The SFBG’s Election Endorsements

Update: El 20 de octubre de 2016:

1. The First Woman President Should Be Dra Jill Stein
2. The Lesser-Evil Card (pertaining to all US Presidential Selections regardless of the year)
3. Moving to the right. People enjoy repeating history don’t they?

Fuck the Bay Guardian. Considering what they turned into it’s just as well that they’re gone when they began endorsing conservative Democratic Party Establishment Trash. Chau.—el barrio rosa

————————–

Update: El 9 de octubre de 2014. Hola. ¿Qué tal? There’s got to be something in the water because it just gets worse. Someone left a comment below in the comment section about the Bay Guardian having endorsed corporatist conservative Politician Cocks. He is:

1. Pro Sit-Lie
2. Anti-Homeless (authored laws pertaining to Warner and Milk Plazas, removed benches from Milk Plaza)
3. A prude (City-wide Nudity Ban)
4. An elitist
5. Pro-Real Estate Industrial Complex and their Corrupt Liars
6. Pro-Techie Gentrification, and pro-Gentrification and Eviction Shuttles
7. Pro-Gentrification and “Luxury Designer Condos”(Dahling)
8. Pro-Closing the city parks at night (again anti-homeless)

and I could go on. Yes, the Bay Guardian endorsed that conservative piece of work for his re-election next month. Even though I had expected the BG to endorse him, it really is astounding that they’ve come this low. And it was maybe 6 months to a year ago when I was reading some of the articles on the BG site, I had sensed some ass-eating from them of Politician Cocks. One would hope that they would have endorsed one of the other candidates more closely aligned to their supposed “progressive” views. True progressives (the 3-4 remaining on the planet) would not endorse that piece of work Politician Cocks for anything. One wonders: Are they best of amigos with him now at the Bay Guardian? Wouldn’t surprise me. Just read the comments below, por favor, and that will fill you in on what I’m talking about. Gracias. Chau.—el barrio rosa

El 22 de junio de 2014. Hola, I received this e-mail the other day:
“I was stunned by the Bay Guardian’s endorsements for the June primary. They think their endorsements are progressive and alternative? Looks like they chose candidates that they thought most people would vote for anyway so they could say ‘everyone agreed with our endorsements.’ Considering that, do you think they will endorse the re-election in November of [Ed. Name removed, Politician Cocks] that incumbent in SF’s D8 who’s running unchallenged? That guy is scum.”
My response: Hola y gracias for your e-mail. Politician Cocks is not running unchallenged. There are 2-3 candidates that I know of who are running against him as a symbolic protest gesture. But with the corporate media—including the conservative pro-Oligarchy shill and hack major gay rag whose publisher is pro-Politician Cocks—those candidates will not likely get many votes. I would expect the Bay Guardian to endorse the re-election of Politician Cocks (also seen as The Second Coming and The Holy Trinity by his rabid conservative believers). They at the Bay Guardian don’t seem capable of typing the words, “No Endorsement” these days. And considering the basura they endorsed for June, I would expect them to keep on the same status-quo, pro-Establishment/Oligarchy conservative track. They go on about how they’re “fighting for the soul of San Francisco” and in the past they have written anti-techie gentrification articles, anti-eviction articles, anti-techie shuttle articles and the like. But elitist Politician Cocks is pro-techie gentrification, pro-evictions (despite sweet pabulum spoken to the contrary, since he’s a shill and hack for the Real Estate Industrial Complex and their Corrupt Liars and is being given a “Person of the Year” award by those hacks and shills). And I read recently on a credible site that one real estate company (beginning with the letter “Z”) advertises that they specialise in Ellis Act Evictions…disgusting!. And Politician Cocks is pro-Gentrification and Evictions Shuttles. I’ve heard from reliable sources that he genuflects to any Gentrification and Eviction shuttle that passes on the street, when he’s not glued to his stupidphone. Despite all of that and the *appearance* that the Bay Guardian disagree with him, they recently invited The Second Coming to be on a panel on one of their community forums (preparing him for a pre-endorsement interview in their offices?). As mi amiga asked me: Why would they want anything to do with that conservative piece of work or care what he thinks? I know that the Big Head—he’s a self-appointed authority on all matters (he was recently trying to tell the Fire Department Chief how to run her department)—thinks he’s the mayor or acts like he thinks he’s the mayor, rather than a politician who is supposed to be “representing” ALL PEOPLE (and not just his rabid, wealthy supporters) of a certain area of the city. But that shouldn’t merit an invitation on a forum from the Bay Guardian and Politician Cocks was the only politician from the city government listed who was invited for the panel, moderated by the current Editor of the Bay Guardian. The panel was described as “key experts and activists.” He’s certainly not an activists (for the average person; he’s an activists for Big Business), so when did he become an expert on “Bikes, Buses, and Budgets?” I’ve never seen him ride a bike. He doesn’t even ride a bike, except for show purposes on “Bike to Work” Day once a year. I suspect they at the Bay Guardian will do their usual jumping through all hoops and excuses of how, “we haven’t always agreed with him” and other bull shit, and then they will proceed to endorse him. I can’t see them endorsing one of the other candidates who likely have no chance of winning running against him. And their endorsement would be appropriate since we are most assuredly living through the most hypocritical days ever, where hypocrisy is “in.” Chau.—rosa barrio

El 17 de junio de 2014. Hola, I received this e-mail from a reader:
“just wondering if you knew that the bay guardian had a community forum last week about ‘bikes, buses and budgets’ and they invited that guy you call politician cocks to be on their guest panel. i was appalled. why would they invite that conservative sack of shit to be on their panel or want anything to do with him? he’s helping to ruin the city that they write about.”
My response: Hola y gracias. Well that’s disgusting. Sigh. Perhaps they invited Politician Cocks/The Holy Trinity because he’s a self-appointed authority on all matters. Also, perhaps they’re trying to snuggle up to him—and this was the prelude to that—to get him to come to their office for an endorsement interview later in the year, and they will endorse him (as you say) while he’s helping to ruin the city that they write about. That’s what faux-progressives do. As we saw with most of the Bay Guardian’s pro-Oligarchy endorsements that I spoke about down the page. Faux-progressives endorse and vote for conservative corporate parasites of The Establishment, The Oligarchy, the Corporatocracy who have a “D” behind their name. The “D” behind the candidate’s name is the only requirement with faux-progressives. Gracias for the info. Chau.—rosa barrio

El 10 de mayo de 2014. Hola, I received this e-mail earlier this week and even though the topic of Sam’s e-mail is the June 2014 election in California, Sam’s e-mail really applies to all election endorsements—that I’ve observed—by the San Francisco Bay Guardian in recent years including their endorsement of messiah. I remember being thoroughly disgusted over that re-election endorsement in particular from supposed “progressives.” From what I’ve observed, they (at the SFBG) have consistently endorsed the misnamed “Democratic” party Establishment Status Quo corporatist parasites while those at the SFBG charade as “progressives.” They are really just shills and hacks for the “Democratic” party (even if one or more of them at the SFBG are registered as an independent, meaning no party affiliation). Here’s Sam’s email:

I read your article about the Bay Guardian helping Google. Did you see the Bay Guardian’s endorsements for the June election? Their endorsements are unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought I was on the wrong website!!!!! I thought I had been redirected to a conservative website. I was going to comment on their site, but felt too outraged to and asked myself: why bother!? I’ve commented in the past on their site about their Democratic Party endorsements, and what do they continue doing? They keep endorsing the same career politicians election after election. The Bay Guardian is constantly using the word “progressive” in their articles and they wear that label themselves. Then when election time comes around they painfully maneuver through all sorts of calisthenics to endorse Democratic establishment politicians. That is not progressive by any measure. Based on these endorsements—excluding David Campos—the Bay Guardian staff are void of principles. I couldn’t believe their Jerry Brown endorsement. Then their Newsom endorsement topped that, followed by one of the worse of them all, Pelosi. If Obama could run again, in their “awe-shucks” style they would get down in the gutter and pull up reasons why everyone should vote for him again. There’s nothing “alternative” about their endorsements. I would expect their endorsement from a conservative corporate rag, not one that presents itself as “progressive.” I read some of the comments on their forums and there are other people who couldn’t believe the endorsements either and wrote some good responses. There is another possibility that no one has thought of which could explain these awful endorsements. The Bay Guardian is on very shaky ground as a business and publication, and something happened this week regarding that (one of the current owners wants out). Their staff have got to know, whether they want to admit it or not, that their days are numbered. After the Bay Guardian is no longer, their staff can apply as a staff person for these Democratic politicians they’ve eaten the ass of with endorsements and when filing their application as a staff person, they can say, “I’d like to remind you that we at the Bay Guardian endorsed you, Your Worship, in the 2014 and other elections.” The Bay Guardian staff may simply be preparing for the future demise of their paper.—Sam

My response: Sam, gracias for your e-mail and as you can see I’ve made it an article. Mi amigo told me in anger about their endorsements earlier in the week. He couldn’t believe them either. He asked me what the fuck is going on over there in their office. PELOSI?! NEWSOM?! (He screamed). One shouldn’t be surprised. I didn’t go to their site as I no longer go there but I suspect each endorsement started out the way they usually did when I went to their site, which went something like this: We haven’t always agreed with this politician and we have many, many problems with them. S/he has been good on this and that, but overwhelming bad on so many other things but we’re endorsing him/her with enthusiasm anyway (and the unspoken part: because the politician has D next to their name). That’s what this is all about in my opinion and has been for years. The Bay Guardian is merely just a “front” so to speak for the misnamed “Democratic” party. As memory serves, I don’t think that the BG has endorsed any non-Establishment D-candidate since Newsom first ran for alcalde/mayor. They are part of the problem and when I was on their site way-back-when someone told them just that but it didn’t make any difference to them, if they even read it. I can understand why you didn’t comment there, aside from the fact that their forum is a fucking cesspool of conservative trolls or at least it was when I was on there and I doubt that it’s changed. The BG staff seemed to like it that way. The Bay Guardian staff call themselves “progressives.” They are progressive in name only. There’s a lot more to being a progressive than riding a bicycle to work or being somewhat “green” and using the word “progressive” once in every paragraph. That doesn’t make one a progressive. And that’s why I’ve said repeatedly that the word progressive doesn’t mean anything anymore for most people who label themselves as such. I no longer use the word because it’s become so meaningless (for example, the so-called “progressives” who support messiah when he’s worse than GW Bush ever was yet the same “progressives” despised Bush). One has to actually be a progressive by one’s actions and behaviour versus merely calling oneself a progressive because it sounds cool to some people. But to the Bay Guardian staff and many other people, you don’t actually have to be a “progressive” just because you call yourself one. This all reminds me of Hyacinth Bucket (pronounced “Bouquet”) of “Keeping Up Appearances” where in one episode the Caradines had skis on top of their car. Well as soon as Hyacinth saw that, she decided she must have skis on top of their car too. As she put it to Richard who questioned their going skiing just because they would have skis on top of their car, she said: You don’t have to actually ski just because you have skis on top of your car. You just give the appearance that you ski by having skis on top of one’s car.

Yes, throughout the year, the San Francisco Bay Guardian staff try to give the appearance of being “progressives” and then at election time they come out with this caca/shit. There’s nothing progressive about the Bay Guardian’s endorsements at all. Overall, they have endorsed D-Establishment corporatist parasites who are thoroughly entrenched members of the corrupt Corporatocracy/Oligarchy.  Chau.—rosa barrio

20 comments on “The SFBG’s Election Endorsements

  1. Pat B.

    Since this is past mid-December, any information on what the former staff of the BG are doing? Have you heard anything? Thanks.

  2. E

    Are you aware of that local SF blog that started about a year ago [Comment Edited: "Promotional"/Blog Information Deleted - el barrio rosa] ?

    I think they’re trying to serve as a replacement for the Bay Guardian, but making the same mistakes as the Guardian. It seems they didn’t learn anything from the past. Their comment section is dominated by one person of an opposite view to the blog.

    Have you been there?

    1. rosa_barrio Post author

      Hola E, oh yes, mi amiga told me about that blog. I’ve spent some time there but I’m well aware of what you’re talking about and I’m frankly turned off by that site. Here’s why:

      As mi amiga and I see it, the guy who runs it is complicit with the problem(s) that he writes about because he allows that one asshole troll to live on his site and dominate the comments, who is also frequently the first person to comment on any post. The guy who runs this blog refuses to block this troll. I honestly think he likes this troll. Sometimes this troll writes more than the guy who runs the blog. I read some comments that said the troll needs its own blog. The conservative troll serves as a shill and hack for the many things I’ve previously listed which are wrong with San Francisco today. I’ve noticed that most of the same people who trolled/commented on the BG comments section are now on this site. Not a good sign at all because the BG comment section was often described as “a backwater cesspool” so that should tell one what that site’s becoming. There’s also a troll on there serving as a shill for the Real Estate Industrial Complex and their Corrupt Liars. That conservative troll often agrees with and “washes the back” of the dominant troll.

      I’m turned off by this local blog for many reasons, but in particularly because I don’t like “supporting” (even by going there) someone who is complicit in the problems by giving the opposition—in this case “know-it-all” right-wing/conservative/class warfare trolls—yet another platform (which they don’t need) to write endlessly promoting their corporatist/techie/class warfare/covert anti-gay and heteronormative agenda for this city. I’m sick of it. That is being complicit in the problems. I think the guy who runs this blog (who pretends to be a “progressive” but is a devout partisan Democrat) thinks the only way to get hits and comments is by having the conservative trolls on his blog. Mi amiga wonders if he is somehow connected with them in some way because otherwise why would he want them on his site? Well, that approach didn’t work for the BG, and all that approach does is to turn me (and I’m sure others) off. So I have no interest in going back to that blog. Gracias for your comment. Chau.

      P.S. Also, it will look like I responded to your post before you wrote it if you look at the time. It looks that way because I reset the time zone, which I noticed was incorrect.

      1. E

        Hola, say no more. I know exactly what you’re talking about. I’d like to know how much that troll is being paid for all that work? It’s either that or a mental case.

        Saludos.

        1. Speak The Truth

          I know the site. Many of the commenters there get satisfaction out of arguing with each other back and forth and back and forth. Nothing positive there.

          1. D8

            I agree with you. I have stopped going there for the same reason I stopped going to the Bay Guardian site….the comments and them being monopolized by one person who uses the name of [Comment Edited: Name of conservative troll removed.---el barrio rosa].

  3. ConcernedResidentIn94114

    I think it’s interesting and fitting that the Bay Guardian went out of business soon after probably the worst election endorsements in their history. I still can’t believe some of them. It looks like they were trying to appease or appeal to the conservative voters.

    1. rosa_barrio Post author

      Hola Pat, from what I’ve heard they’re looking for new jobs possibly in new lines of work. Steven Jones said he’s exhausted and plans to pull back for a couple of months and ride his bike and maybe write a book. They mulled over possibly setting up the “Bay Guardian in Exile” on some corporate social media techie network (ugh…don’t get me started on that) . They also talked about continuing in a street sheet type format, although they questioned whether they’d make any dinero/$$ from it. I doubt that they would. I don’t know who would buy that. I think the BG is dead no matter how they try to continue to keep it going. Gracias for your comment. Chau.

    1. rosa_barrio Post author

      Hola, sí, claro, it’s the “end of an era” in a way although I think the “era” ended some time ago. Considering what the BG had become (especially based on their conservative November 2014 endorsements), it’s just as well that they closed. I guess some of the staff will do some contacts to see if they can serve as a staff person for the politicians whose ass they ate (for example, the BG Editor could contact Politician Cocks whom they endorsed to see if he needs another staff person or two). Gracias for your comment. Chau.

  4. NDJ

    I was on another site earlier tonight and some commenters were saying how this round of the Bay Guardian’s endorsements were a train wreck and that the Guardian is now dead. One commenter said that Steven Jones had to write a separate article defending the endorsements after they got a shit storm of flack for them. Jones claimed the new corporate owner of the Guardian had nothing to do with the endorsements but people are not buying that. In my personal view, the Bay Guardian has been dead for years.

  5. Pat B.

    Watch them endorse the SF mayor for reelection next year. They’ll give some flimsy reason based on one thing.

  6. morado

    i’m blown away…..this guy is complicit in turning sf into —- THE OPPOSITE—- of what the bg —-CLAIMS—- to stand for and want for this city….and they endorse him because of funding for muni????? so he can continue to ruin the city?????

  7. Dan

    For some reason I didn’t want to believe that the Bay Guardian would resort to gutter politics and endorse Politician Cocks. (a most appropriate name for him.) I went to their website to verify what I read here.

    I now confirm what you wrote. They did endorse him. Unbelievable. One of the most dangerous and worse politicians in this city’s history and they endorse him. It is outrageous. It’s crap like this that makes people want to just give up on politics and this makes me want to give because it seems hopeless. I no longer have any respect for the BG. Go out of business and be done with it, bye bye. You will not be missed by anybody.

    1. Dan

      Correction…

      It’s crap like this that makes people want to just give up on politics and this makes me want to give UP because it seems hopeless.

  8. Speak The Truth

    Just shocked about this: I just learned that the Bay Guardian has endorsed “Politician Cocks” for his re-election campaign. Can you believe that? They said it was largely based on his work on 1 topic….funding for Muni. I’m just stunned. The Bay Guardian has lost its way. When they go out of business it will be no loss. With endorsements like that, who needs the conservative corporatist sites?

    1. rosa_barrio Post author

      Hola, Speak The Truth. I hadn’t heard that they endorsed that conservative piece of work. Although I had expected them to do that, rather than endorse one of the candidates running who are more in the “progressive” category. Lately, they seem to endorse Establishment “Democratic” corporatist parasites that they know will win, so they can say “our endorsements won.” And since Politician Cocks is running unopposed as far as the corporate media are concerned, I certainly didn’t expect them to endorse one of the other candidates.

      It really is all over for this city as we know it. I’ve been slow to say that—because it upsets me to say that—but it is all over for this city as we know it when we have corporatist conservatives endorsed by phony-assed so-called “progressives,” who in reality are nothing but fucking shills, hacks and ass-eaters for The D-Establishment. I’m sick of it. The Harvey Milk Club is no better. I thought I had read somewhere that they endorsed one of the other candidates, but I just read that they gave a “NO ENDORSEMENT” for the district 8 position. But they’ve certainly endorsed D-Establishment corporate parasites with their other endorsements (meaning the status quo).

      As I said, there are a few other candidates running against Politician Cocks they at the BG could have endorsed. Might they have endorsed him also because he shows up at their waste-of-time forums and they’ve become chummy with him?

      Then there’s also this option they could have used: NO ENDORSEMENT. Have they never heard of that? Haven’t they used that before on occasion somewhere in their long history? So they endorse a conservative candidate because of ONE area that he’s done something in, according to them.

      Disgusting. Gracias for your comment. Chau.

      1. Speak The Truth

        Thanks for responding to me. I read that the Milk Club refused to have a debate of all the candidates. “Politician Cocks” can always find the time to attend one of the Bay Guardian’s forums as a panelist to satisfy his enormous ego, but he who seems to think he’s entitled to that job can’t find the time or is not willing to debate the candidates running against him, and they still call this sham democracy?

Fin. The End.