Dear Rob, Ron, and Starchild,
1. As I recall, the LPSF has already voted to endorse this ballot
measure earlier, as Starchild has indicated.
2. If an Ex-Com vote is called to decide whether to send out a set of
postcards to all registered Libertarians before Sept 13, my personal
vote would be "No". I do not see this expense as essential, and given
that I have not seen any money come in, just go out, I would recommend
use of what we have cautiously. I have no problem at all with
donations for this mailing.
Regards,
Marcy
Dear Rob;
If the treasury could handle it I would recommend an ex-comm
discussion on sending a post card notice to ALL registered
Libertarians announcing the Sept.13 LPSF initiatives recommendations
meeting.
AND in the postcard highlight the url for the membership pdf
download and invite non-members to become a voting member by
downloading signing and bringing to the meeting with their check or cash.
With an estimated 2,100 registered Libertarians this would cost a
postcard postal rate of $.27 each for the postage or $527. This
hopefully would be offset by maybe a couple of new members signing up
like say 21 new members paying the minimally invasive $25.00 which
would cover the postage.
Unh Hunh - Yeah Right - Such a Plan.
Do you have the cd or whatever from the Department of Elections with
the most current registered voters through June 2008???
It is worth an ex-comm discussion on the disbursement and soon. It's
only three weeks away and the cards should go out like preferably this
week or next at the very latest using that USPS upload program.
Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
From: Rob <chair@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 12:51:24 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: More on the watershed DCCC event from
BeyondChron.org
Yes, good point Ron. It was just a straw poll. It's always possible
that the attendance at our official endorsement meeting could double,
making the prostitution decrim endorsement vote much closer. Of
course, those would all have to be new members, because I'm not aware
of any of the current paid members who would oppose the measure. I
suppose if that many new dues-paying people showed up, the silver
lining would be that it would fix our treasury problem.
Sadly for our treasury, I expect the official endorsement vote in a
few weeks to also be unanimous. I still think the results of the
straw poll need to be broadcast to the supporters of the decrim measure.
Rob
>
> Dear Rob;
> Small little point of order the ballot measure got a unanimous LPSF
straw poll YES but the official YES endorsement will have to wait
until the Sept.13 LPSF meeting.
> But if the "progressives" central committee Democrats could only
muster an 18-12 with 3 abstentions I agree there is no there - there
to emulate and based on their votes recommendations it's the same old
Democratic tax and tax and tax and spend and spend and spend.
> Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
> Hostis res Publica
> Morte ai Tiranni
>
>
>
>
> From: Rob <chair@>
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 4:34:40 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: More on the watershed DCCC event from
BeyondChron.org
>
> I've got to say that I don't feel like emulating the DCCC in any way,
> shape, or form.
>
> On that note, I hope every effort is being made to the sex workers
> community to show that the prostitution decrim measure just barely got
> endorsement from "the most progressive DCCC ever", while it got
> unanimous endorsement from the LPSF. If that doesn't give pause to
> some of the sex worker folks about their support of "progressivism,"
> nothing will.
>
> Rob
>
> >
> > Thanks, Marcy! Since we didn't manage to really discuss this
at the
> > meeting Saturday, I'd like to request a vote of the officers to
make
> > it happen. Unless somebody else has a better idea how to engage
more
> > fully in local politics.
> >
> > On a separate but related topic, I think we should also make
time
> > for Jawg Greenwald to tell us about her experience serving on the
> > civil grand jury. She's our only appointed local libertarian that
I'm
> > aware of -- how many of us even know what she's been doing?
> >
> > Love & Liberty,
> > ((( starchild )))
> >
> >
> > > Couldn't agree more with Starchild on this one. I would be
more than
> > > happy to assist in plans for candidates/ballot night.
> > >
> > > Marcy
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The article below gets into the kind of detail that I feel we as
> > > > local libertarian activists should be paying attention to. We,
as a
> > > > group, need to have more of a passion for, and an engagement
with,
> > > > the politics of this town if we are really going to be
effective. We
> > > > need to be able to get into the thick of things, cultivate
> > > alliances,
> > > > work on single issues, etc., without compromising an inch on
what we
> > > > believe in and ultimately want to achieve. We are often too
> > > > collectively insular, too uninformed, I think. Many of the
people I
> > > > see speaking out at neighborhood group meetings and such are
> > > > political country dolts when it comes to understanding
liberty, but
> > > > they are often more in touch with, and have a better grasp
of the
> > > > issues and the players in local politics than most in our group.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to know whether others understand what I'm talking
> > > > about here, see the importance of it. What do people think of my
> > > > previously posted suggestion that we co-host a candidate and
ballot
> > > > measure event with other pro-freedom and single-issue groups
as a
> > > way
> > > > in part of developing more of this kind of practical political
> > > > knowledge on an institutional level?
> > > >
> > > > Love & Liberty,
> > > > ((( starchild )))
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This is the most progressive Committee I have seen in 3
decades.
> > > > > Never before has every single progressive ballot measure
passed.
> > > > > And never before has every single moderate-conservative
candidate
> > > > > been stopped. Amazing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Congrats to us on Decrim. We rock!
> > > > >
> > > > > Rick Hauptman
> > > > >
> > > > > From: slava@ <slava@>
> > > > > Subject: [espu-members] article on the DCCC last night
> > > > > To: espu-members@
> > > > > Cc: carol@
> > > > > Date: Thursday, August 14, 2008, 11:36 AM
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=5977
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Progressives Take Over S.F. Democratic Party
> > > > > by Paul Hogarth? Aug. 14? 2008
> > > > >
> > > > > Review it on NewsTrust
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not Willie Brown?s Democratic County Central
Committee
> > > anymore
> > > > > ? nor is it Gavin Newsom?s. San Francisco Mayors used to
> > > control what
> > > > > happens at the DCCC ? when the influential body would vote on
> > > > > endorsements. But last night, progressives secured the party?s
> > > > > endorsement for November?s busy election ? from Eric Mar,
David
> > > Chiu,
> > > > > David Campos and John Avalos for Supervisor to the Clean
Energy
> > > Act,
> > > > > two revenue Measures, the Housing Charter Amendment and
opposing
> > > > > JROTC. Even College Board incumbent Rodel Rodis only got
five
> > > votes ?
> > > > > hurting his re-election prospects. House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi
> > > didn?t
> > > > > send her proxy ? which may have been to avoid voting on the
Clean
> > > > > Energy Act. But last night?s ?progressive rout? was not
without
> > > > > controversy: by a slim majority, the DCCC endorsed a ballot
> > > measure to
> > > > > decriminalize prostitution. And after failing to reach a
> > > position on
> > > > > Newsom?s Community Justice Center, members did a re-vote ?
in
> > > which a
> > > > > majority voted to endorse ?no.?
> > > > >
> > > > > Last night?s endorsement meeting at the DCCC ? a
pre-election
> > > ritual
> > > > > to determine how the Party endorses in local ballot
skirmishes ?
> > > > > proved how decisive running a progressive slate in June had
been.
> > > > > Supervisors Chris Daly and Aaron Peskin?s decision to run a
> > > ticket of
> > > > > DCCC candidates changed the makeup of a body long run by
more
> > > moderate
> > > > > politicos.
> > > > >
> > > > > We started to see this change shortly after the June
election ?
> > > when
> > > > > the new DCCC elected Peskin as Chair over incumbent Scott
> > > Wiener. But
> > > > > Peskin?s narrow 18-16 victory underestimated the extent at
how
> > > much
> > > > > the DCCC?s ideological bent had shifted ? because Wiener had
> > > gotten
> > > > > many votes from progressive members.
> > > > >
> > > > > But last night, we saw it?s a totally different ballgame.
> > > Progressive
> > > > > candidates for Supervisor triumphed ? while moderate
candidates
> > > Sue
> > > > > Lee, Claudine Cheng, Eva Royale and Ahsha Safai failed to
even get
> > > > > endorsed as the party?s second (or third) choice in their
> > > respective
> > > > > districts. A moderate incumbent on the College Board only
got five
> > > > > votes, while newcomers got the party nod. And for the 22 local
> > > > > propositions on the November ballot, generally the progressive
> > > > > position got the DCCC?s stamp of approval.
> > > > >
> > > > > Progressives Dominate Proposition Endorsements ?
> > > > >
> > > > > At a recent Harvey Milk Club meeting, Board of Supervisors
> > > President
> > > > > Aaron Peskin promised ?we will not go beyond Proposition
Z? on
> > > this
> > > > > November ballot ? capping the total number at 26. Peskin
lived
> > > up to
> > > > > that pledge, but we will still go up to Proposition V ?
making
> > > it a
> > > > > very crowded ballot, and thus an extremely long DCCC
meeting. The
> > > > > meeting started at 7:00 p.m., and public comment lasted
until 9:15
> > > > > p.m. ? with dozens of speakers ready to pack the room and
> > > urging the
> > > > > Committee members to endorse or oppose various measures.
> > > > >
> > > > > With a very substantive ballot ? which includes a hospital
> > > bond, two
> > > > > revenue measures, a housing charter amendment and a Clean
> > > Energy Act ?
> > > > > there was potentially a lot to talk about. But the two
measures
> > > that
> > > > > elicited the most public comment were both citizen-initiated
> > > > > propositions that dealt with a highly emotional issue: (a) an
> > > > > ordinance to de-criminalize prostitution, and (b) a policy
> > > statement
> > > > > supporting JROTC in public schools.
> > > > >
> > > > > On the Hospital Bond at SF General, the Committee didn?t
even
> > > take a
> > > > > roll call vote ? it was endorsed by acclamation. Aaron
Peskin?s
> > > > > Revenue Measures to raise the real estate transfer tax and
fix a
> > > > > loophole in the business payroll tax passed 27-3 and 30-1,
> > > > > respectively. Even the Affordable Housing Charter
Amendment ?
> > > which
> > > > > Newsom has vowed to oppose ? passed 25-6, with 2
abstentions.
> > > The ?no?
> > > > > votes were from DCCC members Tom Hsieh, Mary Jung, Matt
Tuchow,
> > > and
> > > > > Scott Wiener ? plus the proxies for Senator Dianne
Feinstein and
> > > > > Congresswoman Jackie Speier.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Clean Energy Act ? which has already gotten hit pieces
from
> > > PG&E ?
> > > > > got the endorsement by a vote of 22-6 (with 5 abstentions.)
> > > Virtually
> > > > > the same people who opposed the Housing Charter Amendment
voted
> > > > > against the Clean Energy Act ? while progressives stuck
> > > together on
> > > > > vote after vote with lopsided wins. Earlier this week, I
called
> > > upon
> > > > > House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to support the Clean Energy Act,
noting
> > > > > that she could vote at the DCCC to endorse it. Pelosi was
the only
> > > > > ex-officio member not to send a proxy to last night?s
meeting ?
> > > so we
> > > > > still don?t know where she stands.
> > > > >
> > > > > The DCCC voted by wide margins to endorse propositions to
(1)
> > > require
> > > > > mental health treatment on demand, (2) raise the number of
> > > signatures
> > > > > required to recall a Supervisor, (3) hold city elections in
> > > > > even-numbered years, (4) beef up the City?s historic
> > > preservation law,
> > > > > (5) make it City policy to defund the War in Iraq, (5) give
> > > retirement
> > > > > credit to city employees who took unpaid parental leave,
and (6)
> > > > > protect tenants from landlord harassment.
> > > > >
> > > > > In a blow to Gavin Newsom, the DCCC rejected many of the
Mayor?s
> > > > > propositions. By a whopping 26-5 margin, they endorsed a
?no?
> > > vote on
> > > > > his effort to restructure the County Transportation
Authority ?
> > > which
> > > > > many view as a mayoral power grab. The ?no more set-asides?
> > > measure
> > > > > (which Newsom proposed shortly after Daly?s Housing
Amendment) was
> > > > > rejected by a vote of 13-19. And Supervisor Michela
Alioto-Pier?s
> > > > > proposal to create a new ?independent rate-payer advocate? ?
which
> > > > > many progressives believe is designed to defeat the Clean
> > > Energy Act ?
> > > > > got the thumbs down last night by a 19-10 vote.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for the two emotional propositions, the Committee voted
to
> > > reject
> > > > > the JROTC policy statement 20-10 (with 3 abstentions) ? as
many
> > > > > questioned why school leadership skills must rely on a
military
> > > > > program. They endorsed the measure to Decriminalize
> > > Prostitution by an
> > > > > 18-12 majority (with 3 abstentions) ? despite concerns
about how
> > > > > poorly written the measure is. DCCC member Michael Bornstein
noted
> > > > > that the initiative says it can be modified by a two-thirds
> > > vote at
> > > > > the Board of Supervisors.
> > > > >
> > > > > One endorsement vote was not without controversy. On the
Community
> > > > > Justice Center, DCCC member Hene Kelly asked why this
measure was
> > > > > still on the ballot ? since the Board of Supervisors had
already
> > > > > agreed to fund it. Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, who was in the
> > > audience
> > > > > at the time, said because Chris Daly had promised to
defund it
> > > after a
> > > > > new progressive Board comes into office. The Committee then
> > > voted ?
> > > > > and with many members abstaining, failed to get sufficient
> > > votes to
> > > > > take a ?yes? or ?no? position.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because the Committee had taken no action, Chris Daly moved
for a
> > > > > re-vote at the very end of the meeting ? which upset some
> > > moderates,
> > > > > because Tom Hsieh and Meagan Levitan (who had voted ?yes?
> > > earlier) had
> > > > > left for the night. With fewer abstentions, the DCCC
endorsed
> > > a ?no?
> > > > > vote. Aaron Peskin said, however, that the two votes would
not
> > > have
> > > > > altered the outcome. The DCCC also took no position on
renaming
> > > the
> > > > > Sewage Treatment Plant after George Bush ? but nobody asked
for a
> > > > > re-vote later on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Progressives Dominate College Board Endorsements ?
> > > > >
> > > > > During the meeting?s public comment period, activist Roy
Recio
> > > urged
> > > > > the DCCC not to endorse longtime College Board incumbent
Rodel
> > > Rodis ?
> > > > > ?because he has not expressed good judgment in the past,
and the
> > > > > Pilipino community does not support him.? When it came time
for
> > > the
> > > > > Committee to make endorsements, Rodis only got five votes.
> > > Because the
> > > > > Community College Board is such a low-profile position,
> > > endorsements ?
> > > > > especially the DCCC ? matter a great deal. This may doom
Rodis?
> > > > > chances of re-election.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Committee also endorsed College Board incumbents Natalie
> > > Berg and
> > > > > Milton Marks ? the latter who has earned much respect from
> > > > > progressives (including an endorsement by the Harvey Milk
> > > Club.) Two
> > > > > young candidates for College Board ? Chris Jackson and Steve
Ngo ?
> > > > > also got the DCCC endorsement, which will seriously boost
their
> > > > > campaign.
> > > > >
> > > > > Progressives Dominate Board of Supervisors Endorsements ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Given the progressive composition of the DCCC, there was
never
> > > much
> > > > > doubt about which candidates for the Board of Supervisors
would
> > > get
> > > > > the endorsement ? at least for first place. But because
Ranked
> > > Choice
> > > > > Voting decides these elections, the Committee reserved the
> > > option of
> > > > > endorsing up to three choices for Supervisor in each District.
> > > > >
> > > > > If a Democratic candidate for Supervisor failed to get the
party?s
> > > > > endorsement for ?first choice? in their district, they could
still
> > > > > potentially get endorsed as ?second? or ?third choice.?
> > > Therefore, not
> > > > > getting a ranked endorsement is really a reflection that the
DCCC
> > > > > effectively doesn?t support that candidate.
> > > > >
> > > > > After Eric Mar secured the ?first-choice? endorsement for
> > > District 1,
> > > > > the DCCC debated whether his main opponents ? Sue Lee or
Alicia
> > > Wang ?
> > > > > should get a ?second choice? or ?third choice? endorsement. ?
> > > Whatever
> > > > > your position is on Ranked Choice Voting,? said Scott
Wiener, ?the
> > > > > City adopted it. And when you have multiple qualified strong
> > > > > candidates, we?ve typically endorsed them. We need to be as
> > > diverse a
> > > > > party as possible.? But Rafael Mandelman argued that there
were
> > > > > ?significant differences? ? especially on tenants? rights ?
> > > between
> > > > > Mar and the other candidates.
> > > > >
> > > > > When it came time to vote for a ?second choice? in District
1, No
> > > > > Endorsement got 18 votes, Plan C member Sue Lee got 11
votes and
> > > > > Alicia Wang got 3 votes. Only Eric Mar would get the
Democratic
> > > Party
> > > > > endorsement.
> > > > >
> > > > > In District 3, David Chiu easily got the endorsement for
?first
> > > > > choice.? Some members then argued that Denise McCarthy
should get
> > > > > endorsed for ?second choice? because: (a) she?s a
progressive with
> > > > > similar views to Chiu, and (b) it?s important for the
party to
> > > endorse
> > > > > a viable woman candidate. But Chris Daly argued that
McCarthy
> > > was not
> > > > > a true progressive ? citing her record on the Port
Commission.
> > > Peskin
> > > > > disputed some of the points that Daly raised, and McCarthy
won the
> > > > > ?second choice? endorsement.
> > > > >
> > > > > No District 3 candidate got enough votes to earn a ?third
choice?
> > > > > endorsement ? despite efforts by the moderates to push
Claudine
> > > Cheng.
> > > > >
> > > > > In District 9, David Campos got the ?first choice?
endorsement
> > > with 22
> > > > > votes ? followed by Eva Royale at 9 votes and Eric Quezada
at 8
> > > votes
> > > > > (another candidate, Mark Sanchez, was ineligible for the DCCC
> > > > > endorsement because he?s a Green.) After the vote, Chris
Daly
> > > urged
> > > > > his colleagues to give Quezada the ?second choice?
> > > endorsement. ?It
> > > > > would be a disappointment to shut him out after all the
years
> > > he put
> > > > > it on for the community.?
> > > > >
> > > > > But Quezada failed to get enough votes to earn a ?second
choice?
> > > > > endorsement. Neither did Royale, and so the DCCC only
endorsed
> > > Campos
> > > > > for District 9.
> > > > >
> > > > > In District 11 John Avalos beat Ahsha Safai for the ?first
choice?
> > > > > endorsement by a 19-13 vote. State Senator Carole Migden?s
proxy
> > > > > initially voted for Julio Ramos, but switched their vote to
Avalos
> > > > > when it looked close. Safai then failed to get ?second choice?
> > > > > endorsement by a 17-15 vote. Aaron Peskin initially voted
for
> > > Randy
> > > > > Knox, but switched his vote to No Endorsement when it looked
> > > like a
> > > > > close outcome.
> > > > >
> > > > > Supervisors Carmen Chu (District 4) and Sean Elsbernd
(District
> > > 7) got
> > > > > the DCCC endorsement with little difficulty ? in part
because most
> > > > > progressives voted for them. In District 5, the Committee
voted by
> > > > > acclamation to do No Endorsement in the race ? in part
because
> > > many
> > > > > support Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who as a Green cannot
get the
> > > > > Democratic endorsement. Mirkarimi faces no serious opposition.
> > > > >
> > > > > The DCCC postponed endorsements for the School Board until
August
> > > > > 27th, because two additional candidates (both registered
> > > Democrats)
> > > > > turned in papers before yesterday?s filing deadline at
5:00 p.m.