Guardian endorsements for June 5 election

Sure, the primaries are a joke -- but your vote still matters. Our take on the trash wars, the DCCC race, and more local elections



As usual, California is irrelevant to the presidential primaries, except as a cash machine. The Republican Party has long since chosen its nominee; the Democratic outcome was never in doubt. So the state holds a June 5 primary that, on a national level, matters to nobody.

It's no surprise that pundits expect turnout will be abysmally low. Except in the few Congressional districts where a high-profile primary is underway, there's almost no news media coverage of the election.

But that doesn't mean there aren't some important races and issues (including the future of San Francisco's Democratic Party) — and the lower the turnout, the more likely the outcome will lean conservative. The ballot isn't long; it only takes a few minutes to vote. Don't stay home June 5.

Our recommendations follow.



Sigh. Remember the hope? Remember the joy? Remember the dancing in the streets of the Mission as a happy city realized that the era of George Bush and The Gang was over? Remember the end of the war, and health-care reform, and fair economic policies?

Yeah, we remember, too. And we remember coming back to our senses when we realized that the first people at the table for the health-policy talks were the insurance industry lobbyists. And when more and more drones killed more and more civilian in Afghanistan, and the wars didn't end and the country got deeper and deeper into debt.

Oh, and when Obama bailed out Wall Street — and refused to spend enough money to help the rest of us. And when his U.S. attorney decided to crack down on medical marijuana.

We could go on.

There's no question: The first term of President Barack Obama has been a deep disappointment. And while we wish that his new pledge to tax the millionaires represented a change in outlook, the reality is that it's most likely an election-year response to the popularity of the Occupy movement.

Last fall, when a few of the most progressive Democrats began talking about the need to challenge Obama in a primary, we had the same quick emotional reaction as many San Franciscans: Time to hold the guy accountable. Some prominent left types have vowed not to give money to the Obama campaign.

But let's get back to reality. The last time a liberal group challenged an incumbent in a Democratic presidential primary, Senator Ted Kennedy wounded President Jimmy Carter enough to ensure the election of Ronald Reagan — and the begin of the horrible decline in the economy of the United States. We're mad at Obama, too — but we're realists enough to know that there is a difference between moderate and terrible, and that's the choice we're facing today.

The Republican Party is now entirely the party of the far right, so out of touch with reality that even Reagan would be shunned as too liberal. Mitt Romney, once the relatively centrist governor of Massachusetts, has been driven by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum so deeply into crazyland that he's never coming back. We appreciate Ron Paul's attacks on military spending and the war on drugs, but he also opposes Medicare and Social Security and says that people who don't have private health insurance should be allowed to die for lack of medical care.

No, this one's easy. Obama has no opposition in the Democratic Primary, but for all our concerns about his policies, we have to start supporting his re-election now.




Chris Gembinski* (not Gembinsky)

Posted by Guest on Apr. 25, 2012 @ 2:38 pm

I too am a candidate for the DCCC 17 and never got invited for an endorsement process of questionnaire and interview, How was the endorsements determined?

Posted by Dean Clark on Apr. 25, 2012 @ 3:02 pm

Unless the SFBG's goal here is to help the Republicans, you need to mention at least one progressive Democrat running alongside Feinstein in the Senate race, or you're making an embarrassing math error.

Many voters and writers don't understand the implications of the brand new "top two" rule, and unfortunately you're not helping.

In this Senate race, all agree Feinstein is a guaranteed the top spot - so the race is really about who comes in 2nd and winds up on the November ballot with her.

Advising we invest even more votes Feinstein the worst result for the party and for progressives - akin to not voting. That makes a Republican the 2nd place winner, despite 14 Republicans splitting the red vote in this blue state. If instead, the other Dems Levitt, Strimling, Stewart, Fernald and Shah shared the progressive vote - Feinstein would still win, and perhaps one of them too. In that case there's no Republican on the ballot for the first time since 1856 - plus a new progressive voice.

And if you actually reported on the Levitt 2012 platform at
End Marijuana Prohibition, End Afghanistan, and (Van Jones') Rebuild the American Dream
-- you'd find it sparks strongly with this community. You should have contacted candidates like me and shared some with your readers.

The winning ticket for progressives and Democrats is for such a progressive runner up to Feinstein.

We're sorry to say, SFGB offered readers terrible, incomplete, misleading advice. SFBG should print a clarifying follow-up before Tuesday, for your readers' and California's benefit.
Every other Senate candidate I've spoken to agrees.

-- David Levitt, tel: 707.515.7828

On US Senate ballots in California as:
David Alex Levitt, Computer Scientist /Engineer Party Pref: DEM

Posted by David Levitt for US Senate on May. 05, 2012 @ 8:47 pm

I stand with David Levitt against the right leaning, rich, career politician we've been stuck with for too long.

Posted by Guest on May. 21, 2012 @ 6:23 am

who was one of the most corrupt legislative members in the history of the state, its already severely-depleted credibility shrinks further.

We need a reform slate for DCCC which excludes all the usual suspects who have done nothing but suck off the system their entire lives. And it needs to start by excluding corrupt, "Sacramento's worst boss" Carole Migden.

Posted by Troll II on Apr. 25, 2012 @ 4:23 pm

I do not often write commentaries to newspaper articles, but in this case I will make an exception.

Over the years, I have noticed that the so-called alternative media constantly denounces the Democratic political establishment, that is, until election time.
Then we the people are told by said publications that we have to be "REALISTIC" and reluctantly cast our vote for the Democrats. This reality that they speak of is one that is created by that same Democratic party so as to keep themselves in power without any kind of accountability or recourse. And should we ever dare challenge this, than the big bad Republicans are waved in our faces like some evil sock puppet so as to strike fear into us. This is the cudgel that the Democrats use to intimidate the voting public.

By any other name, this can be described as a form of terrorism.

However, there are an increasing number of Independant voters who have had it with the betrayal and deceit of Obama and the Democrats. More and more Independants like myself intend to put our support behind Ron Paul and other independant-minded candidates. Flawed as he is, Congressman Paul is a refreshing change to the mouthings of Corporate Mouthpiece A and Corporate Mouthpiece B...

I will end this missive with an old Sicilian proverb:

"Better the enemy I know, than the freind who would betray me."

God bless America.


Posted by Guest John F. on Apr. 25, 2012 @ 7:44 pm

It is true, on a philosophical level, Paul does not support welfare because it requires too much debt to fund the programs. The interest payments on this debt require income taxes from the working class that ultimately are redistributed to the wealthy, banks, and foreign governments. But if you are going to vote in the Primary for Republican primary this June, Please consider Paul!!! He has reiterated over and over that welfare is better than warfare, and would much rather see the trillions wasted overseas spent here at home.

Posted by Calvin on Apr. 25, 2012 @ 8:51 pm

Reading these tells me who NOT to vote for in most cases.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 26, 2012 @ 11:50 am

Well, first I should say that it's stupid to change your vote simply because you don't like a particular group or outlet that makes an endorsement. On the prominent stuff, I pretty much know how I'm going to vote.

But let's say you're undecided about an obscure ballot initiative, or don't know every single candidate for downballot races like the DCCC. That's where the endorsements of organizations you generally trust become very useful.

For me, on local issues, that would be the Guardian, the Milk Club, and the Tenants Union. For DCCC, I looked at the lists they came up with, and voted for all the candidates who showed up on all 3. Then I saw that one of those candidates was also endorsed by Plan C, which is generally (but not always) a deal-breaker for me. In this case, however, that candidate also had other endorsements from shady people/groups, so I figured he's probably trying to be all things to all people, and I crossed him off the list. No organization is perfect.

Posted by Greg on May. 06, 2012 @ 4:05 pm

If you're a moderate, like most SF voters are, then something like a SFBG slate can be very useful as a guide how NOT to vote. There's a reasonably reliable presumption that the SFBG will support politicians and policies that are not moderate.

So I do use the SFBG slate - just not in a way that Bruce would be happy about, I'm sure. It is reliable, though.

Posted by Anonymous on May. 06, 2012 @ 4:22 pm

I'm not surprised by these Democratic Establishment endorsements. They are what I expected from the BG. What one would expect from a Democratic Party-front paper? That's what the BG is (just like most self-described "liberal" and "progressive" sites). Democratic Establishment Sheep 101 and a front for the misnamed "Democratic" Party, while the BG hides behind the word "progressive," which doesn't mean anything any longer. The word "progressive" has become so abused, overused and is as meaningless as giving a neocon war-warmonger (Mr Hopey Changey) a Nobel Peace Prize while he now widens the droning "war" into Yemen and soon to launch another "war" on Syria.

The Drone-Happy President: Obama Escalates in Yemen – Again (April 26, 2012)

If the BG staff had paid close attention over the past 3+ years, they would know that most of Mr Hopey Changey's policies are to the right of those of George W. Bush. Yet they never endorsed Bush. Their short list of what they don't like about Mr Hopey Changey (while they endorse him) is very weak. Have they paid close attention to what he has done to expand on the Bush policies? I don't sense that they have.

They've endorsed Obamabot Norman Solomon. He was an Obama delegate. He fell for Mr Hopey Changey. That shows how poor Norman Solomon's judgment is.

They write that "The Republican Party is now entirely the party of the far right." Nothing new there. That's standard. That's what we hear every election. That's always been the case for the Republicans in recent times. And who works for them? The Democratic Party, most of the time. They are buddies.

All Democrats in congress voted for House Resolution 347. Have you heard of that? Three Republicans did not vote for HR 347. Who's the more right-wing here?

Google these:

ACLU trashes Obama over indefinite detention and torture act (January 6, 2012)
US Congress expands authoritarian anti-protest law (H.R. 347, which Obama signed) (March 3, 2012)

The BG plays the Fear Card every general election. It's so tiresome and predictable. That comes out every election without fail. Since they think that the "evil" Republicans are "worse," why not go ahead and hit the wall? Why does the Guardian staff want to slow the process down of hitting the wall? Get it over with. Why drag it out any longer when we're going to hit the wall anyway.

A progressive (a real one, not a fake one) would not be endorsing Obama, Feinstein, Pelosi, and that "Democratic" Establishment corporatist crowd because none of those people are progressives at all. A real progressive would say, "No Endorsement, because we have no one to endorse in good conscience. There are no progressives running, nor are there any allowed to run (who will get the needed corporate media coverage)." But they (the BG) are not about to say that. No, they will continue to cheerlead for their "Democratic" party line and make the excuses for doing so.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 26, 2012 @ 3:36 pm

You're right, of course. It is the same sales pitch from the BG every election year, though it hardly matters. No one follows the Guardian's endorsements anyway. Except for the people (like the guy who posted above) who use it to figure out who NOT to vote for.

The Progressive movement is dying in SF anyway - a casualty of it's own intractable policies. "No Compromise" might sound good when you say it through a bullhorn in front of City Hall, or when you're plotting over boiler-makers down at Buck Tavern, but it rarely plays out like you hoped it would when you're actually trying to change things. Unless you're saying it while a mob of rifle-wielding peasants is marching behind you, that is.

But you guys don't usually own guns.

Posted by RamRod on Apr. 26, 2012 @ 8:19 pm

They are scared of pitchforks and torches as well as guns.

Posted by guest on Apr. 27, 2012 @ 11:43 am

ummm.... OK.... do you have any CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions? You sure whine and bitch real pretty, but what do you suggest as a sensible progressive alternative?

Posted by Guest on May. 02, 2012 @ 7:22 pm

That's the most half-hearted endorsement of Dianne Feinstein imaginable. Why damn her with faint praise (hard to find any praise), as Democrats are running who are more in tune with your positions. This is a Open Primary and only the top 2 vote getters will go to the November election. The Republicans who are running are polling maybe 2%, so Feinstein is nearly certain to come out of this primary and on to November even if you endorsed someone more to your liking. Thus, we have a really good chance of Feinstein and someone more progressive will come out of the primary.

We at the Strimling for Senate campaign never got any sort of interview or look/see from you. In fact, we are not the only other more-progressive-than-Feinstein running in the primary. We urge voters to consult your Voter Guide pamphlet from the Secretary of State which has short statements from most of the candidates. And go to our websites. The Guardian isn't really even trying here.....

Posted by Guest on Apr. 27, 2012 @ 10:44 am

If you have these serious criticisms of Dianne Feinstein, why not endorse one of the more progressive Democrats in the US Senate primary? Since the Republican candidates are polling about 2%, it's not like Feinstein has real danger in this open primary of not being one of the two in the run-off in November. But we could have her and another more progressive Democrat in the run-off. Probably all of the other Democrats running are more acceptable given the Guardian's criticisms of Feinstein - so it makes no sense to endorse her and not even to give a look/see or mention of the other campaigns.

We at Strimling for Senate Campaign urge voters to go to the Voter Guide pamphlet from the Secretary of State where candidates for US Senate have short statements - because obviously the press isn't doing its job here. You have a chance in this election to vote for true progressives. At our campaign, you can send a very clear message to vote for a return to progressive taxation of the ultra-wealthy 1%.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 27, 2012 @ 10:53 am

Carol Migden? Really? Crazy Carol? With the Don King hair? What do you think an election is, full employment for the mentally ill?

Posted by Potrero Hills on Apr. 27, 2012 @ 3:40 pm

So basically you’re saying you don’t care how many brown kids Obama blows up overseas or that he signed NDAA, or that the Feds are now busting medical marijuana even though Obama’s buddy, Jon Corzine is still a free man after STEALING over a billion dollars, or that we’re now several trillion dollars more in debt, you’re going to continue to back the military, pharmaceutical industrial complex because they won’t threaten the welfare state. Got it.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 10:22 am

More on HR 347:

How to fight Obama’s police-state policies

Posted by Guest on Apr. 30, 2012 @ 6:20 pm

If you're going to travel this far up north and stick your paws into the Congressional race, you might as well stick around and endorse Michael Allen for District 10. It's a nasty race, what with his closest competitor in fund-raising, a slimy San Rafael city council person, running a dirty slam-Allen at all costs campaign.

That would be Marc Levine. His latest move at hypocrisy was to demand of Allen that Allen disavow any IE's. Levine benefited from IEs when he was elected to city council just 2 years ago, but didn't disavow its advent in that race--I know, because I did the IE againt his opponent.

Here's a short list of Levine's antics:

Levine Claims He’s the Ethics Candidate, but…
--he took the maximum donation of $3900 from a casino in SoCal while opposing a casino in Sonoma.

Levine is Marin’s Pay-to-Play Candidate. Here are Two Examples (there’s more):
1) Levine took $500 from the landowner where Target will be built, and another $500 from the landowner’s husband. It’s entirely possible Levine arranged this donation before the Target vote in April 2011 because he was running for Assembly as early as February, 2011.

2) Levine has refused to push Comcast to fork over the $600,000 they legally owe to the Community Media Center. Why? Because he’s the only elected representative to the Marin Telecommunications Agency to take money from Comcast.

Levine is a Developer’s Wet Dream:
--40% of Levine’s dollars in the last fundraising go-round came from RE interests, developers, construction firms and finance outfits. That more than triples all the other Assembly candidates combined.

Levine Added Names to his Endorsement List Without Asking Permission:
--Armando Quintero, MMWD board member is one. Andrew McCullough, SR City Council member, is another.

And Several Rescinded Their Endorsement of Levine:
--Ford Greene of San Anselmo’s Town Council
--Diane Furst of Corte Madera’s Town Council
--David Weinsoff of Fairfax’s Town Council

All rescinded their endorsements based on the facts above, as well as many other of Levine’s questionable behaviors: he removed a stack of these flyers from a free speech table and tossed them into the trash Monday night.

Posted by Jonathan Frieman on May. 01, 2012 @ 6:10 am

1) In July and August of 2011 after Levine announced for Assembly, he campaigned for Assembly from a table set up by the city of San Rafael at the San Rafael Thursday night Farmer's Market. That table is for the specific purpose of city council officeholders to discuss city issues. Campaigning for Assembly from that table is a misappropriation of city funds for private use. That is a felony here in California. Witnesses are afraid of retaliation.

2) Late last year Levine announced to several people, including a city council candidate from Novato, that he was "too busy running for Assembly to be concerned with the city of San Rafael."

3) Levine authorized the misfiling of state assembly campaign papers in June, 2011. The misfiling had to do with the requirement that he specify which funds were transferred from his re-election campaign for city council to his assembly coffers. And Levine violated other provisions of campaign finance law which are under investigation by the FPPC.

4) Our state senator advised Levine to stand down in the Assembly race. Levine's reply: "It's my time."

5) It's been documented that Levine told the volunteers of a fellow councilmember, Greg Brockbank, that he was voting for Brockbank for mayor last fall. But Levine then sent out an email saying the only two candidates he thought people should vote for were Brockbank's opponent, Gary Phillips, and Andrew McCullough. Levine also did not mention his fellow council-member, Damon Connolly, who was running for re-election, which was a stab in Connolly’s back.

6) Levine is San Rafael's representative to the Marin Telecommunications Agency. Levine is the only rep to the MTA who has taken funds from Comcast. Comcast owes the Community Media Center $600,000 as compelled by law, and he is recommending that Comcast not pay the funds.

7) In February of 2011, a year ago, Levine held a fundraiser specifically for his re-election to city council. At that time, however, Levine was already soliciting endorsements for a run to the Assembly. In this case, the endorsement was from David Weinsoff, a Fairfax town council member, now running for county supervisor.

8) Two months later, in April of 2011, Levine voted for Target to come into San Rafael. In late 2011 Levine collected $500 from the landowner of the parcel, Stephanie Plante, on which Target is going to build, as well as $500 from her husband's company. It can easily be argued that Levine arranged those donations before the Target vote.

9) Levine proudly announces on his web site that he "created the first requirement in California conditioning (sic) land use with meeting the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) for clean energy." This is a feckless “requirement” because all energy providers in California already have an RPS.

This “requirement” was borne out of the Target vote--if Levine wanted to push a valid point, he could have attempted to require that Target use Marin Clean Energy.

10) In an interview where Levine was vying for an endorsement, Levine declared that "I personally helped 15,000 people with my vote on Target."

Levine truly believes that the 15,000 people who live in the Canal area of San Rafael, who are mostly Latino, benefited from his vote and his vote alone.

Levine wishes the Latinos will leave their community and drive two miles to Target for food when there are already two local food markets nearby.

Levine does not care that his vote helped condemn the Canal area to a bad traffic situation which cannot be mitigated. Nor does he seem to care that Target will cannibalize sales tax from the small businesses in downtown San Rafael and in the Canal.

11) Levine assumes that all 15,000 people in the Canal are Latino. And he assumes, very mistakenly, that all 250 Target jobs will be given to those Latinos who live in the Canal area.

The Target jobs are almost all part-time, minimum wage, non-unionized and without benefits. Levine assumes those low-paying jobs are just fine for Latinos. His justification: “There’s a place in the economy for everyone.”

Levine cares naught that there is a 60 to 70% turnover at Target stores, which means that as soon as a worker reaches a stage where they may be eligible for benefits, they are laid off.

One wonders if, because Levine is unemployed and lives off his wife's family's money and job, and because he’ll lose the Assembly race as well as his City Council seat, he’ll go find a place in the economy and get such a job at Target.

12) Levine wants to institute a living wage ordinance as a way of helping Latinos get a higher wage from Target. That is impossible—living wage ordinances can only be imposed upon for-profit or non-profit entities which have a contract with the city, and Target won’t have such a contract. His declaration clearly demonstrates he does not know what a living wage ordinance is.

13) Levine was quoted as saying that Target will bring a pharmacy to the Canal. That is simply not true. Target and its pharmacy will be located further from the Canal than CVS and Rite-Aid at Montecito.

14) Recently Levine telephoned the client of a local political consulting firm in order to get that client to demand that the political consulting firm not do a political mailer against Levine.

15) Several endorsers rescinded their endorsement of Levine for all the reasons noted above.

16) And he has named some individuals as endorsers who have not endorsed him. Among those are Armando Quintero, on the MMWD board, and Andrew McCullough, San Rafael city council member. That is unethical behavior.

17) Right after the meeting where he voted for Target, he went around city chambers to those who opposed Target and asked "Will you still love me in the morning?"

That’s code for “How do you like being fucked over?”

Posted by Jonathan Frieman on May. 01, 2012 @ 6:11 am

The B proposal is basically the rich people of Telegraph Hill not wanting the rich people from the rest of the city coming to party in their back yard. I say let the rich party and let us use the money to fund all of our city parks! Aaron Peskin, who lives on Telegraph Hill, proposed B and Tim Redmond, the editor of the Guardian, is his good friend.
Bad call on the SFBG's part.
No on B.

Posted by Sean K. on May. 12, 2012 @ 9:05 am

There is no need to vote for Obama.
The presidential election is won by the Electoral Vote alone. The popular vote has nothing to do with it, like it or not. I don't like it.
BUT there's no way Obama will lose in states which always vote Democratic.
These are the states in which it is always SAFE to vote for 3d party candidates. California is one.
Go to . The site owner checks 8 different polls and averages them. You can check this site daily, up to election day, to see if there is a chance of the Republican candidate winning.
There never is, in California. If you're worried about a Republican win - check , and worry not.
Now you are free to help build the real Progressive movement by voting for the 3d party candidate of your choice. You will be building the progressive movement, encouraging the like minded, helping to put forward real progressive platforms - which will push the discourse to the left, educate voters, maybe result in more media coverage of righteous alternatives or even real debates.
Third parties may not win but they are needed to educate the voters and motivate politicians to act reasonably and humanely.

Posted by Guest maqa on May. 13, 2012 @ 9:33 pm

and though it is absolutely true that Reagan's vile policies turboed the malaise that was already developing, I don't think it is helpful, on balance, to paint-over the realities of the matter.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 14, 2012 @ 6:31 am

Again you betray the 'progressive' values you once represented. Sin cojones you endorse the same corporate plutocrats who have misrepresented us for to long.
Unfortunately Diva Di-Fi and Madame Pelosi, Queens of the 0.1%, will probably be reappointed to continue their reigns of privilege and patronage. Hopefully the candidates of the Republican disloyal opposition will neuter themselves. But in case you weren't aware, the rules are different this time. We could have two 'democrats' running against each other. The race is for #2.
IM(not so)HO, a truly bold and 'progressive' move, one that demonstrated your committment to, and realisation of, the need for rapid and drastic change, would have been to endorse David Levitt and Barry Hermanson. No 'they' couldn't win, but we might. It could finally force these two pooh-bahs into a public debate in front of us peons where they could be challenged and held to account for their many malfeasances. If by some miracle a Republican won, well WTF, 'The Queen is dead', we're all going to hell in a handbasket pretty soon anyway.
Just my thruppence

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on May. 20, 2012 @ 5:00 pm

Apologies Barry, I know you're Green, but at least I only insulted you with "democrat"

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on May. 20, 2012 @ 5:06 pm

As lots of these comments point out, the Bay Guardian kinda fell down here in not even interviewing or considering candidates who could be the alternative Democrat or Green in this top 2 primary.

In the Feinstein race for Senate, probably 4 candidates are more progressive, in exactly the ways that the Guardian criticizes Feinstein for her record.

Here at the / Mike Strimling for Senate Campaign, we are getting good results on a shoestring budget. A Pulse poll in early May had us already running 4th in the field, apparently, and the top of the Democrats running besides Feinstein. This is on the strength of our strong statement in the Voter pamphlet to restore taxes on the rich.

Come check us out at or read your voter pamphlet from the Secretary of State. Contribute or link us on facebook or twitter or your own email list, if you want this message to get out. Whoever wins, you could send a strong and credible message to the pundits and other politicians that there is a strong constituency for taxing the rich at the levels they were taxed from 1940 to 1981.

It is understandable that vested interests like the Bay Guardian, let alone the Chronicle, will not tell you about our campaign. We have to run our campaign as insurgents in these "comment" zones. But come check us out. If you agree that we need to return to progressive taxation, this is your chance to send that message!

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2012 @ 1:15 pm

Vote no on more cigarette taxes. Our politicians don't have the courage to tax the wealthy, but taxing cigarettes takes no courage at all. It's time to stop rewarding lack of courage.

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2012 @ 6:58 am

So the cigarette tax is supposed to be for cancer research. But how hard would it be to divert it to pay for other services that need money more (and they are plenty that do)?

By means let's all think of the children- I'm sure they will grow up to be fine Americans without jobs or education because everyone was more concerned with keeping them away from cigarettes

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2012 @ 7:33 am

It's generally a scam to get you to support it because who wouldn't vote to help children, or old people, or the disabled, or cancer research, and so on?

We never see a proposition that is to increase the already high pension entitlements of public sector bureaucrats and managers, for instance, because nobody would vote for that.

And yet it's the same pot of money that funds both. By funding "noble" causes with these special taxes, we free up cash in the general fund to continue to prop up unaffordable pay and benefits for state and city workers.

So I'll continue to vote "No" on all these special taxes until the fundamental budget issues have been resolved, and public sector employee costs and numbers are under control.

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2012 @ 8:01 am

As desperately as reforms are needed, a plan to pay workers five day of benefits for four days of work costs taxpayers money. His plan is absurd.

If we had any journalists in this state, Brown's faulty plan would be exposed.

Posted by Guest on May. 26, 2012 @ 2:28 pm

As a few others have pointed out, it's a wasted vote to vote for Feinstein. I'd rather see her re-elected than see just about any Republican win, but there's alot to dislike about her -- and even a chance to have an election this year with no Republican opponent.

A few years ago the SF Bay Guardian endorsements were a good source of info about which Green or Peace & Freedom party candidates were best to vote for if the Demo was sure to win but less than ideal. What happened?

I had hoped that the SFBG would help me decide between Strimling (D) and Feinland (P&F) in this race. After my own research I decided on Strimling. I had to agree that Feinland has a broader range of issues and ideas, but I really like the way Strimling describes what's been happening with tax rates for the rich over the last generation.

With The TEA-Partiers complaining about Obama's meek tax proposals as "Socialist," I had had the idea that it might be appealing to them if we could start a movement to "Reinstate Nixon's Tax Rates!!!" It sounds like something the TEA party would support, doesn't it? Well, check out Strimling's web site to see why it would be a good rallying cry for us.

I think I'll make a "Reinstate Nixon's Tax Rates!!!" sign for the next Occupy rally I go to. Maybe SFBG could even publish an article with that name ... if they're not to busy supporting Feinstein.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 05, 2012 @ 2:31 pm

I am writing because it is very important that your voter guide info be correct. Barbara lee is listed as District #12 on your voter guide, and she is actually from District #13.

Posted by Guest Hhhava on Jun. 05, 2012 @ 5:58 pm

I had also voted “no” for cigarette tax too. I personally don’t believe in sin tax, and even though I do not smoke, I believe that everyone should have the right to review their own choices and be given the freedom to smoke if they wish to without being discriminated through taxation (even though the habit may eventually kill them).

Posted by Gabriel on Dec. 17, 2012 @ 11:45 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Related articles

  • Endorsements 2011

    Avalos for mayor. Mirkarimi for sheriff. Onek for district attorney. Yes on C, No on D, E, and F ... complete endorsements for the San Francisco election

  • East Bay endorsements 2010

    There are plenty of important races and issues on the ballot in the East Bay. Here are our endorsements for Berkeley and Oakland


    Walker, Mandelman, and Kelly for supervisor. No, no, no on B. Yes, yes, yes on 19. Our complete endorsements for San Francisco, state, and national races