Back in 2004, Jim Meko wrote about the Chronicle’s sustained campaign against me. He counted over two-dozen editorials and 40 op-ed columns attacking me in less than my first 3 years in office.

The hits never stopped.

I blogged this summer, More Chronicle Lies, when I caught the Chronicle in at least 3 lies in one story! Although the paper ran a correction, they retold the same lie in their editorial on the very same day! (They also threw in a few new ones – including that I had only won election twice!)

So, maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that they have done it again. In a very slow news week (Chron 0927 Chron 0927 Chron 0925 Ex 0925 Chron 0924 Chron Editorial 0924 Ex 0924 Chron 0923 Chron 0923 ABC7 0923 Chron 0922 AP 0922 Chron 0921 Chron 0921 Ex 0921 Ex 0921 LA Times 0921 Ex 0920 AP 0920 Chron 0920 AP 0920 AP 0920 NBC11 0920 KTVU 2 0920 KRON 4 0920 Ex 0920 Chron 0920 Chron 0920 BAR 0927 Chron 0926 Chron 0926 Chron 0926 Chron 0926 Ex 0926 Ex Editorial 0926 Ex 0926 SFBG 0926 AP 0926 LA Times 0926 ABC 7 0925 CBS5 0925 Ex 0925 Ex 0925 Chron 0925 KCBS 0925 KTVU2 0925 CBS5 0925 AP 0925), the Chronicle must have had nothing better to do than attack me again. The editors claimed that “common sense” prevailed over my resolution calling for a halt to Blue Angels flyovers. Then they eviscerated my main argument for the legislation…

Daly’s ostensible reason was safety, citing an accident involving a Blue Angel F/A-18 Hornet jet in Beaufort, S.C. earlier this year. But Daly had been trying to pressure the Port of San Francisco to end the air show long before the South Carolina crash.

Wow, those wily Chronicle editors really stuck it to me, showing that I only opportunistically used the fireball in South Carolina to push my agenda… except, should we let a little thing like the facts get in the way of such a strong argument? You guessed it — I never even contacted the Port, or anyone else for that matter, about the Blue Angels before that terrible April crash. It appears as if the writer of today’s editorial is a bald-faced liar who makes shit up to advance the Chronicle’s political agenda. Who wrote it, John?

UPDATE: Thu Sep 27 18:05:41 PDT 2007

Dear Supervisor Daly,

I have searched Port records and I do not recall, nor do I have any records of, any conversation between you or your staff and the Port Commissioners or Port staff on the subject of the Blue Angels at any time prior to the August 13, 2007 Government and Audits Committee meeting.

The only documentation received by the Port of San Francisco prior to the Committee meeting was a copy of your proposed resolution. Thank you.

Monique Moyer
Executive Director
Port of San Francisco

It was yet another minor media circus today at City Hall with the news of Gavin Newsom’s suspension of Supervisor Ed Jew and his appointment of Deputy Budget Director Carmen Chu to fill in during the suspension. Lost in the ruckus however, a trial balloon floated in this morning’s Chronicle story, that Newsom is considering Assessor Phil Ting for the District 4 seat.

Given Ms. Chu’s apparent lack of political operation and experience (she actually said that she didn’t know much about district issues at this morning’s press conference.) And given the Mayor’s gamesmanship on a previous Board appointment, I am concerned that Newsom may be planning another “triple play”. I have written much about how the Newsom administration has benefited from the Elsbernd for Hall trade. While Tony Hall brought a very conservative politics to City Hall, he was most certainly a voice of independence from the machines of Willie Brown and then Gavin Newsom. While Newsom took a week of bad press for the move, he was able to trade a vocal critic for a calculating and efficient field marshal on the Board. As much as any other Supervisor, Elsbernd now frames the Board’s debate.

Newsom now may have the opportunity to fundamentally change the politics of the Board again. While District 4 has been home to some of the most conservative local politicians, no District 4 Supe has ever been aligned with Newsom. Clearly Gavin will be able to turn this conservative but independent seat over to a close ally.

With the introduction of Ting’s name into the mix, Newsom may have a shot at picking up 2 seats by executing another “triple play”. Interim Supervisor Chu only serves during Ed Jew’s suspension. After today’s meeting, I asked the interim Supervisor if she wanted to keep her seat past the suspension period. She told me that she did not know — that it was too early to say. In other words, Newsom hadn’t told her his plans yet.

If the Board removes Jew and then Newsom decides to appoint Ting (who has had his eyes on the District 4 seat since his run for MUD Board) to the Supe seat, then the Assessor’s job would be available for a “progressive” Supe who is termed out in just a year. If Supervisor Sandoval, who recently endorsed Newsom for Mayor, could be convinced to take the job he sought only two years ago, then Newsom could appoint protégé Asha Safai to the District 11 seat. This would give Safai a huge advantage in the District 11 race, where long-time neighborhood and progressive leader, John Avalos, has the early momentum. It would also give Newsom 5 strong allies (4 originally appointed by Gavin) on the Board and most likely the gravity to pull a sixth and deciding vote on the Board. Downtown’s takeover of the “district” Board would be complete.

Newsom has claimed that his suspension of Jew is not politically motivated. If this is true, Newsom should have a conversation with Ms. Chu, publicly announce his permanent replacement, and go on record that he will not attempt a “triple play” to grab 2 Supervisor seats. He also should jointly announce with that individual that they will not seek election in February. This would allow District 4 voters the opportunity to select their representative without the powerful influence of incumbency and Mayor’s office interference in legislative affairs. This would also put to rest concerns that the Mayor’s moves are politically motivated and thus strengthen the Mayor’s charges of official misconduct.

Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius lamented the lack of a strong challenge in this year’s Mayor’s race. After spending 3 years building the myth of Camelot in San Francisco, is The Chronicle suddenly concerned about Newsom’s record on homicides, MUNI, and development? Or were they counting on a heated Mayor’s race to boost their lagging sales?

Last month, with the filing deadline fast aproaching, I counted 3 upsides to me not running. The first was the prospect of a relatively normal Fall with ability to spend time with my growing family. Next was knowing that Newsom’s fundraising, and thus Eric Jaye’s payday, would be significantly cut. Finally, it sure did seem like The Chronicle was looking for a contested Mayor’s race generate some sales.

The San Francisco Chronicle has hit some tough times. Circulation has fallen precipitously, dropping about 25% from 2004 to 2006. The newspaper has cut back significantly on local news coverage. There have been major cutbacks in staff, with one-forth of the newsroom being let go this year.

There’s been a good bit of speculation as to the future of the paper. Some believe that the Hearst Corporation will stop printing The Chronicle as a daily and instead build around their popular online site, SF Gate.

Just to make it fun, I’ve created a market on Inkling.com, so we all can place our bets on the demise of The Chron. Here’s your choices…

2007 – We’ve seen big newsroom layoffs. This paper is a goner. Without a competitive Mayor’s race, Hearst will stop printing The Chronicle or sell the paper in 2007. (Keep in mind, they may still continue with their online publication, SF Gate.)

2008 – The Chronicle is hobbled but may try to make it through the Presidential campaign. Hearst will stop printing The Chronicle or sell the paper in 2008. (Keep in mind, they may still continue with their online publication, SF Gate.)

2009- Despite being in poor financial health, the paper will make it through the Presidential campaign and into 2009. It won’t make it further. Hearst will stop printing The Chronicle or sell the paper in 2009. (Keep in mind, they may still continue with their online publication, SF Gate.)

2010 – The Chronicle’s problems don’t mean eminent closure, but with the internet there are looming issues. Hearst will stop printing the Chronicle or sell the paper in 2010. (Keep in mind, they may still continue with their online publication, SF Gate.)

2011 or Later – The Chronicle is a venerable institution printed in one form or another since 1865. It will be in print at least until 2011.

Wagers, anyone?