Black Progressive Labor Coalition beats Corporatist Dems in Oakland!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/19/BAG8QJGCDN1.DTL&type=politics

Dellums victory signifies a sea change in Oakland politics
Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross
Monday, June 19, 2006

The election of former Congressman Ron Dellums as Oakland's mayor marks the revival of a black-progressive-labor coalition that many thought was on its last legs after eight years of Jerry Brown.

.....

"The power of the people beat the power of the machine," said former Alameda County Supervisor Mary King, now assistant general manager at AC Transit and herself an alumna of Dellums' political academy, having served on his local advisory committee before winning election to office.

.....

Things didn't figure to get better if the man Jerry Brown endorsed as his successor, City Council President Ignacio De La Fuente, won the mayor's job. But Dellums provided the old left-labor-African American coalition something it hasn't had for several years in mayor's races -- a charismatic leader.

"Hopefully this will serve as a wake-up call for corporate media like The Chronicle and the (Oakland) Tribune, and the moneyed interests," Pete said.


Just like when Barbara Boxer won her seat back with a landslide in 2004, and Bush kissasses like Daschle and Cleland lost in 2002, we are seeing proof again and again that being a consistent and firm progressive voice CAN WIN elections, and mealy-mouthed DINOs lose. If only more democrats would try it now and then, Americans might actually understand what progressives actually stand for.

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware
I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind
I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

Jerry Brown's endorsement wasn't a progressive? I thought Brown was suppose to be progressive?

Whatever, it's sounds like I'm glad this man, Ron Dellums, won!

Please remember that this is the Bay Area, and the debate is between dems and progressives - Repugs are not even an option in the bigger cities here. Brown would be left of center in most US cities. But in the Bay Area he is a corporatist. I have nothing at all against the man - I'd love to see him run for national office, if he can escape his "Governor Moonbeam" image. I just happen to be a bit to the left of him on the political spectrum.

And not deal with lesser of two evils (evils being things you disagree with)

I think that voters respect straightforward candidates more than candidates who try to appear moderate and talk out of both sides of their mouths because they think it will help them get votes. Many of the areas of the country that are currently "red" have long histories of electing democrats, when they ran on populist progressive platforms, not PC-babble corporatist do-nothing agendas. I do believe we would win back a lot of these areas if the candidates would simply run on a platform of making life better for regular working people.


There are always evils to deal with. Pols like Brown, Newsom, Willie Brown, etc. - pols with big money connections are seen as essentially republicans by a lot of lefties in the bay area. It's simply a given that being anti-gay or anti-choice or whatever won't sell there. But Bay area voters still have to deal with the same problems of corporate influence on local government.

During Willie Brown's tenure, his ties with the construction industry made sure that almost no new development was turned down, and South of Market became a hotbed of gentrification, much to the chagrin of a lot of progressives.

Now, Mayor Newsom is seen as being bankrolled by the rich Pacific Heights elites. From outside the city, people see him as a far-out liberal because he "let the gays marry", but that has little to do with the day-to-day operation of a city. His ties to the Chinatown business community have ensured that construction on a new central subway will continue, despite the fact that it is outlandishly expensive, and does not serve a corridor that needs to be served. Almost everyone in the city can see that the logical place for a subway line is the Geary corridor, served by the chronically packed 38 bus line.

That's not to paint the corporatist dems as all bad. Their clout sometimes get things done that the progressives could never do, but there are a lot of compromises...

how I figured. I hear Brown is running for AG?

Lucky you..in The Bay Area!

Moved back to Japan in March. Can't afford SF anymore. :cry:

is cheaper? But, so far away!

It's not as cheap as middle America, but much cheaper than the bay area, and we have family here. We didn't really have any logical reason to stay in the Bay Area, except that we loved it so much.

It was great while it lasted, though.

as being "too left to win" a couple of months ago over just this topic, well maybe things are worse enough. :toast:

to win...

Thanks for reminding us of that time -- so we can show less optimistic people that IT'S POSSIBLE!

Give people a choice between Repuke and Repuke light, and they'll take the real repuke every time.

Give them a real choice. A real progressive, and there ain't no stopping us.

Why in the world you would call out max cleland is beyond me. Please explain.

He used Bush in his campaign ads and painted himself as Bush's biggest supporter, after which he was smeared by the Chambliss campaign as a supporter of terrorism.

His campaign was further proof that running away from being a democrat does not work.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Max_Cleland

Political Slanderings

Max Cleland lost the 2002 general election to Republican Saxby Chambliss. A key element in that loss was a negative ad that challenged Cleland's votes in Congress on the formation of the Department of Homeland Security.

The text of the ad is as follows:

"As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead.
"He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that's not the truth."
"Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush's vital homeland security efforts 11 times."
"But the record proves, Max Cleland is just misleading."
The issue in 2002 was civil service protections for Homeland Security employees, which Bush opposed and Cleland supported. The ad failed to point out that Cleland supported the creation of a Department of Homeland Security before Bush did. Cleland originally co-sponsored the enabling legislation and eventually supported it, but as the bill moved through Congress, he cast a number of votes against it in hopes of getting a better bill. The Republican attack ads made it look as though Cleland was voting against Homeland Security itself, and one TV ad morphed Cleland's face into Saddam Hussein's while suggesting that Cleland was indifferent to the safety of the American people. This ad was so disgusting that Republican Sens. Hagel and McCain both protested it]



The fact that he was unfairly smeared doesn't mean that kissing up to Bush was the right strategy. The repukes ALWAYS smear. That's how they operate.

Not only did he vote for POS Bush's murderous war, he used Bush, as well as lunatic Zell Miller in his campaign ads, painting himself as a big Bush booster.

The strategy backfired, because the right-wing smear machine convinced the right-wingers that Cleland was a liberal phony, and democrats and liberals were not motivated to go and vote for a guy who's best pals were Zell and POS Bush. It happens all the time...

Oakland has a large African-American population.

Boxer was re-elected in California AND wasn't targeted.

Cleland and Daschle were both targed and millions were spent to defeat them.

Amazing how some just can't see that.

...and smear them as a "liberal", when they don't run away from the label like Boxer. Boxer did very well statewide, winning by a huge margin, not just in the Bay Area liberal bubble.

Amazing how some can't see that if Daschle and Cleland had just acted like DEMOCRATS, democrat voters would have turned out for them, and independents would have respected them too. And I'm not even saying they necessarily had to be dovish on the war, but they should have drawn a clear line between themselves and Bush, not kissed up to him. Nobody on either side of the aisle respects that.

For the 1,000,000th time, if there is any evidence that Democrats lose elections because they aren't "liberal" enough, lay it out.

Fact is, Daschle and Cleland had opponents spending millions against them, and the full power of the RNC targeting them.

It's one thing to have right-leaning policies like your avatar. It's another thing altogether to be a kissup to filth like Bush. I can't abide by the latter.

LOL.

Some of you are so disconnected from reality.

Cleland was vilified by Republicans for his role in attempting to block the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security. He also The GOP ran a smear campaign questioning his patriotism and linking him with Osama Bin Laden.

But nooo. Here comes super lefty who claims Cleland lost in a red state because he wasn't "liberal" enough.

I said it was because he was a Bush sycophant. It's all about attitude. I'm well aware of the fact that a Barbara Boxer could not win Georgia. But fellating Bush makes people on BOTH sides of the aisle see you as weak.

The point is that Clinton, while governing like a republican, ACTED like a democrat. Cleland did the opposite, and it backfired because the same people he was trying to entice by using POS Bush and Kookoo Zell in his ads were the same people most easily fooled by the smear campaign.


In other words, instead of going "I love Bush! I'm just as republican as he is! I love him, and I voted for the war on terror! Looney Zell endorsed me!"

He should have said. "I'm a real democrat. A SOUTHERN democrat. I think like you, and care about OUR people. I'll do what it takes to keep Georgia strong and prosperous."

There was no reason to mention Bush at all. Even in late 2002, he was a very polarizing figure, and using him was a sure-fire way to turn off the dem base and make independents ambivalent, even in Georgia. Get it? It's not about him "not being liberal enough".

You said "if he had acted like a Democrat."

You can play symantics all you like, the implication is obvious.

The point is that Clinton, while governing like a republican...

:rofl:

In other words, instead of going "I love Bush! I'm just as republican as he is! I love him, and I voted for the war on terror! Looney Zell endorsed me!"

He should have said. "I'm a real democrat. A SOUTHERN democrat. I think like you, and care about OUR people. I'll do what it takes to keep Georgia strong and prosperous."

There was no reason to mention Bush at all. Even in late 2002, he was a very polarizing figure, and using him was a sure-fire way to turn off the dem base and make independents ambivalent, even in Georgia. Get it? It's not about him "not being liberal enough".




And there was very little if anything progressive about Clinton, who co-opted the whole GOP platform, passing welfare deform, NAFTA, media deregulation - even his health care plan was designed to be a giveaway to the big health care corps. A LOT of people think Clinton was our best ever moderate republican president.

...you can claim anyone who thinks/acts/votes to the right of you is a Republican, but you can never nail down exactly what a republican policy is and what makes it so.

I guess it's like porn. YOU know it when YOU see.

That's what you don't seem to get. Cleland's loss had nothing to do with his voting record. It had everything to do with the fact that the GOP conned voters on the right with their lies, and Cleland himself alienated everyone on the left by kissing Bush's ass. Cleland could have voted like Zell, and still gotten 100% of the dem vote in GA if he would not have used that POS in his ads. What don't you understand about that? It's all image, not policy. The kinds of voters who are swayed by this crap don't look deeply into voting records, etc. They listen to sound bites. He should have run as a SOUTHERN (read conservative) democrat, but one who could stand up to Bush. How much more clear can I be?


As for GOP policies, they are super easy to nail down. Policies that favor big business and/or the wealthy over those of working and poor people. The parties overlap as to how much their policies help or hurt the middle class. It's that simple. And Clinton kept taxes on the rich at almost the same low rate as they were at during the Reagan years. His policies were very friendly to big business.

What makes a republican "posture?"

You can't define it, but you know it when you see it.

Don't stop thinkin' about tomorrow, eh?

viva le revolution, eh?

Ignacio DLF was more receptive to the big real estate interests that are behind the very rapid and precipitous gentrification of Oakland downtown and Jack London Square. But DLF is a community and reality based guy as well. Oakland is not a real big city population-wise and is comprised of several distinct neighborhoods, most very desirable, but two really bad ones full of crime and poverty. Dellums may have a better pulse on how to deal with the latter. But he's also more likely to artificially arrest Oakland's economic development/transformation that is well under way in his attempt to stop "black flight." But he can't stop it. No one can. The horse has left the barn. Dellums better understand it's no longer 1985.

...he is a very smart man and a capable leader. If he wants to arrest black flight from Oakland, more power to him; however, I don't think for a minute that he is blind to economic reality. You are assuming that it has to be someone like DLF who can keep the "economic development / transformation" going. I beg to differ. There was a lot of hope when Jerry Brown won as Mayor of Oakland, but that hope was largely not realized -- for example, the much-ballyhooed revitalization of Oakland's downtown did not materialize.

Anyway -- apart from the history under Jerry Brown (who I do admire in many ways) -- Mr. Dellums is a smart, dedicated politician, one of very few who I regard as having real integrity. He has roots in Oakland, is charismatic, and his performance in Congress was rock solid, gaining him respect over the years from both sides of the aisle, while not wavering from his core values -- I wish the same could be said of more Dem politicians!

I have no beef with De La Fuente - I think he's a decent person and would have made a competent mayor, unlike Jerry Brown - but Dellums is a giant and I think he's going to do right by Oakland. I just love this guy.