Disinfo Rehab

Sometimes, a situation presents itself that forces you to make a bad choice. I call it the "Geraldo VS. Nazis Effect." It's named after that famous TV incident when Nazi skinheads on the now-cancelled Geraldo Rivera afternoon talk show got into a ruckus and chucked a chair at Geraldo, busting his nose. One was left with a bad choice - do you root for the skinhead Nazis for bashing Geraldo's nose, or do you root for Geraldo?

Either way, you're stuck. At the time, San Francisco comedian (and now the voice of Spongebob) Tom Kenny suggested "Why can't James Dean come back from the grave, kick Geraldo's ass, and go back from whence he came, so we don't have to root for Nazis?"

You get the idea.

This week, the Bay Guardian presented such a situation, with regards to fliers in the Mission, although as is the case with that publication, they didn't see it that way. It seems that there's a rumble between folks who want to keep the Mission District clean, and the infamous "International A.N.S.W.E.R" folks, who put up all those posters and fliers all the time.

Now, I say "infamous" because there are a lot of people who are very critical of A.N.S.W.E.R. and their tactics, as they don't just advocate an end to the war in Iraq, but for a lot of other stuff that many people who oppose the war in Iraq want no part of, and do not support.

That ranges from supporting the agenda of the Worker's World Party (Yeah, I was surprised such a thing still existed too) and some have made some serious charges regarding anti-Semitism and ANSWER. Plenty of folks on the left side of the political spectrum have been very vocal and detailed in their critiques as well.

I understand that some might find these charges debatable. Fine. That said, I know a lot of mainstream folks who don't like the Iraq War resent the hell out of the fact that a small group of busybodies has managed to hijack the permit process and the media spotlight for a group that has supporters of Slobodan Milosevic in their ranks, among others. So when I read this article that basically says I have to choose between standing up for a clean and safe Mission or standing up for "free speech" on behalf of these guys, I'm caught in a bind.

I don't like restricting people's ability to get the word out, and San Francisco is seeing a new wave of laws and fines to keep people from putting up signs about politics, their garage sale or lost dog, or whatever. Not a fan of rubbish, still, the idea that we're gonna fine people into oblivion for some fliers might seem a bit extreme.

Instead I'm left with the "Geraldo vs. the Nazis" choice: support The Man and possible future laws that might hurt free speech for Good Guys and Gals, or support "free speech" by supporting ANSWER, a group with more distasteful political and social baggage than the Titanic. May I vomit now, please?

I suppose if the article had any mention of local businesses, or a kid posting "lost dog" fliers getting the Hell fined outta them, I might have been able to tolerate this (long) article about the ANSWER people as a necessary evil in an open society - the old "yes they suck but we gotta let the weirdos have their say so everyone can" argument. No mention in the article of anyone else getting hit though - just a lot of whining from the self-styled La Revolucion folks. Hmm.

Since it seems from this article that perhaps someone is doing to ANSWER what it would do if it ever attained any real power, then frankly, I don't care. I seriously doubt if a group with views not in line with ANSWER's was getting hit with fines and whatnots by The Man that either the Guardian or ANSWER would give a tinker's cuss for their troubles.

That being the case, I think the next time someone tells me how horrible it is that people want a clean city and fine these trust-fund anarchists some money, I'm going to turn up the volume on the stereo and read a comic book. I certainly won't be giving too much of a crap what a bunch of Stalinists think, and I'll deal with the fallout for Good Guys and Gals at a future date. Maybe if these extremists can get tied up in court, the 60% of Americans nationally who are not nutjobs who do oppose the Iraq War can get something done besides smelly demonstrations.

The Super Cool folks at SFist.com beat me to the punch on this issue earlier today, having posted a shorter, more concise critique that makes some great points. Good job, SFist!

Posted by Greg Dewar at 6:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I don't watch the Colbert Report or the Daily Show most nights, but still like them when I get a chance to watch one. When I saw this, I laughed at just how perfectly they slammed back at Geraldo "Capone Vaults" Rivera.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 4:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

We're about 90 days out from Election Day, and elections in San Francisco are starting to catch some attention. Thanks to "Ranked Choice Voting" (or IRV, or whatever the cool kids are calling it these days), incumbents, such as Supervisors Chris Daly and Michela Alioto-Pier will not be in any serious danger of losing their jobs.

However, in the case of the Board of Supervisor's race in District 4, there is an open seat, as incumbent Fiona Ma won the Democratic Primary for Supervisor, so quite a few people are running for this seat. According to the SF Usual Suspects website there are at least 8 running so far, with two - current Ma aide Jaynry Mak and Douglas Chan considered front runners.

Here's where things get a bit strange. I knew of Jaynry Mak's campaign before anyone had said anything, simply because in my day to day travel in the Sunset, I've seen a LOT of Mak signs in Sunset businesses and homes that went up in what seemed like minutes after Fiona Ma's election was certified. All of them promiently displayed Ma's endorsement of Mak, so I figured that she had it cinched. Besides it is not cheap or easy to get that many signs up that fast for a first time candidate. So she must be doing something right, right?

Well, not according to the powers that be, including her boss, Supervisor Ma. If you opened up today's Chronicle, you were treated to this semi-insightful, semi-Incendiary tome on Mak's fundraising. Now, Mak has out-raised all of her opponents by a significant amount in a very short time - usually something that is seen as an advantage by campaign observers.

So, someone had to throw water on this party, and do so fast. The task of carrying out the hit came to Wade Randlett, of SFSOS, a group that bills itself as a voice of reason (but often sends out very angry emails to its subscribers). The hit was well played - suspicion (but of course no proof of wrongdoing) was laid heavily on the fact that some of her donors don't have white collar jobs, but gave money anyway. ""In my 20 years of raising money for elected officials, I've never seen anything so hard to believe," Randlett said." in the article.

Hmm. "Hard to believe." I think I hear this right. It's "hard to believe" that relatives of a candidate for office who are "Asian" and not "white collar" could get involved at the levels he and his colleagues do. Ok, perhaps that's unfair. But I find it "hard to believe" this was done out of some sort of civic do-goodness, especially without some real proof. If there's evidence, show me and I'll be the first to broadcast it. No proof? Then how about real issues, instead?

Even the San Francisco Sentinel joined in the chorus repeating the charges on their site. A well coordinated attack!

You can see where this is going. No one can prove this campaign has done anything wrong, so a cynical attempt is made to slur Mak and her supporters by insinuation of wrongdoing, but no proof of wrongdoing.

Now someone can print up a nice little independent expenditure hate mail piece, and by the time we're able to prove or not prove a thing, the election will be over and the damage is done. And best of all, her chief rival, Doug Chan, or any of her rivals, didn't have to get their hands dirty.

It is time once and for all for ethics agencies at all levels to stop letting themselves get played by politickers in these situations. It is of no help for some agency to audit someone and find them innocent 2 years after the election is over. We need better assessments of who is doing what right now so we, as voters can make an informed choice. If someone's breaking the law, I wanna know now. If someone's telling fibs, I wanna know now, also.

And yet you never hear The People Who Know Best talk about this - they are too busy trying to game the system with some wacky voting scheme to help fringe candidates. Meanwhile, you and I spend our time deciphering spin and gimmickry. The candidates and their allies don't spend any time listening to you, either. But at least someone gets some cash out of the deal - the consultants who come up with these ideas. Yay for them.

However, there is something else that smells bad here, and it is not checks from waiters. It's how a boss treats a loyal subordinate, in this case how Fiona Ma is treating her aide. Now I can let the dual endorsement go because elected officials sometimes have to do such things, even if it does make it confusing to the voters. Hey, things happen.

What is more striking is how SFSOS took the lead in this attack, given that Ms. Ma was a keynote speaker at their annual lunch gala, (where she extolled the virtues of Supervisorial staff such as Daly challenger Rob Black), not to mention the fact that her entire campaign team was given to candidate Douglas Chan as well.

Given that it's clear there's a preference for Mr. Chan over Ms. Mak, my question is - why even bother endorsing her at all, if Ms. Ma and her allies clearly prefer another candidate.

All I can say is that I would strongly suggest anyone following Ms. Ma up to Sacramento note this for future reference, should they need a job reference once they leave her office. It might not be as forthcoming as they would like, regardless of how hard they worked.

PS: I finally had the chance to see the pilot for Sucker Free City that was directed by Spike Lee. It is really a testament to how stupid Showtime is that they didn't pick this up.

Which, no doubt, made the cost of filming a show like that much more expensive than, say, some boring TV series about boomer pot smokers, but whatever. Check it out and see what could have been - an honest urban drama about SF that doesn't focus on superficial extremes, and was actually filmed here. Think of the jobs that might have been created, and won't be as a result. Oh, and those tax breaks won't do squat - someone needs to build a decent soundstage up here to lure this kind of ongoing business to our City.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Political campaigns are always seeking out new and innovative ways to reach voters. While most are content to do things as they've always been done, others, such as Ned Lamont in Connecticut, have found new and innovative ways to try and make their case to the voters.

However, current and future manager of campaigns should take note that for every groovy great new idea that works, there are about a million more that sound great in the "war room" but in the real world, fall flat. That's because the good ideas tend to come from regular folks who are smart and savvy, and the bad ideas tend to come from people who spend too much time cooped up in a campaign "war room" , spending all their time with like-minded people and read like-minded blogs and news sources. It ensures that whatever that walled-off-from-reality group comes up with will be bad for the candidate.

That's how you get some of the venal, negative ads we saw this past June and why you get boneheaded moves such as Mayor Frank Jordan's shower with some LA DJs on the eve of the election, or Dukakis in a tank. That's why it's so important for campaigns to have people around who aren't totally plugged into one particular sub-group or so totally in to politics they lose touch with reality.

Not all bad moves are game killers such as these. Others can simply add to existing doubts about a candidate, and reinforce an overall sense that the candidate is not ready for prime time. While the "war room" folks are patting themselves on the back for being so clever, the average voter reacts with a "huh?" or (worse) a "wtf?" .

Campaign 2006 in San Francisco already has such an example. Take a look at the late-starting campaign of Alix Rosenthal, who is trying to unseat popular incumbent Bevan Dufty who represents the Castro and surrounding neighborhoods on the Board of Supervisors.

Recently, the campaign sent out what was meant to be a clever "e-vite" to a fundraising event with a "cute" headline that suggested people to get in bed with Alix at a self-styled "Burning Man meets Cirque de Soleil" event. (No, I am not making this up.)

That in and of itself may not be so bad, aside from some eye-rolling it's produced amongst the echo chamber of political insiders and denizens of City Hall. But in a campaign where the candidate has already had to deal with a less than flattering "Burning Man" picture in the San Francisco Chronicle , eye-rolling comments about how how she's a "freak" in "freaky SF" , and the fact she's a non-gay woman running against a popular gay incumbent in the district with the Castro in it, well, you see what I mean.

Plus, relying on the SF Party Party for significant help is probably not a great idea. (Don't get me wrong, I am as entertained by the SFPP as anyone, and appreciate their views, but this is not helping Alix in the Get Taken Seriously Department.)

You can almost see the independent expenditure hit piece with quotes and that Burning Man picture in thousands of mailboxes this fall.

Lesson for all you aspiring and practicing politickers: an idea might seem like a great idea to you and the kids in the war room, but may, in fact, sink your campaign. Stop. Take a deep breath. Go outside. Talk to humans who don't spend all day reading blogs and cable news, who are based in the real world. If after a breather that oh-so-clever idea makes you have doubts, DON'T DO IT. Find someone cooler than you and smarter than you to come up with something better that actually works.

Your campaign will appreciate it, even if they don't tell you. Trust me.

PS: Special thanks to SFist.com for the link! Thanks!

Posted by Greg Dewar at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)