Friday, October 15, 2010

City Beat Doesn't Get It - District 6

On Wednesday, the San Diego City Beat endorsed Howard Wayne for San Diego City Council, District 6. They claim he is more knowledgeable than Lorie Zapf and point to questions about her past business dealings and alleged homophobia. My reaction, so what? Who is going to lower my taxes? Their editorial board refuses to think through the tough questions like: "What is the source of our budget woes?" and "Who is best suited to tackle those issues?" Have two years of demonstrations by the Tea Party on the size and voraciousness of government passed them by?

If they had made an argument that it only Wayne, on the "only Nixon could go to China" theory, could tackle the pension problem, I might have had some respect. Instead they stick their heads in the sand, as if pensions and budgets are not serious issues. I agree that Howard Wayne is very knowledgeable, and I reported that earlier. It's not the point, how can he be trusted when he seeks out public employee endorsements and donations and has been inconsistent on outsourcing city services?

The U-T seems to get it, at least on this race. Here is a part of their endorsement:

Zapf, meanwhile, has faced deserved criticism over her personal finances and for some past remarks about gays for which she has apologized. But she displays an increasingly strong command of fiscal issues and far more of a willingness to demand the changes San Diego must make to end its budget nightmare.


  1. Dude, it's the City Beat. You were expecting?

    FYI. The Shipyard Unions have also endorsed Wayne.

  2. It is a pity, that now I can not express - I hurry up on job. But I will return - I will necessarily write that I think.

  3. Dean,
    Don't know, they have been tough on Howard Wayne at times.

    Anon, It's a pity I can't figure out what you're talking about. I mean, not even a link to a shady web site? This is a new low for anonymous spammers. Your a disgrace to your kind, which is already a disgrace.

  4. I don't think the U-T made their case for Zapf, except that the limited editorial board has always skewed anti-union....Even in the Board of Supervisors D-5 race, where you have Bill Horn ignoring ethics at every turn, they chose not to endorse because Steve Gronke was picking up enemy-of-his-enemy support from the unions.

    As far as getting it goes...I heard Lorie Zapf wax at length about how much she loves Copenhagen and used that as a comparison of how San Diego should be. Take a look at the Netherlands' tax structure and government size and tell me we're the ones who don't get it.

  5. Also, thanks for standing up for us in response to Dean, but I actually think Dean's right.

    Lorie Zapf's emails to James Hartline poisoned her candidacy for us. Had she written in the same venomous tone against any ethnic group, it would've killed all future political ambitions. People can change, but at no point did she indicate any kind of heartfelt 180. The Log Cabin Republicans like to compare her Sanders, but his switch really was on gay marriage and he made it up to the community by becoming a major advocate for LGBT rights. Zapf didn't do that.

    Anyway, it's a matter of values. You value your issues and we value ours and that's cool.

  6. Dave,
    I was actually fairly ignorant of the City Beat's editorial slant, I mostly read the articles which are often well written and tread where the U-T won't go.
    I really loathe the politics of this city. It seems like there are only big union candidates or big labor candidates. I am pretty sure that Lorie Zapf was anointed by the boopahs of the Republican party long before the election and by extension the business establishment, so you get a pick-your-poison dilemma. Huckabone alluded to this in the primary debate. Both big labor and big business are injurious to the the public purse, note the crap Sanders just pulled, but in this cycle right now, it is the unions that are the bigger threat.

  7. "I am pretty sure that Lorie Zapf was anointed by the boopahs of the Republican party long before the election and by extension the business establishment, so you get a pick-your-poison dilemma."

    I think you're probably right. But I also think that when they anointed her, they didn't anticipate the race would be as competitive as it is, or else they would've vetted her a bit more.

    I'm surprised you weren't familiar with our slant, as you put it. Generally, we're pretty liberal when it comes to editorials and we have our pet issues when it comes to news reporting. I think we tend to be pretty balanced in our distrust of politicians--and we aim to be a solid in our reporting as possible.

    Thanks again for putting our reportage out there.