FYI, the cost for sending postcards to the 2100 registered
Libertarians in San Francisco would be $639.98.
That's more than the cost of a year's worth of quarterly postcards to
the 200-some-odd current and lapsed members of LPSF/LPC and LP National.
I think given the expense, we'd need pledges totaling at least $600
before we could consider doing such a mailing. But I'm all for an
event in GG Park late September or early October inviting every
registered Libertarian in the city. I'm just skeptical that we'll
raise enough money to cover those invitations.
Of course, that doesn't preclude us from doing a similar event and
inviting the 200-something on our more targeted list. But really,
since we're already going to the expense of putting out quarterly
postcards, we ought to plan these sorts of things far enough in
advance to not require sending out a special postcard for just one
event. Had we planned this event even just a month ago, we could have
put it on the last postcard. I suppose anything we plan now could go
out on an Autumn postcard.
So, if you guys can find us 600 bucks, we'll do this.
Rob
Dear Marcy;
Then lets put an agenda item on the agenda for a special Calling All
Libertarians meet up at some more or less centrally located parking
and Muni accessible Venue and pick an appropriate Special Date
like Halloween Week (?) Meet The Candidates Night (?) Turkey Night
(?) Xmas Holiday Night (?) or a Just for the Heck Of It Night (?)
with beer and munchies and pizza or bat wings or whatever.
BTW: Pledges should be limited to pledging ones troth or the Pledge
of Allegiance. But pledges in politics??? : - ) : -) 
From the Congressioanl Record:
I Senator Mugglesbottom do hereby solemnly pledge that should my
esteemed colleagues Senator Frumpfroth and Senator Snifflephart do
hereby agree to just as solemnly pledge to agree to the first part of
the third part of the fourth reading we will pledge to work together
until the taxpayers only have lint left in their wallets.
I do so publicly solemnly pledge.
Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
From: Amarcy D. Berry <amarcyb@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 8:43:34 PM
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: More on the watershed DCCC event from
BeyondChron.org
Dear Ron,
You are, of course, correct on the technicality of an endorsement
granted before endorsement time. My only wish was to remind the
membership that we "pledged" to endorse by pre-endorsing, and it would
be a shame to go back on that pledge.
You are also correct that anyone hoping to make money needs to invest
money...wisely. Rob, I believe, has expressed that an endorsement
meeting is not very exciting. So I personally would not vote to spend
LPSF funds inviting all registered Libertarians to attend.
Perhaps a better use of funds would be to send invitations to all
registered Libertarians to attend a Libertarian bash at the LP Meetup
Group, with free beer (i.e. LPSF buys one barrel or something), and
meet our local candidates, ballot initiative authors, bla bla.
Regards,
Marcy
>
> Dearest Marcy;
> For the record you may recommend a ballot initiative measure for the
benefit of those gathering signatures to place the measure on the
ballot so they can say the LPSF recommended placing the initiative on
the ballot to potential signers.
> You can not endorse a ballot initiative until it has been approved
for placement on the ballot by the Dept Elections. At the Sept 13 LPSF
meeting the LPSF then may if it so chooses by the endorsement of those
present and voting with a majority vote of 50% plus 1 to endorse the
ballot initiative Proposition K and endorse a vote of YES. Endorsement
speaking wise or not so wise or not even wisely.
> The mailing to the registered Libertarians absent the funds thereof
to finance the endeavour is an endeavour to attract more dues paying
members. Yes doanations for a mailing would be gratefully accepted.
The intent is to let registered Libertarians know there is an active
LPSF and to come on down and join the fun and bring your donations.
> Yes a treausary filled with cobwebs and dust bunnies and green moldy
things is not a pleasant thing to behold. Sometimes you have to spend
money to make money. If not a full mailing to all the registered voter
Libertarians then perhaps a limited mailing to registered Libertarians
within the general neighborhood of Milanos in Sunset - Richmond? I
believe the cd disk should allow voter pull ups by precincts or some
such thing like that for targeted mailings.
> Sooner or later we do have to attempt doing something like this or a
separate invite to all registered Liberatarian dinner party pot luck
chicken in every pot smorgasboard whatever get together.
> Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
> Hostis res Publica
> Morte ai Tiranni
>
>
> From: Amarcy D. Berry <amarcyb@>
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 5:22:55 PM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: More on the watershed DCCC event from
BeyondChron.org
>
> 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
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Starchild <sfdreamer@>
wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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