Author Archives: gdewar

One final thought on the Ma/Reilly debate – and the issue of media coverage of campaigns in generals, as I issue a big raspberry and a rap on the knuckles to the Bay Guardian.
Why? Simple. This editorial, from Bay Guardian editor Tim Redmond loudly complained about the “lack of candidates” in the race in AD 12, and took a decidedly condescending tone towards Janet Reilly.
This, despite the fact she’s running a great campaign, and is likely one of the very few people running in the state much less so-called Liberal San Francisco on the issues the BG and “progressives” claim to care about. I guess you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t at the Guardian. At least self-styled “progressive” politicians are supporting Reilly!
As Mr. Redmond and co. point a finger at The Political Establishment, though, they’re going to notice 4 fingers pointing right back at them. That’s because both candidates have been running since last year, and this seat has been an “open” race for 2006 for a long time now. Everyone knew that.
Yet, the Guardian’s news coverage of the race, starting last year, has been barely noticeable, and I have seen no proclamations about this race, or the “lack of candidates” a year ago, 9 months ago, 6 months ago, or even 3 months ago. Yet now, 2 months before the election, the Guardian takes a “pox on both of you” tone, and treats a fresh face in politics like dirt. For shame.
Memo to the Guardian crew: Perhaps if you spent a little less time with dry cover stories about “Burning Man,” and other psuedo-edgy fare, and spent more time on, oh I don’t know, covering the politics and issues affecting the lives of ordinary San Franciscans with the investigative flair the paper was once known for in the old days, perhaps not only we might have candidates that are “better” in your view, but you might also find it easier to fend of challenges from chain papers who have you in their cross hairs.
Just a thought.

Running for a state Assembly seat in San Francisco isn’t like running anywhere else in the state. Unless there’s an open seat with no incumbent, they are rather placid affairs. When there’s an open seat, however, things get more interesting.
That’s because for all intents and purposes, the person who wins the AD seat in the June primary will likely serve in that seat for 6 years, barring a major catastrophe or an aspiration to even higher office. Thus, votes in San Francisco’s AD 12 have an extra special responsibility to check out Democrats Janet Reilly and Fiona Ma before they vote in the primary.
However, that’s easier said than done. It seems last week’s debate, sponsored by the San Francisco Women’s Political Committee is apparently the only chance voter’s had to hear these candidates talk to each other and to voters about why they deserve what will most likely be a 6 year term in the Assembly.
To her credit, Janet Reilly had suggested more debates where voters could hear the candidates, ask questions, and get past prepaid media to make their decision, but unfortunately, it seems Fiona Ma’s campaign, unwilling to “legitimize” their challenge, only agreed to this debate, which gave all the major questions of the debate in advance. Hmm.
I’m the first to suggest that the traditional debate format of 2minute1minutebackandforth doesn’t do much to get past the 30 second sound-bites of TV ads and the 8-second rule of mail pieces. That said, since nothing better is on the horizon, this is all I, and my fellow voters in AD 12, have to go on that won’t be an ad of some sort.
Since almost all the questions were given in advance, instead of really hearing much “debate” to compare, we had instead a chance to basically hear each candidate’s stump speech, separated into pieces. Most of the coverage of the event tended to focus on “stylistic” differences between the candidates – i.e. Ma grabbing the microphone and strolling out on the stage channeling her best Bill Clinton, while Reilly maintained a professional demeanor behind the provided podiums, for example.
And to be sure on many issues they did agree – both supported gubernatorial candidate Steve Westly’s idea to make community college free (like it was until about 20 years or so ago).
That said, the fact was there were some pretty big differences between the candidates on some pretty big issues. But you won’t hear them talk about these issues with voters and between each other in any debates before the primary where the questions were given in advance. Getting nervous? I am!

Continue reading →