To the Editor:
In the State of San Francisco Progressive Politics, you say that “Lee ran on a progressive jobs platform, and was elected because voters responded to this historically progressive stance.”
Ed Lee took huge amounts of corporate money for his campaign. Also, huge amounts of corporate money went into independent spending to support Lee. I always look at where the money is going to get a sense of what to expect from a politician. I would love to hear your take on how Ed Lee’s “historically progressive stance” squares with all that corporate money.
Obama used all the right progressive words and phrases as a candidate and took lots of corporate money. We can now see clearly that he is a President by, for, and of the 1% and all the campaign speeches were just empty words. How is Ed Lee different from Barack Obama?
To the Editor:
Your five‑points on sustaining confrontational tactics are interesting. Not sure why you’re quoting former Mayor Rotkin of Santa Cruz. He abandoned activist protest years ago to be on the repressive side down here. His Sit‑Lie law, Sleeping Ban, developerlove, abolition of mobile home rent control, limiting public input and politician transparency at City Council, prosecution of peaceful protesters for singing political songs, and demolition of civilian police oversight, are only some of his “accomplishments.” See http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/11/05/18326773.php for more details. Watch who you quote. It’s like quoting Obama as a “peace expert.”
Santa Cruz, CA
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Please do not send anything to this mailing address that is not intended for Randy Shaw or Paul Hogarth. If you wish to reach other Beyond Chron writers directly, please call us.Filed under: Letters to the Editor