Wednesday, February 27, 2008

SD City Council 7: Who’s on first?

After what appeared to be a sustained campaign to stick something on her, the right-wingers won in getting the Emerald campaign to reveal her donors.

I’m not here to debate the merits of whether what Marti did was right or wrong. What concerns me is that she responded to this matter in a way that the accusers wanted her to. In doing what was asked, her campaign has become reactive rather than active.

In letting the Republicans set the tone, the Boling campaign could lead the Emerald campaign into a place it doesn’t want to be in and pull out a win. I believe it was The Art of War that emphasized never letting your enemy set the battlefield otherwise they will set it to their advantage and you will lose.

Remer is know for wasting a lot of money on mail and getting it out late, not cultivating strategy and building winning coalitions. As far as I know, Jacobson has never run a race.

I am now raising a flag of warning to the Emerald camp that this is their race to lose. The early signs are there. This is far from over and I hope that this post won’t forecast the future.

Nevertheless, as someone who reflexively spits out Kool-aid, I have to call this one as I see it, without the sugary-sweetened goggles on.


Anonymous said...

Lorena Gonzalez in her hubris is walking around telling people we have this one "in the bag." If Lorena loses the 7th, she should lose her job along with it.

It's time for a reality check people! Irrespective of who you are backing, we can count on D3. We aren't going to win in D5--no way no how. Talk of making DeMaio "work for it" justs wastes money we need in D7.

D1 there's a chance, but it seems headed to November. And labor isn't even focusing on this seat.

Even if the R's take D1, if we lose D7 we lose a Majority on the Council. And if that happens, leadership at Labor Council and public safety unions all have some explaining to do.

Anonymous said...

Oh, for all her experience with elections, Lorena should know better. Elections are never "in the bag". Hillary 4 months ago? How about Lorena's CD2 race?

Good insight, though, on this post. My thoughts exactly. Marti fully complied with campaign disclosure laws, but April - trying to find something to stick to Marti - made up higher standards than required under the already strict election code, and then wondered why Marti didn't do it? uh, because she read the law and followed it! But now, Marti's campaign looks like it is following April's lead.. not a good response as it gives April a chance to be a "leader in transparency". April laid bait and Marti's team scooped it right up. I hope it doesn't sting much because it can be crafted into something April can ride for a short while, until the next trick...

Anonymous said...

This is only about Lorena if Labor has an active hand in the campaign. I don't doubt that the will, but will they be following their own playbook or the one proved to them by Emerald's people? Therein lies the difference.

As of today, I hope Labor has Plan B in the wings for this race because Remer's track record is not encouraging when he has had to win.

Anonymous said...

Who is Jacobson?

Anonymous said...

The alarm bells should be ringing right about now in Marti's campaign. Her fundraising is slower than expected and she has a consultant who cannot win a close race. does she even have a field campaign?

Anonymous said...

I think Jacobson is a Xema Jacobson who is her campaign manager. Either way, nothing should be taken for granted in SD politics (remember what Strong Mayor + Donna Frye almost did to the "establishmant").

Anonymous said...

I did my homework. Jacobs.

I think Jacobs and Dichiara know what they are doing. Just ask Lorena and Francine.

Anonymous said...

I think the cronies on the right should be not come to the left's blogs and act like they are democrats (1st and 2nd post). Clearly, as the attack started against Lorena on Red County this morning, the right is nervous that she is being effective and trying to bring her down. It would help if they understand labor. Lorena's job has about 1% to do with the 7th Council District, if that. She runs a labor council. She deals with unions, organzing legislation, and yes politics. How did she become the campaign manager for Marti Emerald?

Anonymous said...

Aw c'mon! Let the right wingers in. the more they show us how "blinded by their insecurities" they are, the more relish we can take in flicking their straw man arguments down. Besides, the fun part is checking just how "out of it" they really are.

Anonymous said...

8th comment: I'm the 2nd commenter and I'm a lifelong Dem, jackass. Sounds like the 1st commenter is too. Read a little deeper - it's not coming from a Lorena-bashing right-winger.

I am strongly concerned with winning this seat and know the city's players long enough to know who's quality and who's full of it. Lorena's not the campaign manager, but certainly as labor head will be influential in the winning (or losing) of the campaign. It truly is a big test for her (interesting, I say, because she couldn't even win her own close election in CD2). If she fails this test, as a lifelong Democrat and union supporter, I would question whether we want to continue having her, because it would be prudent to question her. Would you want to risk more election losses in future cycles? (but this is ALL speculative at this point! Let time tell.)

I'll continue volunteering for Marti - about all I can do - and hope that the decision makers including Marti get a little wiser, because the action surrounding this original post showed some lack of forethought.

Anonymous said...

As someone who was active in the Lorena race from start to finish I never recalled that a win for us was "in the bag." As I recall everyone scoffed that a Latina was even competitive in the 2nd district regardless of who she was. In fact I think everyone "in the know" was saying that Faulcouner was going to walk away with it. Even in the off chance he was going into a runoff it was going to be Rich Grosch. SO it was an uphill battle all the way and in the end he only won by 400 votes...

Anonymous said...

The first two post don't sound like right-wing nutters. And I think the point about who is leading who in this election is an important one. Marti should wipe April from the field, but this is a campaign and campaigns require work no matter how great the name ID is. I don't think she should have released her donor's information but she should be asking April just how she's helped better the lives of the citizens. At least Marti has a real record.

Anonymous said...

Funny, we are suddenly assigning every Democratic win or loss to Lorena and the Labor Council, rather than Jess Durfee and the Party. Doesn't that seem a bit odd to anyone else?

Anonymous said...

Whenever the Dems have a firing squad, they stand in a circle. Let's get real.

1. Setting the agenda. Last weekend onthe Cubbison Sat show, Marti wiped the floor with April. Marti slammed April for her actions on Mayor Murphy's Blue Ribbon Committee when she refused to blow the whistleon the city's deteriorating financial situation (and this is a lady who is supposedly a CPA) and prevented the truth from coming out before the city borrowed $170 million for the ballpark. I think the SEC rapped the city's knuckles for failing to make these disclsoures. They should be holding April accountable also. She knew. And she withheld the info.

This seems like a far more serious and substantial issue than the $25 contributors.

If you want to blog about something useful, blog about why Cubbison is on that issue but the U-T is covering it up and protecting April.

2. I can't believe the sexism and racism in the criticisms of Lorena. There's NO report ANYWHERE of Lorena saying D7 is "in the bag". Quite the contrary, Lorena has stood up in front of nummerable meetings and decalred that we can't take anything for granted an have to go all out in D7.

Anonymous said...

Marti, here.

I must admit I have spent far too many hours reading blogs these past few weeks: The hateful, deceptive posts on Red County and now the bickering on
Politico San Diego.
It pains me and compels me to comment.
First of all, I did not cave in or roll over or succumb to pressure in releasing the names of donors who contributed less than $100 to our 7th District campaign. I am proud and honored to share their names and have their support.

But truth is, the SD Municipal Code does create a loophole for some donors who want to remain anonymous. My opponent knows this well, since she has fostered this practice with her many political clients and in her own previous unsuccessful campaign for public office.

My opponent's so-called challenge provided the perfect opening for our campaign to not only share the identities of our donors but to offer a solution to this particular obsticle to full disclosure.
I will keep my promise if elected and close this convenient loophole.
This is the difference between my campaign and that of my opponent.
She is intent on throwing barbs and creating distractions.
My campaign is dedicated to identifying and solving problems.
I think we all recognize my opponent is disingenuous in her criticism.
My campaign staff and volunteers also recognize the issues which are truly important to the people of this city.
Voters are concerned about San Diego's financial health.
They want their streets repaired, parks maintained and libraries and rec centers open.
They want to know that when they dial 911 a police officer, paramedic or firefighter will arrive in time to save their lives.
We and our neighbors want safe and affordable neighborhoods, jobs that pay living wages and a clean, healthy environment.
We want government that will plan ahead for the resources we need to keep our region and economy strong and vibrant.
As my volunteers and I walk precincts, not one person has asked us to name our donors.
What they ask is if we have the political will to make tough decisions and solve the city's problems.
The people of this city are hungry for honest leadership and eager to cast their votes for candidates who have integrity and vision.

For those of you who are genuinely concerned about the outcome of this race, please accept this post as an invitation to join our campaign and help us win in June.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Marti, if this is you, thanks for chiming in. And, for your own sanity, it's best not to jump in on the blogs.

Anonymous said...

Marti, bless you for wanting to improve the election code - but even as a strong advocate for transparency, don't go rushing on promises to fix this.. it's not something that's broken!

First, the $100 threshold is a state (FPPC) requirement and spelled out on the form itself. City regulations in ECCO just mirror this requirement.

Second, some donors want the ability to contribute without having their information open to public review (and, as consequence, open to anybody else grabbing their information and endless solicitations in the mailbox). Think retirees on fixed income, not big developers. Somewhere in history, decision makers wanted to find a threshold that would balance those donors that wanted some right to privacy, and those that should be considered "signficant contributions" and therefore subject to public disclosure. They set this threshold at $100, which is very reasonable (Federal reporting threshold is $200).

Fact remains, April made something out of nothing and baited you - and you bit. Next time try pointing out that since she can't find anything substantive to attack you on, she's resorting to plain ol' making-shit-up. Or put it in your Good Glenda tone, of course. Next thing you know, she'll accuse you of violating neighborhood code compliance by posting too many yard signs in too many people's yards.

(Think about that for a minute.)