates
endorsed by the Guardian.
I'm particulary worried about the Guardian's endorsement of Mauricio
Vela. He was probably independent from the machine two or three years
ago, but no more. In the last two years he struck big financial deals
with the Mayor's office to fund some of his projects in Bernal
Heights which makes him a prisoner of the machine.
Why the Guardian did not endorse Mark Sanchez, the candidate of
Teachers4Change - and the only teacher running - the organization
behind most of the criticisms and mobilizations against the Edison
Project and Mary Hernández. By the way, is the Guardian going to
forcefully campaign for Hernandez' defeat?
College Board Endorsements
I always though that the Guardian was against privatization of
education. So, why is the Guardian endorsing two candidates - at
least - who are on record supporting joint corporate-non-profit-
public ventures at City College? I'm talking about Gaddi and Scott
What is next? An endorsement of the Gorish alternative because a
"vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." I hope not.
- RSilverberg@a... wrote:
> The Examiner endorsed Gerardo Sandoval for District 11 supervisorbecause "he has some great ideas." I called the Examiner a week ago
and they said they weren't endorsing. Did any of the other District
11 candidates get a questionnaire from the Examiner? I didn't. Did
any of the other candidates have an interview with the Examiner? I
didn't. How do they know if the rest of us have some great ideas too.
Carlos Petroni answers:
No, I was not contacted, interviewed, called or otherwise consulted
in any shape or form by the Examiner. I did not try either, though.
> As a matter of fact, the only ideas Mr. Sandoval has come up withso far is offering empty office rental space in District 11 to the
displaced non-profits, which Carlos Petroni can tell you I have
discussed at our District 11 debates.
Yes, you did.
Mr. Sandoval was seen at the recent District 11
> Council debate with a Frontlines newspaper in front of him where hehad highlighted some of Mr. Petroni's ideas.
This is very funny. Particularly because he read from my proposals
once I departed from the meeting. I heard that story from other
constituents in the District who were present when he did that. But,
again, Sandoval is the one running on a 2 inches by 3 inches
platform. Literally, that's the extent of his writen proposals - a
business card with a 4-point program. I understand why he need to
steal ideas from other candidates.
(Sandoval)has never been involved in any neighborhood or district
activities or projects. All Mr. Sandoval can do is tell us how great
he is and list all his credentials for the job, most of which are
stretched beyond belief.
Yes, that's true as well. While I have many differences with you
Rebecca, and other candidates such as Douglas Moran, I do recognize
that you and Doug had been involved in District's politics and tried
- in your case with some success - to rally support from the
District. Douglas talk with pride about the things he had done.
Even nutty candidate Steve Currier was "honored" by Amos Brown when
the "incumbent" told the audience in one of the forums that Currier
lobbied him so much that he though Steve was a "piece of the
furniture" from his office. Myrna Lim had been active in some
communities of our District. Even Huber, the Republican, can claim
some activities involving neighbors in our District.
In different circles - I'm not a Democrat, but a progressive left
candidate - I had been active with young people and workers in
District 11 for years. Of course, I don't share you approach to
politics and your set of activities, or that of other candidates.
Support for your candidacy, that of other candidates and mine from
the District was evident at the forums. We were able to bring our
supporters and people attending reacted to our presentations.
Amos Brown and Gerardo Sandoval had no supporters or recognition from
those attending the forums. That, in my opinion is the ultimate
judgement passed by people of this District to carpetbaggers such as
Amos and Gerardo. The fact that neither gerardo or Amos can mobilize
volunteers from the District and that both raised their money outside
the District and the City (and among corporate types) and that both
supported and contributed to Willie's campaign ... is very telling!
Don't swallow the line of the Examiner. They are NOT looking for
candidates with good ideas, but a candidate they can safely support
to replace Amos once they found out that he is losing, and losing
big. As Myrna Lim put it: "Sandoval is the second horse." The
examiner is NOT interested in finding out what's going on in our
District, they never did (nor did the Chronicle or the Guardian for
that matter). They are just interested in getting somebody elected
that will be a docile puppy of the machine.
FYI, I'm enclosing a letter I sent to the Examiner related to their
coverage - or lack thereof - of the supervisorial race in District
11. And don't worry, just spread the word about Gerardo's
opportunism. An endorsement or two will not confuse may voters.
LETTER TO THE EXAMINER:
Obviously, Rachel Gordon does not know anything about District 11 and
she did not do any homework to write her article about it (9 From
District 11 Vie for Supervisor, October 16, 2000). It is also obvious
that she neither attended the various forums and debates in our
District nor she ever contacted me or other candidates to write her
story. These are some important points she missed:
1. Amos Brown has no strong ties to the OMI neighborhood as stated in
Gordon's article. He is rejected throughout the District as
demonstrated by those attending the forums held throughout our
neighborhoods, including the OMI, Excelsior, Crocker-Amazon,
Ingleside, and Cayuga. Amos Brown is opposed by the majority in the
African American community, as well as among Latinos and Asians,
working class families and union members in the District for his
record as an incompetent public official and his mean and divisive
2. The issues of "law and order" pushed by Amos Brown were
overwhelmingly rejected at these forums. If Rachel Gordon would have
called me and other candidates and attended the forums and debates
she would have learned that issues of economic development, greening
of the District, education, the expansion of SFO runways, tax
devolution, political reform are the core issues that interest voters
in the District.
3. Calling Sandoval a "major challenger" does not reflect reality.
Sandoval is a newcomer to the District who has no support other than
from some members of the local political machine - and from outside
the District - who are looking for a replacement for Amos Brown.
Myrna Lm called him appropriately "the second horse." He has no
supporters in the District and got only three contributions from
residents in the District for his campaign. At forums held throughout
the District he had no supporters and his lack of a platform and his
lack of knowledge about the District were clearly rejected.
4. Rachel Gordon failed to disclose the fact that I'm the only
progressive and independent candidate running for Supervisor in this
District; that my campaign relies on many volunteers and is running
the most effective, grassroots campaign. This was clearly showed at
the forums and debates in which the majority of those in attendance
supported my campaign.
5. All other candidates are in one way or another linked to the
political machine and are trying to replace Amos Brown as its
representative in the District. Both Silverberg and Sandoval are
strong supporters of Mayor Brown as is Amos Brown. With the exception
of John Huber - a Republican rebuffed by his own party - all other
candidates are functionaries of the Democratic Party (members of the
State, County and local Central Committees).
Carlos Petroni, Candidate for Supervisor
374 Madrid Street
San Francisco, California 94112
- Thanks, Carlos. I have admired you from afar for years. Although I don't
always agree with your solutions, I appreciate the issues you raise that
the other "mainstream" politicians and press are reluctant to address.
Most of all, I admire the fact that you are doing something, anything,
which Mr. Sandoval is not.
To set the record straight, the Excelsior District Improvement Assn. and I
supported Willie L. Brown for Mayor because we needed what he could give
us, which included extra street sweeping, more emphasis on graffiti
abatement, more money for childcare and parks. We met with all three
candidates before making that decision: Jordan, whom we had supported
against Brown four years earlier, was a dotty has-been; Reilly--I don't
support anybody who hits other people, whether drunk or sober; Willie
Brown made us promises, some of which he kept. In the runoff there was
Tom Ammiano who didn't have a snowballs chance in the Excelsior, so we
backed what we assumed would be the winner. Cheap and tawdry, yes, but
politically astute too.
As for my loyalty to Mayor Brown, I am a member of the Coalition for San
Francisco Neighborhoods and a close personal friend of Doug Comstock.
With him I fought, and continue to fight, the 49er stadium, and worked on
passage of the Sunshine Initiative. I am a signatory and strongly support
Props L, M, and O (I worked with Commissioner Paul Melbostat and Common
Cause to develop the Prop O language) because they are right and Mayor
Brown is wrong. I take no money from the machine or the anti-machine
machine and make my decisions based on what I feel is best, right or
wrong, for my neighborhood.
The only reason I'm telling you this is because your opinion of me does
matter, more than Willie Brown's does.
- FRONTLINES SPIN BULLETIN NR. 2 10/24/2000
SOFT MONEY SHIFTS TO NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING
By Frontlines Staff
We received word that supervisorial candidates Aaron Peskin (District
3)) Chris Daly and Beryl Magilavy (District 6); Matt Gonzalez
(District 5); Eilen Hansen (District 8); Leland Yee (District 4) and
Marie Harrison (District 10) are to be heavily targeted in the last
10 days before the election by a coalition formed by the Independent,
Robert Barnes, Joe O'Donaghue (who is now furious since Eilen Hansen
refused publicly to accept his support against Mark Leno with whom
the "Gentrificator" had a grudge), several Democratic Clubs including
the Alice Toklas l/g/b/t/ club and Construction trade unions, among
The attacks will include ads and articles in newspapers, mailings and
phone banks as well as massive literature droppings in 200 selected
precincts. The idea is to launch damaging if unproved attacks giving
the challengers no time to respond since they will be made few days
before Election Day.
Tons of "opposition research" collected by private investigators for
months (similar to the already used against Leland Yee and the old
trick of making some alleged supporters of the targeted candidates
to go public, recant and denounce them will be widely used, we are
told. Connections between these candidates and Clint Reilly will also
be raised in a similar way as it is already being raised in mailings
against Prop L. In today's political environment in the City, the
fact that Reilly dumped over $80,000 of his own money and counting on
behalf of most these candidates and propositions like L is the
equivalent to an endorsement by the Republican Party: the kiss of
Behind this large operation is the thinking that none of these
candidates or issues has sufficient strengths on the ground to
withstand an all out assault of this type.
The money for this operation will come, as always in this City, from
Bechtel, Exxon, PG&E, Bank of America (PACs and big shots of these
corporations and other big businesses, Shorenstein holdings and the
Chamber of Commerce. Fisher's GAP, executives of Wells Fargo and
newly created Dot.Com are expected to generously contribute to this
fund. Accountability is not an issue for the organizers of this
political blitzkrieg since information about contributions will reach
the voters too late to influence the trends created by such massive
campaign. The deadlines for late contribution reports are too close
to Election Day as to have any effect in public opinion.
While pumping tons of money by special interests in local campaigns
was widely expected - and already happening - this new massive
campaign will be a significant shift from a "positive" campaign on
behalf of machine's candidates to highly negative campaigning paid by
for soft money. Apparently, "positive" campaigning for Willie Brown's
candidates and issues failed to produce significant results
in most races, with the possibly exception of that on behalf of Mark
The opening salvos of that concerted campaign were yesterday's "State
of the City" speech by Mayor Willie Brown and a 2-page advertisement
paid by for O'Donaghue in today's Independent and a column in the
same paper written by Warren Hinckle against Aaron Peskin. Local TV
stations and dailies will contribute their quota of dirt as well.
Part of this strategy included the unannounced invasion of Hallinan's
offices by a couple of dozens members of the "preachers for the
machine" coalition led by "law and order" right wing crusader Amos
Brown denouncing the DA for not being right wing enough when
prosecuting petty crime.
Sure losers from the machine as Amos Brown and Alicia Becerril will
receive more than $200,000 in extra help trying to stop their certain
demise from the "Willie Brown's leadership" and other equally fake
"independent committees" in the next few days. This same coalition
will dump more than $200,000 more into the campaign to defeat Prop. L
as well. So far, the "independent committees" have pumped over $1.2-
Million trying to avert the upcoming defeat of several candidates of
the machine. It is estimated that, when the dust settles, more than
$3-Million will be spent by soft money contributors to support and
defeat candidates and local propositions.
According to apologists of this campaign, only 25% of the electorate
is worried about this infusion of capital to distort the political
process. These cynics take for granted that this same 25% are
already voting AGAINST the political machine. So, who cares?
Be prepared for a nasty 10-day pre-electoral period.