Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
SF: Opportunist Democrat Peskin's Proud Support of Prop N
San Francisco Democrat Supervisor Aaron Peskin of District 3 is a good example of why you should never vote for any Democrat or Republican at any level of government. Peskin, like his Democratic Party, opposed the anti-homeless Prop N when on the ballot, but now that he thinks political winds are shifting, he supports it. Clearly, he has no principles.
San Francisco Democrat Supervisor Aaron Peskin of District 3 is a good example of why you should never vote for any Democrat or Republican at any level of government. Peskin, like his Democratic Party, opposed the anti-homeless Prop N when on the ballot, but now that he thinks political winds are shifting, he supports it. Clearly, he has no principles.
This writer wrote to the 8 supervisors who were worth the bother, namely the allegedly pro-tenant supervisors, one of whom is a Green and the rest are Democrats. Democrat Peskin responded with a proud admission of his opportunism, based on the vote for Prop N in his district. He knows very well that people were lied to and that the same district always supports tenants and opposes landlord initiatives. District 3, the Northeast sector of SF, is mostly tenants and tenant petitions do very well in District 3. That is why Peskin opposed Props N and R: He knew he needed the tenant vote to win.
Like a typical Democrat, now that he is in office, he sings the reactionary tune because he thinks it will help him stay in office, proving that he has no principles, and proving once again that the Democrats exist to keep the Reds out of office.
The truth is, by supporting Prop N, Peskin makes it mandatory for everyone who is serious about opposing the reactionary agenda of Prop N to change your registration if you are still registered either Democrat or Republican.
It does not matter whether the office is partisan or non-partisan. A Democrat stinks as much as a Republican. CHANGE YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION NOW. LEAVE THE DEMOCRAT-REPUBLICAN PARTY NOW. It is time to toss the Democrat-Republican Party into the dustbin of history.
This writer wrote to the 8 supervisors who were worth the bother, namely the allegedly pro-tenant supervisors, one of whom is a Green and the rest are Democrats. Democrat Peskin responded with a proud admission of his opportunism, based on the vote for Prop N in his district. He knows very well that people were lied to and that the same district always supports tenants and opposes landlord initiatives. District 3, the Northeast sector of SF, is mostly tenants and tenant petitions do very well in District 3. That is why Peskin opposed Props N and R: He knew he needed the tenant vote to win.
Like a typical Democrat, now that he is in office, he sings the reactionary tune because he thinks it will help him stay in office, proving that he has no principles, and proving once again that the Democrats exist to keep the Reds out of office.
The truth is, by supporting Prop N, Peskin makes it mandatory for everyone who is serious about opposing the reactionary agenda of Prop N to change your registration if you are still registered either Democrat or Republican.
It does not matter whether the office is partisan or non-partisan. A Democrat stinks as much as a Republican. CHANGE YOUR VOTER REGISTRATION NOW. LEAVE THE DEMOCRAT-REPUBLICAN PARTY NOW. It is time to toss the Democrat-Republican Party into the dustbin of history.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
This is Peskin's choice. However, many who worked on his campaign in 2002 doing the crucial precinct work, tabling and phone banking voted against Prop N (democrats put this on the ballot and a majority voted for it). Many have already left the democrats. Many of these people will not be working for him in 2004 and will not work for his endorsement by other groups or parties. I know his aide Rose Chung (a republican) supports his position, but what about "progressive" Wade Crowfoot I wonder? SF Voter: Could you post his response to you about his voting for it because a majority in his district voted for it?
| Democrats exist to keep the Reds out of office.
Wait a sec, I thought the Greens existed to keep the reds out of office...
-marc
Wait a sec, I thought the Greens existed to keep the reds out of office...
-marc
While Peskin was personally opposed to Prop N, and campaigned as such before the measure passed, the majority of people in Peskin's District supported Prop N. Peskin is supposed to represent the people in his District. He sees that they support Prop N, so he is doing his job--representing the majority of people in his District vs. what most pols do and just cave in to special interest groups.
That's interesting, they support an illegal proposition that only exists to get Newsom in to the mayor's office, and was pumped full of money to disseminate it's lies.
Being against prop N isn't being a special interest group - it's being against the lies that N put out on the voters.
Being against prop N isn't being a special interest group - it's being against the lies that N put out on the voters.
>>> Being against prop N isn't being a special interest group - it's being against the lies that N put out on the voters. <<<
The Coalition on Homelessness (COH) is indeed one of the largest special interest groups in San Francisco. They make their living by keeping the problem of homelessness in existence. If the homeless problem were solved, they'd be out of jobs and political power, so they stymie every potential reform and go out of their way to keep the status quo which, as can be seen by the number of people still living on the streets, doesn't work.
Indeed, the various homeless social service agencies are among the city's largest landlords. They send their people to attend various meetings, be on various committees etc. The average person living in S.F. can't do this--they're working during the week when these meetings are held. Thus, the will of the majority is held hostage to a few well-connected homeless advocates who profit by keeping other people down--no different than what many here claim large corporations do except that corporations generally don't market to the homeless the way the COH does.
The Coalition on Homelessness (COH) is indeed one of the largest special interest groups in San Francisco. They make their living by keeping the problem of homelessness in existence. If the homeless problem were solved, they'd be out of jobs and political power, so they stymie every potential reform and go out of their way to keep the status quo which, as can be seen by the number of people still living on the streets, doesn't work.
Indeed, the various homeless social service agencies are among the city's largest landlords. They send their people to attend various meetings, be on various committees etc. The average person living in S.F. can't do this--they're working during the week when these meetings are held. Thus, the will of the majority is held hostage to a few well-connected homeless advocates who profit by keeping other people down--no different than what many here claim large corporations do except that corporations generally don't market to the homeless the way the COH does.
That is patently absurd. What keeps homelessness alive is the lack of affordab;le housing.
I am interested in starting/joining, an "Anyone But Gavin" voter block/community coalition targeting undecided voters and the lack of care for homeless, and underserved communities.
The intent is to build recognition and support base for the rest of the field... "Anyone But Gavin!" The end goal would be to bring homeless issues and comprehensive approaches to care to the forefront, and possibly recruit campaign volunteers for progressive candidates who will better serve SFs diverse populations.
I am concerned that Getty money and the JD (jack davis) tactics this affords will drown out or marginalize arguments crucial to Newsoms defeat. It may prove useful to rally undecided voters/prospective voters around a campaign to defeat Newsom, and other elected Prop N proponents, especially now when big money campaigns rule the PR roost months before the vote.
27% voter turnout? 175,000 (?) votes is hardly a mandate!
Best Regards,
Fed-Up Disgusted SF Voter and Concerned Citizen
cc: Sup. C. Daly, Dist 6; Homeless Coalition; POOR mag
The intent is to build recognition and support base for the rest of the field... "Anyone But Gavin!" The end goal would be to bring homeless issues and comprehensive approaches to care to the forefront, and possibly recruit campaign volunteers for progressive candidates who will better serve SFs diverse populations.
I am concerned that Getty money and the JD (jack davis) tactics this affords will drown out or marginalize arguments crucial to Newsoms defeat. It may prove useful to rally undecided voters/prospective voters around a campaign to defeat Newsom, and other elected Prop N proponents, especially now when big money campaigns rule the PR roost months before the vote.
27% voter turnout? 175,000 (?) votes is hardly a mandate!
Best Regards,
Fed-Up Disgusted SF Voter and Concerned Citizen
cc: Sup. C. Daly, Dist 6; Homeless Coalition; POOR mag
For more information:
http://www.geocities.com/anyonebutgavin/cl...
I've had enough! How 'bout you?
The SF CHRONic and other Newsom proponents would like us to believe that SF voters overwhelmingly supported Porposition N. Yet, it's apparent from the numbers that Prop N did not win by mandate, rather SF voters were alseep when Prop N passed. I think there was something like 27% turnout? Electoral politics may dismay and disgust, but staying away lets creepy, money grubs take control of the decision making process under which we all must live. Like it or not, (electoral politics that is) SF progressives should band together to ensure Newsom-Getty does not win in November. Enough is enough! Let's get a progressive into office? Not excited by the candidate field, well let's not turn away for that reason alone. Help keep Newsom out and all those who support his heartless anti-homeless plans!
The SF CHRONic and other Newsom proponents would like us to believe that SF voters overwhelmingly supported Porposition N. Yet, it's apparent from the numbers that Prop N did not win by mandate, rather SF voters were alseep when Prop N passed. I think there was something like 27% turnout? Electoral politics may dismay and disgust, but staying away lets creepy, money grubs take control of the decision making process under which we all must live. Like it or not, (electoral politics that is) SF progressives should band together to ensure Newsom-Getty does not win in November. Enough is enough! Let's get a progressive into office? Not excited by the candidate field, well let's not turn away for that reason alone. Help keep Newsom out and all those who support his heartless anti-homeless plans!
For more information:
http://www.geocities.com/anyonebutgavin/cl...
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network