Tag Archives: SF Bay Guardian

The SF Bay Guardian Endorsements: Obama, Yes on 92, 93, No on 94-97

The San Francisco Bay Guardian has long been considered the voice of progressives in the Bay Area. Publisher Bruce Brugmann has been working to give progressives a voice for a long, long time. (He even supplies the world with transcripts of Sup. Tom Ammiano’s joke of the day voicemail message.) That the “Weekly” papers have now been brought under a larger corporate banner and have moved considerably to the center, their publication has become one of the most important reads for progressives in the state, if not the most important. (Save Calitics of course. 😉 )

With that, I bring you the Bay Guardian’s endorsements. As a good non-partisan paper they made endorsements in all three primaries by endorsing Obama, Ron Paul, and Cynthia McKinney.  On California Propositions, they said yes on 92 & 93, and No on 91, and 94-97.  As for the SF props, Yes on A&B, No on C.

See the flip for more discussion of the SFBG endorsements.

President: Obama, Paul, and McKinney

The SFBG readily acknowledges that Paul and McKinney will not win, and for Paul, that is a good thing. They take fault with his libretarian, anti-tax, “anti-gummint” (jsw’s phrase) stances. However, they point to the importance of having a Republican that is anti-war on the ballot as a point of contrast.  As for the Dem race, well, it reads kinda like the Calitics endorsement. We loved Edwards, but it was not to be. The same for the BG. On Clinton, here’s the money quote:

We are convinced that deep down she has liberal instincts. But that’s what’s so infuriating: since the day she won election to the US Senate, Clinton has been triangulating, shaping her positions, especially on foreign policy, in an effort to put her close to the political center. At a time when she could have shown real courage – during the early votes on funding and authorizing the invasion of Iraq – she took the easy way out, siding with President Bush and refusing to be counted with the antiwar movement. She has refused to distance herself from such terrible Bill Clinton-era policies as welfare reform, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and don’t ask, don’t tell. We just can’t see her as the progressive choice.

Prop 91: No

While we merely stated that Prop 91 had no campaign, the good folks at the Bay Guardian were absolutely correct in pointing out the underlying reasons for not supporting any such measures to restrict gas taxes to roads:

Driving a car is expensive for society, and drivers ought to be paying some of those costs. That should mean extra gas taxes and a reinstatement of the vehicle license fee to previous levels (and extra surcharges for those who drive Hummers and other especially wasteful, dangerous vehicles). That money ought to go to the state General Fund so California doesn’t have to close state parks and slash spending on schools and social services, as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing.

Prop 92: Yes

Different place, same story as the Calitics endorsement:

Some teachers fear that Prop. 92 could lead to decreased funds for K-12, and that’s a real concern. … But many of the same concerns were voiced when Prop. 98 was on the ballot, and that measure probably saved public education in California. The progressives on the San Francisco Board of Education all support Prop. 92, and so do we. Vote yes.

Prop 93: Yes  (Brian’s Disclosure)

The Bay Guardian diverged in only one place from the Calitics endorsement, and this was it. They, like Mal Burnstein, oppose term limits in general, especially the “Mark Leno versus Carole Migden bloodbath.”

But it’s sad that the California State Legislature, once a model for the nation, has been so stymied by corruption that the voters don’t trust it and the best we can hope for is a modest improvement in a bad law. Vote yes.

Props. 94-97: No

The Calitics Editorial Board view on these is about the same as the Bay Guardians. Not enough money to the state, not enough labor protection, and too much to too few:

The governor cut this deal too fast and gave away too much. If the tribes want to expand their casinos, we’re open to allowing it – but the state, the workers, and the other tribes deserve a bigger share of the revenue. Vote no on 94-97.