via Facebook
By Jim Miller
Last week over at the San Diego Union-Tribune, Logan Jenkins had some fun pondering what might happen if the “Dems go dark” this upcoming mayoral election. His conclusion? It would push Faulconer to the top-tier of Republican candidates for Governor in 2018:
And, it should be deduced, a cakewalk sweetens Faulconer’s prospects in Sacramento.
In 18 months or so, Republicans will be looking for a governor candidate who can appeal to Latinos and independents as well as the conservative base. The Democrats have a long electable bench. Republicans? Not so much.
If Faulconer is re-elected by a landslide in a major Democratic city, he’s going to rise to the top tier of the GOP’s A+ list.
Within two decades of each other, Pete Wilson and Kevin Faulconer, two popular San Diego GOP mayors, could be governors.
If that comes to pass, local Democrats might be able to take some of the credit.
While it’s hard to take the prospect of Faulconer “appealing to Latinos” or winning a statewide race too seriously, Jenkins is right to note the failure of prominent progressive Democrats to step up to the plate and run for mayor during a presidential year and carry the mantle for the minimum wage, climate justice, and the needs of those San Diegans left out of the city’s dominant political narrative, like those who continue to be trapped in persistent poverty.
Indeed, in the wake of the last mayor’s race, far too many Democrats have been eager to give Faulconer–a mediocre politician who won in a low turnout, post-scandal, off-year election–a nearly free pass.
Outside of activist circles, there was never much of an effort to make his veto of the minimum wage and his shameless complicity in the sinking of the Barrio Logan plan stick to him.
These things, along with the deep inadequacy of his infrastructure efforts, his kowtowing to ALEC, and his doling out of largesse to our city’s shadow government might have (in another city with a real opposition party) been used to go after the mayor on issues of both competence and principle.
But nobody had any appetite for a fight.
Even worse, much of the attention of local progressives recently had to be turned to a failed attempt not to battle Republicans, but to get two elected Democrats in the House of Representatives to vote no on the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership.
The result: they screwed us.
And now, despite the change in the city’s demographics, the local party seems to be following the same old script of triangulation and retreat. Rather than rising to the historic challenge to change the game, San Diego Democrats seem to be saying to their base: “Sorry, we’re just not that into you, not when there is an easy seat in the state house to be had. You’re just too hard to get out to vote–I’m over you!”
I’d love to be proven wrong here, but this sure seems like the message being sent by the handful of folks who could make the mayor’s race competitive.
But maybe, some are hoping, if no real progressive will run, our savior will emerge from “the center” and run against Faulconer holding just enough unenthusiastic Democrats while drawing some independents to give the mayor a fight and pull money away from council races and ballot initiatives.
That’s hardly inspiring, but it just may be what we get if anything at all.
Sadly, the problem is the same today as it was in the aftermath of the Filner scandal when, in the 2013 column where I accurately predicted Faulconer’s election, I noted, “And though the demographics of the city [have] changed significantly . . . progressives don’t have a deep enough bench of electable candidates to go with this new electorate.”
Thus, at this point, 2016, an election cycle that once offered much hope, just might be transformed into a dismaying rear-guard action at best, at least in our minor league corner of the political universe.
Perhaps it’s time to build a bench. We can’t count on the starters.
Jim Miller
Latest posts by Jim Miller (see all)
- The San Diego Free Press Was a Gift - December 10, 2018
- Democracy Unchained: How to Win the Future - December 3, 2018
- Oligarchy Sucks: Billionaires Are Undermining Our Democracy and Killing the Planet - November 26, 2018
The Mayor will not reelected not way the Budget went they did not follow the dates of budget and have no CPA. So what I call a looking good paying bad budget.
Let’s just take stock for a moment, of what us “laggard” progressive voters have had to choose from to motivate us to get to the poles: a flacid minimum wage increase proposal that will be eaten up by inflation before it is ever enacted, a lack luster and uninspiring mayoral candidate in the last run, two botched council races, nepotism on a grand scale within the party establishment, shoulder shrugging for the homeless, abandoning Barrio Logan on the battle field, an outright failure to address corruption in this city – even worse, half of our elected officials are in bed with it.
The truth is that the establishment dems in this city only want progressives when it comes time to hold an election. Then, they want to lock us back up in the basement.
I will not support the gamesmanship of our central committee. Am I the problem because of that?
No. But I think it is time for progressives to recognize that the only way to gain real leadership in this town is to provide it ourselves. Apparently, we are the only group who realizes that service to the common good is not a cliché. It is a calling. And it is one that can only be serviced by political courage, not the self dealing that is rampant within our party today. We need leaders instead of politicians. People who will decide to run for office, not based on polling and fluffing their career, but on the need of people and issues in this city to be defended, represented and served. To do that requires someone who is in it for the fight, not necessarily the win. We don’t need a candidate, we need a movement.
Ed Harris. David Alvarez. Chis Kehoe. Marti Emerald (Toni Atkins can join the Chargers Front Office; Todd Gloria could switch parties). I can only quote Timothy Holmberg here: “I will not support the gamesmanship of our central committee,” and, with a slight change “We don’t (lack) a candidate, we need a movement.”
While it is very disappointing that some of the “obvious” candidates, (Toni Atkins and Todd Gloria, for example), chose not to take on this race, I have seen no efforts from Democratic leadership that would discourage a progressive candidate from running. In fact, I think a strong, ideological, progressive is exactly what is needed in this race. We need someone who can energize the base, who is not afraid to define and defend a progressive vision for this city, because this race, if there is a race, will be about exactly that – how the progressive vision for this city is vastly different than what is being currently championed in the mayor’s office at city hall. Yes, the current local punditry tends to say, “why take on Mayor Faulconer?” he is simply too popular. But he is popular because he has not been challenged, because we have not debated his policies and priorities, we have not pointed out that vetoing a minimum wage increase, throwing millions, if not billions, of dollars at the chargers, may not line up with the desires of most voters. There are major issues in this city that are going unexamined because there is no race to debate them. This race is not just about winning or loosing, its about showing that we have an alternate vision for this city, and letting voters have a mechanism to show their support for this alternate vision at the ballot box.
I see no reason, that if such a candidate were to emerge that they would not receive the full support of the Democratic Party and Labor. Are there some factions of the both groups that may prefer a moderate? Perhaps, but right now there are no moderate candidates to back either, so if a strong, confident, progressive would step up to the plate, this is a great opportunity to prove to the more moderate wing of the party what a progressive can do with the party’s support.
So, if someone out there is a progressive, with a clear vision of how the major issues facing our city could be better addressed- climate change, homelessness, income inequality, access and influence at city hall, who wants to lead the dialog and the debate, I certainly hope they run for mayor, now is a great time to make your voice heard.
TODD GLORIA FOR MAYOR!
There are lots of differences in the voting records between Mayor Faulconer and Council Member David Alvarez.
http://tinyurl.com/20151006
To his credit, Council Member David Alvarez voted against the partial Refunding of Not To Exceed $250 million in Successor Agency and LMIHAF Bond Proceeds, which will be coming up again tomorrow on October 6, 2015 as Item 54 TAB Refunding Bonds Series 2015A and 2015B.
The issue is Shady because Civic San Diego already received approval for Bond Refunding back on September 10, 2012, then blames the State DOF for failure to Refinance bonds. The Bond Documents are missing vital information and have blank spaces in the Bond Refunding amount, and assumed interest rates. Also there are 51 Successor Agency/LMIHAF Bond Debts and Bank Lines of Credit. However, only 22 of the Bond Debts are being Refunded. The result is Massive Negative Arbitrage costs.
Please see the last Page 194 for a hand written note on the Refunding by a City employee names Susan.
“I am concerned with how much research was done with this company. As Mr. Stradling is the man I met at the elevator discussing the Billion Dollar Club. Is he going to make Big $ Money off San Diego? -Susan D.
They also differ on other issues including Civic San Diego, Convention Center financing, Tourism Market District issues, Chargers Stadium at Mission Valley, Barrio Logan Community Plan, etc.