I never seriously doubted that San Diego CityBeat would endorse Proposition D. Now the left-leaning alt-weekly has made its support of the tax hike official.
CityBeat originally claimed it opposed Prop. D, but I found its declared opposition less than convincing for reasons I won’t repeat here.
For more information about CityBeat’s political preferences, read its endorsements of candidates and ballot propositions.
As for my political preferences (Libertarian), at the state level I’m following John & Ken’s ballot guide, with the unlikely but possible exception of holding my nose and supporting the untrustworthy Meg Whitman over the catastrophic Jerry Brown.
At the local level, I’ll follow Richard Rider’s recommendations.
Thanks to CityBeat’s Dave Maass — a genuinely nice guy I had the pleasure of meeting recently — for alerting me to the endorsement.
—————————————-
DISCLAIMER: This is my opinion, and not necessarily that of the North County Times, my employer.
Comments 8
Thanks Bradley! Good to meet you too.
Glad to see you’re backing Prop 19…but Damon Dunn? Really?
Bradley,
I know you’ll never believe it, but when we said we were unsure on Prop. D, we meant it. Our endorsement came after a great deal of discussion and research.
–kelly davis
associate editor
san diego citybeat
Dave,
Of course I’m for Prop. 19, since I think drugs should be legalized. And since John & Ken are very close to my beliefs, I’m willing to let them guide me for the most part.
Hi Kelly,
I’m not disputing that CityBeat staffers think they were truly open-minded about Prop. D and did a lot of research. But when CityBeat publishes an editorial that amounts to an endorsement of Prop. D., I’m going to interpret it that way.
The original CityBeat editorial ostensibly opposing Prop. D. demanded that opponents deliver a sure-fire budget fix before the November election. However, any budget-cutting solution to the city’s structural deficit is going to be controversial, and risk legal action. So the CityBeat editorial set up an impossibly high standard for opposition, indistinguishable from that of Prop. D’s supporters.
They did get the Area B school board candidate right, even at the risk of bodily harm by a former school board member (very funny, must read).
Go Rosen!
The funny part about the “reluctant” endorsers of Prop D — at least the business “rent seeking” groups — is that they claim that they will aggressively work to repeal Prop D if meaningful reforms are not completed by the city council.
Let me assure you of two things:
1. If Prop D passes, the reforms won’t be meaningful — though the “conditions” may technically be met.
2. After #1 is apparent, not a single “reluctant” supporter of Prop D will make any effort to repeal the prop, or to remove the lying city politicians. These supporters themselves are lying — or perhaps delusional.
Know the difference between a Democrat and a RINO Republican supporting a tax increase? The Republican will do so with a frowny face. Like this: 🙁
Author
Richard, you’ve nailed it. The language of politics is so debased you can’t take stated aims at face value. People routinely say one thing and do the opposite. But judging by the recent polls on Prop. D., the public isn’t fooled by the “reluctant” guise of those favoring it. Perhaps this Orwell-speak has been so overused it is finally losing its effectiveness.