Feedback

Connect three

Your issue of Feb. 15 had a thought-provoking editorial, “Too Bad for Clinton,” a too-brief piece by Eric Wolff on super-delegates [“The Front Lines”] and Pat Sherman’s informative cover story on Potrero and the fight over Blackwater. But you missed an opportunity to connect the dots.

As you point out, Hillary Clinton’s initial strategy was to raise and spend the big money early and quickly eliminate any challengers. Part of that, pushed by Clinton strategists, was to combine as many states as possible on “Super Tuesday.” After that, it would be all but over; the Democrats would have a clear presumptive nominee while the Republicans would still be fighting over who was to be their candidate. That strategy failed spectacularly on Feb. 5, which accounts for the Clinton campaign being temporarily broke.

The new fallback strategy, as you point out, is to put in a claim for delegates from Florida and Michigan, states the Democratic party and all candidates agreed would not be recognized or seated at the convention. You correctly point out that this is not only unfair to other candidates, but suggests “sheer desperation” on the part of the Clinton campaign.

Your editorial, clearly written before Feb. 13, points out that Clinton had been leading among low-income voters. In the Virginia primary on Feb. 12, however, Obama led Clinton among those same voters, Hispanics and women—the previous cornerstones of Clinton support.

Now start connecting the dots. Imagine a scenario in which Obama goes to the convention in the lead with duly elected delegates. Then the Clintonites push for Florida and Michigan delegates to be seated and lean on the super-delegates—the party in-crowd—to give Clinton the nomination. No amount of spin will prevent this from inevitably being seen as “an insider deal” or “politics as usual,” reminding people of just what they didn’t like about the Clintons. Is that nomination going to be palatable for the moderate Republicans, the reform Democrats, and above all the independents and young people Obama has attracted into the campaign? Say hello to President McCain.
Now connect the dots to Potrero. Clinton’s chief pollster is Mark Penn. As Jonathan Alter pointed out in the Jan. 21 Newsweek, Penn is the CEO of one of the world’s largest public relations firms, Burson-Marsteller. Among his clients are sleazy predatory lenders, some anti-union companies—and Blackwater. Forget what Potrero’s planning board and the county Supervisors decide. If Clinton is elected, the mercenaries of Blackwater will make Potrero’s rural roads look like the Indianapolis Speedway, as these out-of-control cowboys speed down to their lucrative share of border-security boodle. Potrero residents would be safer in Baghdad.

Connect the dots, guys. And keep up the good work.

William A. Koelsch,
Bankers Hill

Editor’s note: Mr. Koelsch wrote his letter long before the news last week that Blackwater Worldwide officials have decided to pull their plan to site a training facility in Potrero. Blackwater Vice President Brian Bonfiglio has told reporters that it would be too expensive to comply with county noise regulations, much to the delight of anti-Blackwater activists who’d been fighting the proposal.

Imbalance of power

Kudos to Kelly Davis for her article “Balance of power” [“The Front Lines,” Feb. 13], which highlights SDPD’s unreasonable tactics in three separate incidents. These represent only the tip of the iceberg. As the director of a human-rights organization, quite regularly I receive complaints that the SDPD conducts license checkpoints in migrant neighborhoods near schools and during school hours. Tow trucks sneak around waiting to impound at a rate of 10 per hour in some cases and parents complain that they no longer trust police officers. This really confuses the meaning of community-policing.

The fact is that migrant families are less likely to file complaints against police officers for unprofessional conduct, including similar experiences as described in the article, as well as more egregious behavior such as verbal and physical abuse, abuse of authority, etc. While the SDPD maintains a policy of non-collaboration with immigration authorities, in migrant communities quite frequently you hear stories of local cops needlessly calling the Border Patrol for “assistance” in incidents as simplistic as traffic infractions.

What is a solution? The multiple communities that make up San Diego need to develop real control and oversight of police departments, to ensure that an internal-affairs investigation is not rubberstamping an injustice, and local politicians need to be more responsive to vulnerable communities by facilitating access to decision-making processes.

Pedro Rios,
Director,
American Friends Service Committee,
U.S./Mexico Border Program

I like Mike

Your Feb. 20 editorial intimates that City Attorney Mike Aguirre’s behavior is inappropriate. This is exactly how the San Diego Good-Old-Gang Club wants to portray him, and you took the bait.

In my opinion, the only representatives the people of San Diego have at City Hall are Aguirre and Donna Frye. The others are puppets of developers, businessmen and the Republican Party. They hate Aguirre because he is the only one who will challenge them. They attempt to focus on his behavior to obscure their own inappropriate actions. In the interest of fairness, let’s talk about the behavior of the others:

The Sunroad building—20 feet too high. What’s not to understand? Why did Jerry Sanders let it happen? It made it especially easy to determine all the culprits when the whole gang (Kolender, Dumanis, Lansdowne, etc.) stood beside Mayor Sanders at the press conference to support him. None of them seemed to understand that 180 feet is 20 feet higher than 160 feet. Even the San Diego Union-Tribune eventually figured out that there is a difference between 180 feet and 160 feet.

The mayor, similar to George Bush, continues his pursuit of power. He wants more control of the auditor’s office, and he wants to make it more difficult for the City Council to override his vetoes.

There are very few people fighting for the public good, and Aguirre is one of them, in my opinion. I plan to vote for him again for city attorney.

Ron Harris,
Scripps Ranch

Stoking the fire

I was listening to Roger Hedgecock bash Mexico again the other day. He was focusing on how dangerous it is for tourists and never once did he link the violence between the cartels there with the demand for illegal drugs here.
Not only is our neighbor’s house on fire [“Political Lunacy,” Feb. 6], but with our insane “war” on drugs, we’re pouring gasoline on the hot spots.

Anne Wayman,
National City