What do the San Francisco Chronicle and Bill O’Reilly have in common?

VICTORY PARTY

Co-hosted by

San Francisco Labor Council

&

San Francisco Democratic Party

Thursday, November 20^th

7:00 PM

628 Divisadero Street

(at Fell)

We hope you can join us to celebrate the tremendous victories we won on November 4^th !

Please call Emily Nelson at (415) 440-4809

for more information or to RSVP.

OPEIU3 AFL-CIO 11

From: John Avalos

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 5:25 AM
To: Buchanan, Wyatt
Subject: Dude, the preferred nomenclature is . . .

Hi Wyatt

You’re using some patently biased language here. The preferred nomenclature is "progressive" rather than the value laden "far" or "ultra left."

The Chron has typically used moderates and progressives, so it looks like manipulation when it uses this new terminology. Is this your language or the editors?

Let’s save the biased language for the opinion pages and keep it out of our news coverage.

Sincerely,
John Avalos

From: Cooper, Audrey

Date: Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Subject: RE: Dude, the preferred nomenclature is . . .
To: John Avalos

Dear Mr. Avalos,

Thank you for writing to Wyatt about this issue. We appreciate your feedback. However, just because a term is the preferred nomenclature of a political group does not mean we are bound to use it in the newspaper. As you’ve probably noticed, we only have chosen to use these adjectives to describe the city’s political factions in stories about the DCCC or the tussle for control of the board.

We decided to stop using the word "progressive" because it is a politically loaded term that doesn’t mean much to our readers. Far from being biased, we believe that this decision makes our reporting politically neutral.

While "progressive" may be the preferred term of some politicians - and, of course, they are free to use it to describe themselves - it doesn’t describe where they sit on the traditional political spectrum.

We believe using adjectives such as "far left" and "ultra liberal" more accurately describe city politicians and policies in that broader context.

Thank you very much for your time and interest in this issue. As always, we are most interested in accurately reporting on what happens in the city and we believe that this policy helps us to do that. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Audrey Cooper

Assistant Metro Editor

From: John Avalos

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 1:04 PM
To: Cooper, Audrey
Subject: Re: Dude, the preferred nomenclature is . . .

Dear Audrey:

Thank you for your reply. I was throwing in a little humor here, albeit obscure — a reference to the Big Lebowski.

Having said that, I do believe the Chron’s use of "ultra left" and "far left" is completely biased. After all, who’s the arbiter here about what "ultra left" and "far left are?" What standard are you using and where did it come from? Seems pretty made up to me. Very rarely or better yet, never do I here progressives talk about themselves in these terms. The Chron’s making it up out of whole cloth.

It’s unbelievable, that you would even try to justify your use of this language.

Lastly, if any term is completely meaningless it’s "moderate." I don’t recall there being a moderate political movement or ideology. A Classical Greek philosophy maybe, but not a political movement like the Progressive Movement .  Progressives established labor laws, the women’s right to vote and regulations of our workplaces and food production.

I don’t believe Moderates can claim any such movement or transformation of our government institutions. If there’s something they can champion it’s ameliorating the effects of change or fighting against perennial progressive issues such as single payer health care, taxing high profits and rent control .

Thank you for your response. I really appreciate your sharing with me the Chronicle’s rationale, however shaky it may be.

Sincerely,
John Avalos

From: Cooper, Audrey

Date: Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Subject: RE: Dude, the preferred nomenclature is . . .
To: John Avalos

Dear Mr. Avalos,

We will probably have to agree to disagree. We could discuss it issue by issue but I don’t think that’s very useful. I guess I would only try to convince you that the words are simply adjectives and to ascribe some political bias to them seems to imply that it is somehow wrong to be at one end of the political spectrum or the other. To us, it’s all real
estate.

This discussion reminds me of a time in college when one of my professors asked all the feminists to raise their hands. Nobody did. And she yelled at us, pointing out that feminists simply believed in equal rights but that we had been talked out of embracing the label.

Best of luck with your campaign. Hope to meet you soon.

Sincerely,

Audrey Cooper

Assistant Metro Editor

In a post more fitting for GavinWatch than the SF Chronicle, former Chronicle editor Phil Bronstein criticized Gavin Newsom for his role in aiding the proponents of Proposition 8.

If you’re a liability but you keep reminding people you’re there, it’s gone beyond commitment to a cause and into the narrower world of self-importance.

Going from bad to worse, Bronstein takes the Mayor to task for everything from his drinking problem to the dying vegetables in his “victory garden.” All but declaring Newsom’s bid to become Governor dead, Bronstein writes, “Maybe he’ll get a legacy appointment to the Senate if Dianne is governor.” Harsh.

But back in their suites at 5^th and Mission, the bosses at the Chron re-anted in their war against all things progressive in San Francisco. In today’s Chronicle “news” coverage of the local election, Heather Knight admits to fitting "the facts" into the story provided to her by her corporate editors – that while “left leaning” candidates for Supervisor may be winning, SF voters are “surprisingly conservative on issues.”

Progressive (not ultra-liberal ) candidates swept the election in SF — from President to Community College Board. In an election where hundreds of thousands were spent attacking candidates for their opposition to JROTC, San Franciscans elected progressive School Board members who support alternative leadership development programs.

Despite getting outspent over $10 million to a few hundred thousand on ballot measures, progressives still won more than we lost — Yes on E, recall reform; Yes on J, Historic Preservation Commission; No on L, Community Justice Center; Yes on M, rent control; Yes on N, O, and Q, new revenues; No on P, takeover of the Transportation Authority; Yes on T, substance abuse treatments services; Yes on U, de-funding the war. Hardly a conservative sweep of the measures!

Of course, there is a significant legal difference between passing a measure and defeating one that would do the opposite. In this election, no significant bad measure passed – on the propositions, progressive gained ground and lost none (the only conservative measure to pass was Proposition V, the JROTC policy statement that is non-binding.) I guess it’s not surprising that this is not discussed in the Chron’s coverage.

Of course the progressive wins in the Supervisor races is the big news in SF politics. With well over $600,000 spent to defeat good, neighborhood-based progressive candidates, downtown came up empty once again. After their brutal assault on me 2 years ago, you’d think they’d learn their lesson. I guess old habits die hard.

Maybe one day we will have a newspaper that goes out and covers the news, based on the real facts. Until then, go to the blogs to find out what’s really going on.

(Reprinted from the SF Tenants Union)

Don’t Let Landlords & Realtors Buy This Election!

Protest & Picket at Board of Realtors , 301 Grove St. (at Franklin), This Thursday, October 23, 5:30 PM

This November , whether the Board of Supervisors remains pro-tenant, pro-labor, and progressive will be determined by what happens in the swing Supervisors Districts of 1, 3 and 11. These districts are open with current Sups. McGoldrick, Peskin & Sandoval termed out. These are swing districts which could go either way—if we want to maintain our majority on the Board we can’t afford to lose even one (see analysis below).

Rent control is at stake here—our rent control law is just a local ordinance which could be weakened or ended by a 6-5 vote of the Board of Supervisors!

Landlords & Realtors know this too. They’re spending hundred of thousands of dollars against the pro-tenant candidate in District 1 (Eric Mar), District 3 (David Chiu ) and District 11 (John Avalos) trying to buy this election for their candidates: Sue Lee in D1, Joseph Alioto in D3 and Aasha Safai in D11.

Join us this Thursday, 10/23, as we protest & picket the realtors and landlords who are trying to subvert democracy. Gather at the Board of Realtors at corner of Franklin & Grove Streets at 5:30 PM .

See the excellent article and chart in the Bay Guardian showing how this election is being bought.

Analysis of district races from Tenant Times

With 3 Swing Districts Open This Fall, Board of Supervisors Could Turn Against Tenants, Endangering Rent Control & Other Renter Protections; Districts 1, 3 & 11 Key to Our Future Here

Having soundly defeated Prop 98 in June, we’ve all felt comfortable that rent control is safe. But an equally serious threat looms ahead. Rent control is simply a local ordinance, not a state law. As such it can be amended or repealed by a simple vote of the Board of Supervisors . A simple 6-5 vote would do it. For many years, tenants have enjoyed a pro-tenant majority on the Board, even if at times a slim majority. Right now, we can consistently count on 6 votes, can usually get 7 votes and can occasionally get 8 votes.

This November , 3 of our consistent Supervisors are termed out: Jake McGoldrick in District 1, Aaron Peskin in 3 and G Gerardo Sandoval in 11. It wouldn’t be such a big deal except that these three all represent "swing" districts which include a mixture of tenants and homeowners and high and low incomes and all analysis concludes that these districts (1 is the Richmond, 3 includes Russian Hill, Chinatown & North Beach and 11 is the Excelsior) could easily elect either a pro-tenant or pro-landlord Supervisor in any given year.

When District elections were brought back in 2000, tenants won a clean sweep of these 3 seats. But that was due largely to strong backlash against Willie Brown and his aggressive development policies. There is no similar dynamic this year so these seats are considered wide open. In each of the three, there are 2 candidates—one strongly backed by tenants (and labor and the Democratic Party ) and one strongly backed by landlords, realtors & developers—who are running first and second in the polls (well ahead of any other candidates) so come November these seats will remain pro-tenants or radically change to pro-landlord.

Remembering that rent control can be amended (i.e. weakened) or even repealed, the stakes are really high and the pressure is on to win all three seats. Losing just one would be bad, losing two would be very, very bad and losing all three would be disastrous:

•If we lose just one seat, our majority on the Board becomes tenuous or disappears . We would have 5 solid votes and could sometimes muster up 6 or 7. We’d never be able to get enough to override a Mayoral veto and landlords would occasionally be able to pass measures weakening protections or raising rents.

•If we lose two seats landlords would have a solid majority . Tenants would have just 4 solid votes and probably could usually get 5 votes. Landlords would have 5 solid votes and would usually be able to get 6 votes and sometimes 7.

•If we lost all three seats, rent control as we know it would be gone . Tenants would then have just 3 solid votes and would usually get 4. Landlords would have 6 solid votes and would usually have 7 votes. Though a total repeal of rent control is probably unlikely, with such a strong majority it’s certain that there would be a major overhaul of rent control at City Hall and higher rent increases and easier evictions being the most certain outcomes.

The 3 key races:

District 1–The pro-tenant candidate is School Board Member Eric Mar , while real estate interests are backing Sue Lee. Mar has solid name recognition and of the three key races he’s probably in the best shape, though polls show he has just a slim lead (and this before a barrage of negative mailers and phone calls hit the district. The Richmond District is almost 50-50 tenants-homeowners and on tenant ballot measures usually votes pro-tenant by a slim majority.

District 3–David Chiu is backed by tenants while landlords are backing Joseph Alioto III. District 3 is a very diverse district in many ways with some parts of it similar to the Tenderloin while other parts are more like Pacific Heights & the Marina. Its neighborhoods include North Beach , Russian Hill, Polk Gulch & Chinatown; parts of the district are very pro-tenant and progressive while other parts are very conservative so there’s a real fight here. Alioto-Chiu are 1, 2 in the polls with all others far behind. What’s particularly scary about District 3: Joseph Alioto is Michaela Alioto’s brother and we all know how rabidly anti-tenant she is. This sister-brother team on the Supervisors would be deadly for tenants.

District 11–The candidate backed by tenants, labor and progressives is John Avalos while real estate interests are backing Aasha Safai; once again these two are 1-2 in the polls well ahead of all others. District 11, largely the Excelsior, is the toughest district from a tenant perspective as it is largely a homeowner district. It’s a working-class neighborhood and labor unions (who all endorse Avalos too) have much influence here.

Unsurprisingly, landlords, realtors and developers have been funneling thousands of dollars into these three districts trying to swing the election their way.

Get involved in these campaigns (even if you don’t live in these districts) if you want to keep ret control safe and spread the word about these key races.

Eric Mar for Supervisor

4328 Geary Blvd., SF, CA  94118
415- 505-2961

David Chiu for Supervisor

1323 Polk Street, SF CA 94109
415-441-8393

John Avalos for Supervisor

4802 Mission (at Onondaga), SF, CA 94112
415-585-3916