I mentioned below that I am on the panel of questioners for NBC 7/39's live city attorney debate Sunday. I just caught the incumbent, City Attorney Mike Aguirre, on the phone and he made the surprising declaration that he was not going to show up for the debate.
I'm told by NBC people that he had agreed to the debate that was going to be moderated by anchor Marty Levin with a panel made up of me, Gene Cubbison and Susan Taylor.
What happened?
Aguirre said, basically, he wants to let the others fight it out for once.
"It's just better to let these guys have an opportunity to present themselves and let the community see what they have to offer. The community knows what I have to offer," Aguirre said.
He did say, however, he was going to keep his appointment to appear at a KUSI debate just before Election Day, June 3.
"I will do the last one because I think I should do at least one TV debate," he said.
He also said he skipped an interview with the Union-Tribune editorial board, which is considering its endorsement. The U-T, of course, infamously endorsed Aguirre in 2004. (As if there's any suspense. The U-T will undoubtedly endorse Judge Jan Goldsmith for city attorney and Jerry Sanders for mayor.)
The city attorney said the other city attorney candidates should have a chance to talk at these forums without it being "defined" by him.
"I've been scrutinized, it's time for those guys to let the public see what they have going without it turning into a slugfest with me," Aguirre said.
He may have a good point. I thought, a while ago, that it wasn't inconceivable that Aguirre would not make it past the primary. I thought it was at least possible. In that case, I imagined he would have to fight pretty hard right now to ensure that he got a ticket to the general election.
Now though, it looks pretty clear that the real uncertainty is who gets to go on to November to challenge Aguirre. In that case, it may actually be good for us to just look at Goldsmith, Council President Scott Peters, Councilman Brian Maienschein and lawyer Amy Lepine.
Interesting that CityBeat couldn't get behind Mike Aguirre for city attorney in the paper's endorsement issue.
Interesting theory:
We’ve come to conclude that city attorney is just not the right position for Aguirre. He’s long desired public office, and he finally got himself elected to one, but we believe he’s better suited to a seat on the City Council. He’ll argue against this, strenuously, but what he really wants to do is make public policy, and we think he’d be a damn-good policy maker.
The La Prensa San Diego newspaper's endorsement of Steve Francis for mayor (which I talk about here) is for some reason no longer available on the paper's website. Never fear, the Francis campaign has it as a pdf on its site here.
I'll be on Editor's Roundtable Friday to talk about the mayor's race and today's big news. What do you think about Standard and Poor's giving the city back its credit card?
I hope you've been following the Supporters Debates. Some are better than others. Next week, supporters of the city attorney candidates will have the forum. I haven't booked anyone yet for the incumbent. I was going to call around but I figured I could post it. If someone wants to nominate themselves or someone else to blog in support of Mike Aguirre, shoot me a note. On Sunday at 6 p.m., I'll be part of the panel asking questions of the city attorney candidates live on NBC 7/39.
Still waiting for Bob Kittle and the U-T editorial page to express as much disgust about the bad words the mayor, the mayor's staff, and the CCDC president used as they did in an editorial about the words the city attorney's deputy used. I probably shouldn't hold my breath.
Not long ago, La Prensa San Diego, a biweekly, bilingual newspaper endorsed Steve Francis for mayor.
It wasn't altogether surprising. La Prensa has never been a fan of Jerry Sanders, and it goes back years before Sanders was mayor. But here was the main reason La Prensa gave (emphasis mine):
La Prensa San Diego is encouraged by Francis’ commitment to focus Police Department efforts on critical law enforcement issues facing residents and not exhausting already strained resources on enforcing federal immigration law. He believes San Diego needs to have compassionate leadership and humane policies that treat people equally and will not divide the community for the sake of political gain.
I was a bit taken aback by this. After all, if true, Francis had committed to the paper to not enforce federal immigration laws with local police. And this would be interesting given Francis' plain statements otherwise.
In the first mayoral debate, in fact, Francis hammered the incumbent mayor for not participating in a federal grant program that would allow city police to start enforcing immigration laws. And in his sprawling policy tome "Steve Francis' Vision for San Diego," the mayoral candidate ties illegal immigration to terrorism threats and proposes a solution to protecting us from both (emphasis mine):
In the post 9/11 world, law enforcement must have greater tools and resources to protect citizens from harm, as first responders they are on the front line of the war on terrorism. Steve supports giving local police officers greater discretion in asking the immigration status of detainees and cooperating with federal officials if it will protect the lives and property of San Diegans.
And when Francis was talking with Roger Hedgecock, who has done all he can to push a movement based around the end of illegal immigration, Francis took the rhetoric up a notch.
If the police officer has pulled somebody over or has encountered somebody that they clearly know is an undocumented worker, you don't just hold the person for 20 minutes and then let them go, which is being done right now. You need to make sure that you turn them over to immigration officials. That's what you do. That's what you ought to do because they're violating the law.
So what's going on? How does this early (as in March) hard-core rhetoric about making sure undocumented immigrants are deported square with the "commitment" La Prensa cited that Francis was going to leave it alone and be "humane?"
I asked him to clarify.
He said that he was guilty in the past (again, as in March) of "giving short answers to difficult questions."
He has now had more time to think.
"I've come to appreciate how complicated the issue is," he said.
Meet Steve Francis, populist, embracer of nuance.
Francis said he still supports cooperating with the federal government as part of the 287(g) program that allows local governments to carry out local immigration enforcement and ostensibly provides some funding for them to do that. But he said he wouldn't do it until the Police Department had enough resources to dedicate sufficient efforts to it. And he wouldn't even do it then. He'd let the police do immigration things only after he convened local Latino leaders, police and immigration officials in some kind of summit on the issue.
"We need to get consensus to decide on outcomes," Francis said. He said he didn't want to cause "racial strife" -- hence the need to bring Latino leaders to the table to somehow negotiate a compromise.
So I asked what if these Latino leaders are perfectly fine with the status quo where officers do not enforce federal immigration law? "That's not a reasonable position," Francis said.
Why? He said that the city of San Diego is considered a "sanctuary city" and that's not acceptable.
On the other hand, he wouldn't commit to what he thinks that means. And the talk is dangerous.
"I'm very concerned that in order to satisfy certain people who have very strong feelings about immigration, we're going to get into racial profiling and that's what I don't want," Francis said.
So, there you go. Yes, enforce federal immigration law locally, just not until we have enough money to do it and only if Latino leaders, the police and immigration officials agree to a consensus and only if that is the consensus they come to. Oh yeah, and Francis is still in favor of contracting police to enforce federal immigration laws through the 287(g) program, just not until we have enough money to do it and only if Latino leaders, the police and immigration officials agree to a consensus and only if that is the consensus they come to.
I think the truth is a little less nuanced. Francis' instinct before his great leftist epiphany was to hammer Sanders from the right and take advantage of some of the visceral political power that comes from the anti-immigrant sentiment. He started to go with it. But when he began courting Latino union members, and Spanish-language outlets and others in the community, he was confronted with the other side of the debate.
He realized that hard-core Lou Dobbs and Roger Hedgecock-style immigrant baiting wasn't going to fit well with his compassion thing. So he's trying to back away. He's trying to find a middle in this mess. And, yes, he realizes his "thinking about it more" is going to be hard for people to swallow.
"If you take a reasoned approach on this issue, no one is going to be happy with you," Francis said.
I am all for swearing. Screw tactful and polite articulation of your point of view or frustrations, people should just swear.
Damn it.
That's why I'm so excited about the recent trends at City Hall.
First, of course, you had the mayor tell his chief rival, you know. Then you had the much-publicized e-mail where the mayor's spokesman complains in a profanity laced dialect about City Attorney Mike Aguirre to Union-Tribune Editorial Page Editor Bob Kittle.
(Kittle, by the way, is sure to complain as adamantly about that lack of decorum as he did a year ago in an editorial when one of the city attorney's deputies used profanity in an e-mail:
City Attorney Mike Aguirre's top deputy, Don McGrath, has demeaned not only himself but the city of San Diego by sending two profanity-laced e-mails to a lawyer representing the Municipal Employees' Association, the city's biggest labor union. Even more disgraceful, however, is Aguirre's refusal to discipline McGrath for conduct that was not only unprofessional but outrageously crude.
Outrageous indeed.)
Finally, in case you missed it, CCDC President and COO Nancy Graham offered this explanation about past concerns about her relationship with a developer of an iconic downtown project.
Graham said her financial connection to Related has ended. She sold her interest in N-K Ventures to her former husband, Kevin Lawler, when they divorced in 2006. State law prohibits public officials from making decisions for one year about any entity that has paid them more than $500.
"I have no interest in N-K or anything they do," Graham said. "It is a bullshit argument by either sour grapes losers or other people. They were given no favoritism."
Is bullshit outrageously crude? Either that or outrageously succinct. I will be on the edge of my seat, though, waiting for the U-T to condemn those comments and the others the editorial board finds so objectionable.
Quote of the day, from the Union-Tribune (emphasis mine):
A former president of Theta Chi, the San Diego State University fraternity singled out by authorities as a hub of drug dealing, said a few people are ruining a good organization. ...
Being identified as the lead fraternity in a major drug operation is contrary to Theta Chi's mission to “serve young men of character, principles and ideals,” (Hoon) Kang said.
Are there some fraternities whose mission is to be identified with as the "lead" of a major drug operation?
Meanwhile, did you see this? Would the district attorney overstate the effects of her special "Operation Sudden Fall" just to make a big splash on the anniversary of a tragic drug-related death?
Never.
Or maybe the university got a little uncomfortable with the image the world received Tuesday?
John Nienstedt, the president of Competitive Edge Research and Communication, has responded to my post yesterday about the poll in detail.
Nienstedt, in my opinion, is one of the best numbers guys in town. I'll never forget his spot-on extrapolations of the excruciatingly long count of the ballots after the 2004 mayor's race. For a long time, he worked for free with KPBS polling the trends and feelings of the community and a wide variety of issues. The news they produced was interesting.
We haven't highlighted any of his polls recently on the city attorney's race because we decided we would pass on partisan polls and his were commissioned by the Republican Party. Given Nienstedt's track record, I'm sure they're good numbers. But I just don't want to have to deal with all the polls candidates and their campaigns try to flog.
Anyway, if you missed it here was one of his comments on yesterday's post:
Scott, regarding your insight that you can't see [Judge Jan] Goldsmith, [Council President Scott] Peters or [City Councilman Brian] Maienschein voters moving to Aguirre in November, keep in mind that there will be twice as many voters casting ballots on 11/4 as there will be on 6/3. That gives [City Attorney] Mike Aguirre a window of opportunity which I'm sure he will try to exploit. He won't need voters to switch. His fate, and the fate of San Diego, will be in the hands of the less interested portion of the electorate.
This is an excellent point. Thanks to the infinite wisdom of the Legislature, the June 3 primary election was not tied to the presidential race. In the San Diego region, only the 52nd Congressional District will have a primary worth any major attention for those concerned with the federal government. Turnout will be extremely low.
Nienstedt's point is that all of the people interested in voting for Barack Obama or John McCain (or Hillary Clinton?) in the November election will perhaps not have paid much attention to city politics or will remember they support Aguirre even though they weren't motivated to come out to vote in June. And, this will be quite a force.
An interesting point. We'll see if it plays out. Do you think it will?
This is what I've been waiting for -- someone independent locally to do a poll on the mayoral and city attorney's race. We have deliberately held off on publicizing the polls that partisans have commissioned and tried to pass along.
KGTV Channel 10 appears to have commissioned SurveyUSA, which has a pretty good record so far on the national presidential elections, to poll the two local races.
Mayor Jerry Sanders is up 40 percent to Steve Francis' 36 percent in SUSA's mayoral poll. There is 17 percent undecided. Check it out here.
In the city attorney's race, the poll has incumbent Mike Aguirre leading the pack with 29 percent but City Council President Scott Peters got 17 percent of the poll and the two Republicans -- Councilman Brian Maienschein and Judge Jan Goldsmith -- each polled at 15 percent. That's 47 percent going for one of Aguirre's chief rivals. Undecideds make up 18 percent of the poll. Here's the poll.
If that's true, Aguirre will need to get all the undecideds, plus some, to stay city attorney. I'm having trouble picturing the kind of voter who would be for Peters or either of the Republicans but then willing to switch to Aguirre if their dog lost the primary race.
MonDiego Tube makes it two weeks in a row. We might be on a permanent roll. In this clip, Lani Lutar from the San Diego County Taxpayers Association debates City Councilwoman Donna Frye about Proposition C, the measure that would realign the auditor's position at City Hall.
So the first one took the jump, huh? The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees local union endorsed Steve Francis for mayor today. Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that hotelier Doug Manchester and the hotel employees union would join together behind someone for mayor.
I suppose wilder things have happened. But let's do something first. I've been asked recently why I was so interested in unions' support of Francis over the incumbent. Why does the endorsement of the hotel workers or the Labor Council matter so much?
Labor unions can give three major things to a candidate and only one of them matters in this case. A union can give monetary support in the form of independent expenditures in favor of a candidate. The firefighters union was once a prolific force in this effort, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on behalf of people like former Mayor Dick Murphy.
Unions can also, of course, provide countless volunteer hours on behalf of a campaign. Their members can walk districts, man telephones and hand out fliers.
Finally, they can just endorse and the power of the message might be enough to resonate with people who look to them for guidance.
This last one is usually the least valuable to a candidate -- and, conversely, it's the easiest for the union to give.
But it's the most valuable part of the endorsement for Francis. Why? He doesn't need money and his dollars should do enough work for thousands of volunteers.
He needs the nod. He needs the nod because his list of endorsements is still rather bleak.
Now, I do not believe that endorsements matter all that much in the effort to attract voters. To unseat an incumbent, however, Steve Francis will need to create the impression that a major movement is underway -- that diverse interests are uniting in a coalition against a common enemy. I'm not saying that's happening. What I'm saying is that it's vital for Francis to make it seem like it is.
Endorsements help make that happen. And that's why it's such a big deal to imagine unions giving them to him.
I heard from City Councilwoman Donna Frye on Friday. Signaling a widening chasm between her and labor leaders in town, she said she was upset by a recent mailer sent out by the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, which she said implies that she endorses Scott Peters' bid for city attorney.
I got a fax copy of the mailer but it didn't come through very well. It's touted as a four-page pat on the bum and thank you to the Democratic members of the City Council. But Peters, the council's president, is featured big on the front page and the Labor Council obviously is using it to pump up his campaign.
He's the one we're meant to thank.
Frye isn't flattered.
"It gives the false impression that I am endorsing Scott Peters for city attorney and that's absolutely false and extremely offensive," Frye said. "I'm getting phone calls from people asking about it and I don't appreciate it."
Frye said she doesn't plan to endorse any candidate in the city attorney or mayor's race.
Evan McLaughlin, the Labor Council's political director and a former colleague of ours here at voiceofsandiego.org, said he doesn't see how it gives the impression Frye backs Peters.
"The piece is centered on the update of the city's General Plan and the purpose was to point out that the City Council does positive things for the city and we don't think that message gets out. It was meant to congratulate them on dealing with the environment and dealing with jobs," he said.
You might remember the debate the city had about language that would be included in the finalized growth plan for the city. The City Council faced down the mayor and forced language in the document with which unions and left-leaning activists were happy.
"It's a policy wonk issue and it didn't get as much attention as it should have," McLaughlin said.
Hence the mailer.
But Frye wasn't happy. Nobody called to let her know she'd be part of the campaign mailer.
"It just shows me that Scott Peters can't stand on his own legitimately," Frye said.
Update 9:11 a.m.: Here's the mailer for your review and Lorena Gonzalez, the secretary treasurer of the Labor Council, already responded with a letter here.
This is an important and moving series. Take the time to read it if you can. Randy Dotinga is a talented writer and it's an honor to have him publish it here.
The wife has been on fire lately with these cartoons. Check them out -- some of her smartest work yet. She did just get a job though. We'll see if the volunteer drawing continues. I'll sharpen up on my guilt-trip skills.
I was remiss not to point out that the well-organized and good debate I moderated last night for the District 7 candidates was put on by the Tierrasanta Community Council. There were 150 people there. Nice.
I tried listening to the Union-Tribune's Bob Kittle, today on SignOnRadio where he hosted City Attorney Mike Aguirre. But I got pulled away. Any thoughts or reports? The topic was Aguirre's obstruction of an infrastructure bond. I haven't followed that as well as I should but it's worth noting that it's rather unfortunate that the city should have to borrow money to pay for routine maintenance of city streets. I remember my father telling me never to put groceries on my credit card. He said the debt would always stick around in some form and I would always be behind.
I never did. Though that's probably more luck than anything.
So last night I moderated a well-attended and well-organized debate between the candidates for City Council District 7.
After asking a question about how the perspective council members viewed the role of the city attorney, I decided it would be interesting to see who each of them supported in the tense race to be the city's top lawyer.
Here's how they responded:
April Boling, the certified public accountant and Republican standard-bearer in the race, said she was now comfortable announcing that she endorsed Jan Goldsmith, the superior court judge in the race.
Bill Daniel, the teacher, said he was unwilling to say -- though, he had spoken in very complimentary terms about incumbent City Attorney Mike Aguirre.
David Tos, the police officer, said he too would support Goldsmith. But he was reluctant to talk too much about it because, as a cop, Aguirre was in his "chain of command."
Finally, Marti Emerald, the former television reporter/consumer advocate turned politician, said she was unwilling to say as yet who she supported -- she hasn't decided.
But she did indicate she didn't support Aguirre and, in the past, she has, reportedly, expressed some degree of affinity with Goldsmith as well. Emerald's husband -- attorney S. Myron Klarfeld -- has worked with Goldsmith before.
In a Q&A with San Diego Magazine's Tom Blair a couple of years ago, "San Diego's most visible consumer advocate" touched on the connection:
[Tom Blair]: You married an attorney a couple of years ago.
[Marti Emerald]: Michael Klarfeld. He’s an amazing man. We’re celebrating our fifth wedding anniversary. And he has been my rock.
TB: It has to be helpful in your work to have an attorney at home. Does he ever give you advice?
ME: When does he not? But yes, absolutely, the discussions around our house are very interesting. We met when I was doing a story about a consumer issue. He helped write the law that took expiration dates off gift certificates in California. He sued dozens of major national retailers. Some friends were the lead plaintiffs. And he won the suit. Then he went to his assemblyman at the time, Jan Goldsmith, and said there ought to be a law. And so the two of them sat down and wrote it, and it passed unanimously.
If she does support Goldsmith, that might be a bit interesting. After all, Emerald's friends in the labor community have thrown their lot in with City Councilman Scott Peters and she has already broken with them, passionately, with the question of Proposition C -- the restructuring of the city auditor function (she opposes it, and the Labor Council adamantly supports it).
Yesterday, in a This Just In post, voiceofsandiego.org intern Bethany Leach reported something interesting about official projections from the San Diego Association of Governments:
Despite rapid growth in the next few decades, San Diego expects to decrease congestion on freeways. Only two other cities in the report expect lower congestion: Seattle and Milwaukee.
That's a pretty bold claim: Traffic is going to get better?
NBC San Diego's Gene Cubbison found reactions to that Tuesday.
This is a good back and forth on the proposal we wrote about a while ago to somehow put an upper deck on the 10th Avenue Marine Terminal. It is, as I wrote then, a kind of party on the top, business on the bottom proposal. The idea is that you could put some kind roof on the importing and exporting operations taking place there and then put roller coasters, stadiums, conventions, dancers, whatever on top.
Anyway, there's big money on both sides of this debate. So we'll keep on it.
Thanks to NBC San Diego for providing the video. Our partnership has gone to a new level and should make a lot of collaboration possible. And most importantly, of course, it should mean I can always find something for Monday morning.
I. The Scourge of the Flip Flopper Label: I've said it before and I'm saying it again: It takes great courage for politicians to admit they've changed their mind about something. But if they do change their mind they should champion it and just be proud of the reasons why.
If Steve Francis wants to be the friend of labor unions and environmentalists in town, he should just admit that this is a new thing for him. In response to questions about this, he should have just said "Yes, 20 years ago I was a real champion of property rights. Sometimes I believed development interests took precedence over the environment. Now, I realize our natural resources need to be better protected and I'm committed to it."
Bam.
It is not a sign of weakness to change your mind. What's weak is to change your mind and to exhibit discomfort with the reasons why.
II. The Mayor's F-Bomb: So the mayor decided his rival Steve Francis deserved something other than a handshake after their debate this weekend. The mayor says he dropped the f-bomb on Steve Francis after their debate this week because he was tired of his rival questioning his integrity.
Whether the mayor inappropriately insulted Francis is one thing. But he shouldn't get so easily upset by this campaigning. I distinctly remember Sanders telling a group of gathered press about the lies Donna Frye had supposedly told during their 2005 campaign. Integrity is sometimes up for debate in these things.
Wow. So, remember that condo in North Park that was being offered at a price less than the government subsidized "affordable" homes nearby? My colleague, Kelly Bennett, reports that it was sold but the sale was blocked by the bank. Check it out.
It could even go for less than it was offered before.
So the local umbrella branch of the AFL-CIO, the San Diego Imperial - Counties Labor Council, is considering endorsing Steve Francis for mayor.
A friend just pointed me to this passage in a 2005 story in Union-Tribune written by Phil LaVelle, the former ace political reporter. It was a story largely about Francis' past and his record as a Nevada state legislator. He served in the Nevada Assembly from 1982 until 1987.
Like most legislators of the day, Francis, then a manager at Caesars Palace, supported the Nevada Resort Association, the lobbying arm of the hotel-gaming industry, by far the state's leading employer. His votes earned the enduring enmity of the Nevada AFL-CIO. "Steve had a poor record for working people, to say the least," said Danny Thompson, who served with Francis in the Assembly and is now executive secretary-treasurer of the Nevada AFL-CIO. "He was a vigorous opponent of working people. You name it, he was against it."
Francis said in response: "Labor unions in San Diego are mild and soft in comparison to labor unions in Nevada. . . . When the unions go too far you have to have the guts to say no."
Here's a link to Friday's Editor's Roundtable, on KPBS, if you missed me, Chris Reed from the Union-Tribune and J.W. August from KGTV.
Reed was pretty hard on San Diego City Council President Scott Peters -- wondering how he could have gotten to be the council president without a very "agile" political mind. It was a product of our discussion on the City Council's recent awkward decision to award its members, in coming years, a 24 percent raise.
And I think Peters was bizarrely unprepared for the political fallout of that move.
I've often been surprised by his seeming surprise at the way people react to his decisions and actions.
I was at a meeting of Progressive San Diego the other night where Peters was mildly heckled during his short speech. He had a bit more trouble connecting with the left than he should. After all, he's supposed to be the alternative choice for those left-leaning voters who are disillusioned with City Attorney Mike Aguirre but not interested in supporting the conservative options.
He would do better with succinct speeches like this little talk that is available on YouTube:
It's very good. It's short, to the point, and yet it's able to communicate so much: That he's a good lawyer, that he will fight for environmental laws, and that he's sympathetic to business needs and jobs. If he can figure out how to talk like that more often, and somehow drive the conversation away from the City Council's past misdeeds, he might have a chance.
E-MAIL POST
Francis said he still supports cooperating with the federal government as part of the 287(g) program that allows local governments to carry out local immigration enforcement and ostensibly provides some funding for them to do that. But he said he wouldn't do it until the Police Department had enough resources to dedicate sufficient efforts to it. And he wouldn't even do it then. He'd let the police do immigration things only after he convened local Latino leaders, police and immigration officials in some kind of summit on the issue.
