As the City Attorney's race heats up, those of us on the left should be VERY worried about the shape of the race.
As of now, we have a far-right nut job with Jan Goldsmith, an empty-suit conservative with Brian Maienschein, an all-over-the-map, union hating democrat with Mike Aguirre and two candidates who can't seem to get traction.
Lee Burdick is actually quite sensible and would be a great candidate if anyone knew her, but conventional wisdom says she will need a lot of money to compete in this field. And I hear, she can't pull the fundraising.
So who does that leave for us? Anti-worker former school-tyrant Alan Bersin is threatening (and I do mean threatening) to enter the field. His likelihood of getting a dem party or labor endorsement is on par with Republican Maienschein.
So what do we do? Encourage Scott Peters to run for City Attorney. Sure, he over-waters his lawn and hasn't been a favorite of labor or the party in the past, but he is a lot better than the alternatives. His "big" negative of the pension mess is going to get lost with another Councilmember in the race. I have never been one to advocate for the moderate, but he does seem to be the only Democrat that could garner enough support from labor, elected officials, enviromentalists, maybe even the Party and present a united front against the nightmare match-up of Goldsmith / Aguirre. He has proven himself on a number of key issues this year, including marriage equality and wal-mart, and holds a decent record with coastal environmentalists. Let's not forget this guy was an Environmental Attorney and is a former Coastal Commissioner. He even took a courageous stand on toilet to tap. Best of all, he has the money to self fund. Sources close to the Councilmember say he is considering it.
It may be an unconventional choice, but Peters may be our only hope.
We could at least be pretty confident that he won't overreach. Or reach at all.
I guess I wouldn't have to completely throw up in my mouth as I fill out my ballot...
WHAT???????????????? Are you freaking nuts? Scott Peters is the guy who shakes in fear of the minority of voters in his district. The only reason the Dems backed him when he ran for reelection is to prevent a Republican from taking it. Going from Mike to Scott is going from the frying pan into the fire. Oh, and Scott may still be up indictment because of the Pension scandal.
In case you haven't checked, the federal probe is all but dead and it never climbed anywhere near the council as much as the U-T or others claim. The whole pension situation has been embellished beyond belief, very much to the detriment of workers and, by association, to progressive causes. Scott would be great. He's level-headed, smart, and he's challenged at every turn the popular but misleading storyline that Mike Aguirre has tired out ... to the advantage of Republicans.
You folks are in too much of a panic. Look at www.jangoldsmithforcityattorney.com
"Assemblyman Jan Goldsmith is fiercely independent" Capitol Weekly (Sacramento, July 28, 1997)
"Goldsmith is known for being a thoughtful, compassionate conservative with credibility across a broad political spectrum. His bipartisan nature and courage to take independent stands are precisely the qualities needed." The Bakersfield Californian (May 24, 1998)
"Goldsmith has a reputation behind the scenes as being one of the few tough-on-crime, lock 'em up advocates who is willing to tackle the less popular and infinitely more complex problem of preventative measures, i.e., early intervention for high-risk youth."
Los Angeles Daily Journal (November 1, 1996)
"We singled out Assemblyman Goldsmith of Poway as the brightest star for children this year. Assemblyman Goldsmith will be termed out in 1998, but in our hearts he will never fade from glory." California Children's Lobby (November, 1997)
Compassionate conservatism really worked out in the Bush Administration after all...
Yes, and lets not forget Goldsmith's record with labor as a legislator... conservative yes, compassionate? Maybe in comparison to Aguirre. No to Goldsmith. No to Aguirre. Run Scott Run.
what does everyone have against Alan Bersin? I would support Bersin, he definitely changed the mood and dynamics at SD City Schools when I was a student there and I think it was both good and bad but the truth is that Alan was picked for the wrong job, he had no educational experience so I completely understand the teachers unions about their opposition to Bersin but he isn't thinking about running for Supt or school board. If he was then I would be against it after all he was the wrong person for the supt job but for city attorney? Give me a break he is by far qualified as a former US Attorney and I think he would do a hell of a job as City Attny and would be a success story instead of the sorry SOB story he was when he was school supt. Give me a good reason why he shouldn't be our city attny other than the fact that he did a horrible job in a completely different position (education) that he was not qualified for because he is definitely qualified for City Attny.
So he had one government job and tanked so he'd be good at another one cause it's different? And he had a job in the law field so he'd be good at another one? And this rock repels bears because there are no bears around?
He didn't have "a job in a law field". He was THE US ATTORNEY for our region and the border Czar in the 90's. He did a good job and that itself qualifies as a good reason to believe he would be a good City Attorney. It isn't as bland as you make it sound like. There is actually some basis here that Bersin would be a good City Attorney but the teachers unions have resorted to throwing tantrums about Bersin entering this race. I think it is silly.
Post a Comment