I don’t think you all did anything “wrong”, FOR YOU. the original post said you picked the candidates that were “closest to your views” or something like that.

to me, that means the “debate” is stacked. it’s the very antithesis of what a debate should be.

again, this event was targeted at a certain swath of folks, and none of these 3 candidates represents me, or a lot of other people on this blog, and in the Mission. and that’s OK. but let’s call it what it is: a curated event representing one point of view.

you all can do whatever you want, and i am please that you espouse a viewpoint. it’s more than most do. but don’t expect everyone to agree with you, or expect everyone to say “hurrah” when you extol your own virtues.

far as being combative, you bet i am. you can defend these guys as much as you want, and i respect your viewpoint, but again, i don’t agree.

the “progressive” political machine in SF is, in my view, a huge failure of the worst kind: morally bankrupt and without integrity…. and while i am sure these guys are all swell fellas in the off hours, their all willing participants in that machine.

to me that makes them thieving liars.

I wouldn’t call the candidates “career politicos.” Quezada has spent most of his life as a community activist. Sanchez may be a school board member, but that’s a part time job. He’s also a hard working teacher. Maybe you could say Campos has designs on being a career politician. But come November, two of them will go right back to their current lives, with little chance of becoming “career politicos” for another 8 years.

And we’re not looking to “kowtow” to any machine. What does that even mean? It’s not like Tom Ammiano or Bruce Brugman have hidden slush funds they’ll bestow on us if we endorse their candidates. If there are any progressive smoke-filled rooms in this town, we haven’t been invited to them.

I already explained our reasoning for only inviting the three candidates: there are plenty of other forums to hear all of the candidates, such as the Victoria Theater on October 7th. We reviewed all of the candidates, and decided on our three “finalists.” As a result, we had a more in depth debate that gave us a better understanding of them.

There’s a place for a moderate vs progressive debate on the merits of ideas like public power, affordable housing, etc. And there’s a place for in depth discussion of what’s the best strategy for implementing progressive ideas. If anywhere is that place, it’s District 9. D9 is the most progressive district in San Francisco. This neighborhood has a long history of strong support for progressive principles. See the fine work of Deleon and Latterman for the wonky details:
http://www.sfusualsuspects.com/deleon_latterman
There are three strong progressive candidates for D9. We thought it made sense to have an in depth discussion with them.

We didn’t mean to leave anyone out in the cold. I still don’t know what important issues you think we’re ignoring. We just wanted to provide substantive information on the three top contenders so people could decide based on the merits of the candidates, instead of just on who’s endorsing them. Is that so wrong?

really, I’d like to know. i never commented on a blog till this month. (also, calling shit “stupid” seems kind of rude, no? a little personal?)

far as the “debate”, I’m saying that it’s complete useless bullshit FOR ME, because it’s insular, self-aggrandizing and self-referential. the 3 candidates chosen are of an ilk, and so are the folks who planned it, broadcast it, and would think the debate is useful.

i think it’s all good for those that are interested, and for those that care to find the differences between these 3 candidates….but let’s call it what it is….a “progressive” machine candidate showcase. for those that aren’t fans of career “progressive” politicos…it left them out in the cold.

(also, comparing them and PCR to Obama / Clinton and NPR is a bit of a stretch, no? )

the thing is….it’s not like wondering why there’s no Red at a Blue debate. that assertion is totally incorrect.

In the D9 election, there’s actually a wider array of candidates running (female, white, moderate, non-career-politico, etc), with a broader set of target issues to be shown, and discussed, and broadcast…but the organizers of the debate chose to ignore them…in fact chose to go against any “progressive” dogma i’ve heard by limiting the field to the 3 “establishment” candidates. it’s actually amazing to me that there’s even a defense for the “progressive” folks that put this thing on to exclude the underdogs! does that make ANY sense at all??

and i wonder why that was? to make it “simpler”? or to kowtow to the machine, and celebrate their own?

i don’t know. I’m not voting for any of them.

I’m sorry to be blunt, but I just think the comments are a bit stupid; it’s like lamenting the fact that there was a lack of Republican candidates in a debate between Obama and Clinton, and then getting pissed at NPR for broadcasting the debate.

Yes, they would both be democrats, but not all democrats are the same, just like not all progressives are the same (Campos is not the same as Sanchez).

And then, I’ve met hipsters who listen to NPR, does that make NPR “hipster mcfixie pants”?

I think if you are arguing against progressive ideology (which blog comments really isn’t the place for), that’s one thing, but saying that the debate is complete useless bullshit- it just seems misdirected to me.

Oh, because there are NO hipsters at Atlas.

And uhh, Rec Center, right, because they have the faculties to broadcast the debate to a wider audiance, through 3 media!

yeah right.

“They didn’t have any republican perspective!!!!” yeah, because it was the democratic candidates hashing it out. Clinton is not the same as Obama, McCain is not the same as Huckabee, those differences need to be illuminated rather than just using Partisan generalization, and letting the best funded candidate therein win.

Sanchez is NOT the same as Campos, and I’m glad I know how.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_nominating_convention

i think the issue is that this “debate” is seen as bunk by folks who might question the validity or integrity or anything at all about the “progressive” machine.

ie the fact that it’s self-referential and insular (big surprise).

i think we can all appreciate PCR for what it does (it really is a great radio station, imho), and for hosting this debate. like i said, the debate probably has some value for someone (like Roisin the Progressive, here).

that said, if PCR got caught up in folks’ general questioning of or disdain for the “progressive” machine, well….i guess that’s what comes with aligning and voicing an opinion.

any true activist can take those lumps – given the obvious self-pride in accomplishments and virtues spouted above – right?

And yes, I’m a progressive, so I’m voting progressive. I’m glad they were illuminating the subtle differences between these three similar candidates- because of PCR and the League, I’m voting for Sanchez based on ideological agreement, rather than Campos who has so much exposure.

Thanks League of Pissed Off Voters, Pirate Cat you ROCK!

The cafe is awesome, and if it is anything, it isn’t hipster. They occasionally show up, but that’s not exclusively the crowd. It’s super diverse: I’ve seen steam punks, hippies, neighborhood kids, industrial goths, and yupped out parents there, all mixed together as straight up sf folks.