Rollins on Pelosi's San Francisco: "[O]ne of the bastions of lawlessness in this country"
SUMMARY: On Lou Dobbs Tonight, GOP strategist Ed Rollins asserted that Nancy Pelosi would not "get tough" on national security issues if she were speaker of the House because she "comes from San Francisco, one of the bastions of lawlessness in this country." However, in 2004, an independent research company ranked San Francisco as the ninth-safest of the 32 U.S. cities with a population greater than 500,000.
Appearing on the September 13 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, Ed Rollins, GOP strategist and former official in the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations, claimed that House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi "comes from San Francisco, one of the bastions of lawlessness in this country" and therefore "is certainly not going to be the one that's going to convince Americans that the Democrats are going to get tough" on issues of national security.
As Media Matters for America has noted, Republicans and conservatives have used Pelosi and the "San Francisco liberal" epithet in an effort to, as The Hill newspaper put it, "scare voters" at the prospect of a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives with Pelosi as speaker.
In 2004, independent research company Morgan Quitno Press ranked San Francisco as the ninth-safest of the 32 U.S. cities with a population greater than 500,000, based on data from the FBI's 2003 Uniform Crime Report.
After the 1993 gubernatorial election in New Jersey, Rollins ignited a controversy when he told an assembled group of journalists that he had helped suppress the African-American vote while working for Republican Christine Todd Whitman's campaign. According to the November 22, 1993, edition of Time magazine:
In a breakfast meeting with Washington journalists, Rollins claimed that "street smart" New Jersey Republicans had doled out $500,000 in "walking-around money" to black ministers and Democratic Party activists on Whitman's behalf. But in this case the payments were actually sitting-around money, designed to counter [then-Gov. Jim] Florio's heavy support among black voters by discouraging them from turning out on Election Day. As Rollins told the journalists, "We went into black churches and we basically said to ministers who had endorsed Florio, 'Do you have a special project?' And they said, 'We've already endorsed Florio.' We said, 'That's fine -- don't get up on the Sunday pulpit and preach. We know you've endorsed him, but don't get up there and say it's your moral obligation that you go on Tuesday to vote for Jim Florio.' " He added that Republicans had paid "key workers" in black Democratic strongholds to "go home, sit and watch television" instead of delivering voters to the polls. Bragged Rollins: "I think to a certain extent we suppressed their vote."
A grand jury subsequently investigated Rollins' statements, though no charges were ever brought.
From the September 13 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
LOU DOBBS [host]: Well, the Democrats, always taking the high road here, [background laughing] I notice that no way have the Democrats attempted to make national security an issue here in these midterm elections, and I really respect that, [laughs] Robert.
ROBERT ZIMMERMAN [Democratic strategist]: Well, with all due respect to the distinguished gentleman in front of me, let me just say that --
DOBBS: He wants to slap the hell out of me.
ZIMMERMAN: Let me be very clear. Homeland security and fighting the war on terrorism is our threshold issue. And our ability -- our showing the need to fight it competently and separating the war in Iraq, which has been a drain from fighting terrorism, is the issue.
ROLLINS: Speaker wannabe Pelosi, who comes from San Francisco, one of the bastions of lawlessness in this country, [laughter] is certainly not going to be the one that's going to convince Americans that Repub -- that Democrats are going to get tough on these issues.
ZIMMERMAN: Our candidates are gonna carry that message, and Speaker Pelosi is going to put that into effect as speaker.
He's talking about all that sodomy going on out there...praise Jeeeeezzzzzzzzuuuussssssss!
... in America being the White House.
Does San Francisco have TWO court rulings against it saying that its actions over the past several years have been ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
BUSH has that "lawless" distinction. Wonder if Rollins will give credit where due?
Another example of how Republican political strategy deals in perception, and the creation of it, rather than reality. What's new...?
Actually the report MMFA cites is only based on six crime categories: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft.
So while it might lack these, it is possible that San Fran does have a higher rate of other crimes. (My guess is a lot of drug misdemeanors, etc. but that's an unfounded assumption). I'll check the UCRs and get back to y'all. Out.
but misdemeanors (whatever the numbers are vs say DC, oops that's dumbaya and Nazi-Poppy's area!) may make up for that? LOL talk about your slippery slope !
That there's more white-collar crime going on in the White House right now than in all of San Fransisco.
You have to agere, if you really are honest with yourself, that these are the crimes that matter. That is why the crime statistics choose those crimes to track.
Although, another reply to your post makes a good point about white collar crime. Those crimes do far more aggregate damage to the citizenry than all violent crimes combined.
This is clearly the Republican strategy heading into the midterms. They will make every local legislative race, fairly or not, about Nancy Pelosi.
It will go something like this no doubt, "If you want to keep ultra liberal Pelosi away from the Speaker of the House and two heartbeats away from the White House, vote against Democratic candidate "A" and vote for the Republican".
In my opinion, it was a mistake to put Pelosi in the position she's in. She is too liberal for most and that perception of her will be used to detail her most liberal votes in Congress. Fair or not, it's politics, unseemly it may be, but it's the reality.
I wouldn't support Pelosi and if I were on the fence about who to vote for and I lived in the Midwest or the South, it could make a difference. Now before I get attacked for attacking Pelosi, that's not what I am doing. I am merely pointing out what may happen in the fall.
Most who? Americans or just the Republican control freaks in Congress who cannot STOP EXECUTING BUSH'S WILL? If being "too liberal" means taking a contrarian view of the world according to Bush then count me as "too liberal" too. You can also lump in the 60% of America that believes Iraq was a mistake as being "too liberal".
"Too liberal" is a meaningless denigrating tag created to incite fear over a Democratic controlled Congress, as if Congress will mandate nipple rings and leather dog collars for every American if a representative of "those people" gets control.
It could be Zell Miller and republicans would still call him a liberal and say vote for the republican.
Anybody who voted for the greatest moron in the history of the presidency, Gee Duhbya Bush, should be disqualified from political commentary.
From now until November, all NeoCon Pundits SHALL mention Speaker Pelosi at least once in every media appearance! ACHTUNG!
"Actung" mean "Attention!" So YOU probably should have begun your Rovian post with it, not placed it at the end....just some leftover knowledge from years of watching Hogan's Heroes ;-)
I don't particularly like Pelosi, BUT I doubt Republicans evoking her NAME like she's some kind of "boogiewoman" will resonate much with the electorate. I'm betting IF you went out in the streets of Any City/Town U.S.A. and asked ordinary citizens who she was, MOST wouldn't have a CLUE. Sadly TOO many citizens can't even name their OWN Representatives OR Senators.
You are correct, of course. Putting Achtung at the end is strictly VERBOTEN!
I doubt if 20% of the country knows who Pelosi is or Hastert is for that matter.
That's why it's critical to mention she's from San Francisco. It's not really important how you work it into the conversation (lying about lawlessness here is a good trick, though) as long as you point out that the Next Speaker is gonna be from the place where all of THOSE people come from. You know. THOSE people. THEM.
think anyone votes based upon who will become speaker of the house.
Perhaps there are polls proving me wrong, but I'm willing to go out on that limb.
I would agree with you in theory, as all politics are local and most don't view their vote in that regard.
But linking some local Democrat to Pelosi just because they share a "D" at the end of their name could be very effective for the Republicans, especially if they are told that she will have such a powerful position in legislation.
On the other hand, the Democrats may link Bush and his plummeting poll numbers to the local Republican too. That could also not be so good for the "R's".
Works both ways, and often times it works well.
Most voters have no idea what the Speaker of the House does. Heck, I would venture a guess most people, especially in areas outside of CA and DC, have no idea who Pelosi even is. Most voters are not as informed and engaged as the people on this website. Sad to say. Out.
You're right; I'd love to see a man-on-the-street survey and see who they think she is.
So, which is more potent...fear of Pelosi or disgust with Bush?
I just replied to your post [scroll up] SAYING pretty much the SAME thing.
Mmmmm does that mean we [sometimes] think alike :-O
This is exactly why it will work, in some areas like the South or the Midwest. The ads will list Pelosi's most liberal votes, put some unflattering angry picture of her up there, tell people that she will be the third most powerful person in Washington, and that's that.
Uninformed voters who are nervous and reluctant to switch to a Democrat, but are not to thrilled with Bush, may just stay Republican.
Most voters have no idea what the Speaker of the House does.
Apparently Ed Rollins thinks that the job of the Speaker of the House is to provide law enforcement services to the cities in their districts.
I thought it was to have a big head and red face...
I thought Newt and Denny had the job DOWN!
Perhaps they should make Edward Kennedy Speaker... ;-)
as the next in the line of Speakers with Enormous Heads. They are like a bunch of Hutts.
Would have to give up his senate seat and then win a seat in the house to become speaker.
But, I'll grant you, he is big. And not just his head.
But I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to take a jab at Sir Drinks-a-Lot. ;-)
Maybe that's what we SHOULD be pushing for: Edward Kennedy to give up his Seante seat. Gotsa run. Out.
... the PRESIDENT, BUSH? Nah, he says he quit. But so did Ted Kennedy. So much for "fair and balanced".
I guess now CHENEY has the Sir Drinks-a-Lot title ... while armed.
How about Clinton as "Sir Gal-I-had"?
I dont see how that could be done
One would think that attacking the speaker of the house could hardly play in local and congressional races but the Democrats sure thought so in the Gingrich era. I would guess that on a visceral level Pelosi, and her image, are just as toxic as Gingrich's.
I should have identified Pelosi as someone who might end up as speaker of the house after the November elections.
Turnabout IS fairplay. The Democrats did do that in the mid-1990's as you say. Newt was IMO unfairly demonized -- even though I personally disagree with much of his ideas and almost entirely with the "Contract on America". You are right.
A difference is that the Democrats really started attacking Gingrich (using similar scare tactics)after he was already SotH.
Is that significant? I wouldn't think so.
The Republicans have every reason to bring up Pelosi and I don't know why they wouldn't.
The only real defense to this tactic is to prove them wrong (or at least give evidence to the contrary) at EVERY turn. Gingrich failed miserably at that. Let's see how Pelosi does.
Newt was IMO unfairly demonized -open mind
-----------------------------------
Newt Gingrich is a white racist pig. He demonized himself.
The difference is that invoking the name of the Speaker only works when the Speaker is an ethically-challenged scumbag.
The Republican base, those automatons who still support Bush, can be driven to the polls in an "anti-Pelosi" fever.
The Republicans drive their base to the polls.
Even in 2004, when we had lots of new or 'lazy' Democrats vote, the Republicans still were able to smother those additional votes by pushing their own supporters to the polls with referendums about gay marriage and by instilling fear of a Democratic President's actions on fighting terrorism.
They are hoping to drive those one issue voters, people who have a knee-jerk, negative reaction to liberals like Nancy Pelosi, to the polls.
These are the same people who might buy into the message from Michael Savage. It is not coincidental that he is talking about strident women in Congress when the Republicans are talking about how they cannot trust Nancy Pelosi.
I think that there are lots of people who will listen to this message, and instead of staying home because they are not 100% happy with Bush, will go to the polls to vote against Pelosi.
Rove knows how to drive his base. Sometimes it is by using positive propaganda to drive supporters to the polls, and other times it is by using negative propaganda against the 'enemies' of Republicans.
Rollins didn't indicate what he meant by "lawlessness" so MMFA throwing out a crime statistic doesn't begin to refute him. Perhaps he meant that the city's lawlessness is gauged by a mayor who flouted the state marriage law, performing thousands of illegal marriage that were subsequently invalided by the courts. Perhaps he meant that the Board of Supervisors (City Council) has passed laws forbidding law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officials. San Francisco is a bastion of lawlessness in that it ignores and violates laws the ruling elite distains. Lawlessness isn’t confined to violent crime.
Few people realize that San Francisco, despite its oft-cited "diversity" is firmly under the control of a "progressive", white power elite who run the city to benefit themselves.
Crime, since MMFA, brings it up is rampant in the southeast corner of the city and is currently undergoing an epidemic of murder. The residents, overwhelmingly low-income African Americans, have for years begged City Hall for relief but, trivial issues, such as gay marriage, smoking laws and irrelevant political proclamations clog the council's agenda. The neighborhoods inhabited by affluent, white "progressives" are very safe and pleasant indeed.
Since most public school kids are from black, Hispanic and Asian families the public school system is wretched. Due to "progressive" housing and land use policies the black population has been declining as they seek a better life outside of the San Francisco liberal utopia. Lately the Latinos have been voting with their feet to get the hell out. Life is great in this city as long as you are white and rich.
Your assessment of much of San Francisco ills is spot on. I have visited often and live nearby. The local politicians and their obsession with the silliness you describe is extremely detrimental to a beautiful city.
It's time to vote them out.
Even though they represent a minority of the city's population (the white and the affluent) this minority contributes politically and does vote in extremely high numbers. The "progressive" are also experts at selling themselves as "friends of the little people" even as they enact policies that screw the working class and the poor.
In the listing of the ten most liberal big cities in America, Berkely, Oakland and San Fransisco come in third, fourth and fifth. Election results were one of the criteria. Another study listed them 3, 5, and 9, also listing the Bay area as the MOST liberal area in the country.
[link to votingresearch.org]
Two conservatives admitting that all this wrangling about Gay Marriage is trivial. Be sure to pass that on to Senator Frist, before he drags out that stupid Gay Marriage Amendment again.
just a bushite agenda to seperate dems from repubs..... waist of my time.
Throw me in there too. Gay Marriage Amendments are so absurd. Ugh.
We don't need to be wasting our time on this silliness. No amendment.
is exactly the problem.
Rollin is hoping that he can throw out an ugly sounding, unclarified, non-scienctific statement, pretend its a fact and hope like hell it sticks or no one bother to question him.
but Rollins also fails to explain how the San Francisco's alleged "lawlessness" bears any relationship to Nancy Pelosi. She is a federal legislator with little or no ability to affect the crime rate in one of the cities she represents.
Is one of the most liberal areas (I mean Greater SF, Oakland Richmond Santa Palo Alto...) in the nation. Its not going to come around to your way of thinking anytime soon, anymore Orange County is going to become liberal. So as for voting them out, its wishful thinking. What they have been doing is acting on what their constituents want. Isnt that terrible. Got problems with democracy do you?
"The neighborhoods inhabited by affluent, white "progressives" are very safe and pleasant indeed."
Sounds like every major city in the country, except in most cases, the affluent white folk tend to vote Republican. Need those tax cuts, you know.
Do you mean the rich, white people inhabiting the Upper West and East Sides of Manhattan? The rich, white people who live in Santa Monica and Berkeley? Large cities run by tiny groups of white "progressives" whose policies screw "the little people" can hardly be accused of being run by Republicans. Ever notice how all the big cities run by Democrats, instead of being liberal utopias, are hell-holes for the minorities and poor?
Cerberus and Tommy, you guys are welcome to move down here to Mississippi any time you like. Politically and socially it is controlled by rich white Republicans. It is at the bottom of every list you'd want to be at the top of, and at the top of every list you'd want to be at the bottom of. There's plenty of room because it's generally not considered a desirable place to move to.
It's funny how these horrible, liberal places like the Bay Area, Seattle, and Manhattan are also the most desirable places to live (as reflected by the cost of living), while wonderful, conservative places like Mississippi are barely hanging on.
Have you tried to buy a house in SF or NY lately. Unless you can pony up near a million dollars, you can forget about it.
Elitist, latte-drinking, limousine liberals and rich corporatist, open-border Republicans are much the same actually. I don't really differentiate between them too much, they are more alike than they would admit.
Have you tried to buy a house in SF or NY lately. Unless you can pony up near a million dollars, you can forget about it.
Exactly. The high price of real estate in those places proves that they are desirable places to live.
You said as reflected by the cost of living? Desirable areas also have affordable housing and most cannot afford a home.
as reflected by the cost of housing, not the cost of living. My mistake.
Your correction noted, but if you look at the most desirable cities in the U.S. to live, it usually does not include SF or NY in the top. It is normally more moderate sized cities with lower crime rates, schools, weather, etc.
"Ever notice how all the big cities run by Democrats, instead of being liberal utopias, are hell-holes for the minorities and poor?"
I seriously hope that you don't actually believe in this statement as written? Your not that naive from the other posts I've seen you write. Why would you make a statement like this knowing full well how misleading it is?
Maybe a hell-hole for minorities and the poor IS a liberal utopia. (That's a joke for those of you in the media.)
is a small town run by Republicans.
Right.
Someone can name a large city run by Republicans where the poor have it made and there is no crime.
*sound of crickets chirping*
That's what I thought.
Is one of those things you pay for DUH
Have you tried to buy a house in SF or NY lately. Unless you can pony up near a million dollars, you can forget about it.
-Tommy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact, Tommy, I did just recently buy a house here in SF. And I ponied up nearly $2mil. for it. It was worth EVERY penny. But you see, it's the AREA in which you live in SF which drives the cost of housing. The average price of a two bedroom/one bathroom home in SF is between $630,000 and $650,000. People who can afford to buy houses buy houses, no matter what city or state they're in. If you can't afford it, you rent. That's life. Our local economy supports such prices. Also, the average income in SF is much higher than the national average - again proving that our economy can support such high prices. Those who can afford to live here, do. Those that cannot, move to Oakland or other points East or South of SF.
Now Tommy, I suggest that if you're not happy with the prices of homes and the rental rates in SF, then maybe you should not tout the wonders of capitalism and competition. Your beautiful capitalism is what drives the economy, in every state. The high cost of living in the Bay Area is the result of CAPITALISM and DESIRABILITY.
It might not be competition... it might be inflation. People get paid more to do the same job, people pay more for the same goods. Doesn't really sound like competition, sounds more like inflation. All the ratios are the same, they're just a much higher numbers.
are you hinting that maybe people in San Francisco should be paid less? What? Please explain.
This oughta be good...
but I bet if they were paid less, prices would be less too. Pretty much how things work.
honestly think about what you're saying before you post it?
If the residents of SF were to have their pay rates cut, prices would come down - eventually. That eventually could be anywhere from a few years time to a few DECADES time. For example, when I first moved to SF, I rented a 2bedroom, 1 bathroom apartment for $1800/month. It was approx 1050 sq. feet. I was in a CONTRACT (i.e. lease) for one year. Go ahead, cut my salary, see if I can afford to pay rent for the rest of my lease/contract. It won't work. Cutting peoples' salaries in order to artificially squelch the local economy would be a disaster for everyone involved. I would think that a capitalist such as yourself would see that.
In a free market system you dont charge according to what it costs, you charge according to what you can GET. I remember in the early eighties the Philidelphia Eagles charged the second highest ticket prices in the NFL, they also had the third lowest payroll. You conservatives always try to link the cost of something to what it cost to produce, thats a false perception. If a company can get 100$ for something THAT is what they will charge even if it cost them a dime to make. The cost of housing in San Fransisco is high because the quality of life is good. People want to live there the supply is less than the demand. It doesnt cost three times the national average to build a house in SF they GET it because it is WORTH it to those buying.
That is exactly my point. Right wingers complain that prices are too high, that "normal" people can't buy a house in SF, etc. One solution to the problem would be to put a cap on the prices - but don't leave it to a capitalist to do that. That is a very socialistic idea. Housing prices are high here because it is a desirable place to live. But, market forces drive it and people charge these high prices BECAUSE THEY CAN.
Obviously, Solon, we are in agreement.
Now Tommy, I suggest that if you're not happy with the prices of homes and the rental rates in SF....
************************
I did not say I was unhappy with anything, where did you get that? I was merely stating a fact of the housing prices in SF and you just acknowledged what I said was true. So no need to misrepresent what I said as some slam at capitalism, because it was not.
Actually, you were commenting that housing prices are high in SF. That is correct. However, the point I was making is that it is the two-pronged capitalism and desirability which cause these high prices.
In the past, you've made it clear that it's alright for people to make as much money as they possibly can, but then in a previous post, you complained that prices for houses in SF and NY were too high (which to me, means, for the average person/family). I agree. They are too high. However, the local economy supports the prices. People WANT to live here. They want to live here to the point that they will pay the high housing costs. I am one of those people. Highest bidder wins the product (i.e. house). Would you suggest that we put a cap on housing prices here in SF? That wouldn't work, now would it?
Lets not forget the crackheads and prostitution that roams around the Tenderloin. Lets not forget how familes are being forced out of the city because it offers little for the family life. The homless situation is out of control.
but you're more wrong than right.
There are 49 square miles in this city. Fully 1/4 of that is designated park land. Just how many people do you expect to live shoulder to shoulder? Capitalist market forces combined with a low square mileage on the northern peninsula (SF) is the culprit - not liberal social ideas or what you might determine as "silly laws". Do some research next time - and try to be fair about it.
anything out of line in my above post? I know not. I live right over the hills in the MORE DESIRABLE valley. Getting to the point I visit Frisco frequently. I know what I see.
Where you name the city of 750,000 WITHOUT any drug addicts and prostitutes
town is full of poor and corruption. I thought liberals would give the sirt off thier back to help the poor. I see a lot of homless with old ratty shirts.
Many poor and homeless are attracted to areas like San Fran, Palo Alto, Seattle, etc., BECAUSE they still are nice areas with good weather, many soup kitchens and other venues for the poor to get a leg up.
Rollins didn't indicate what he meant by "lawlessness" so MMFA throwing out a crime statistic doesn't begin to refute him.
Utter nonsense. When people hear the word "lawlessness," they naturally associate it with the crime rate and how safe it is to live there. In other words, MMFA's "throwing out a crime statistic" not only begins to refute him, it refutes him completely. And everything you follow it up with ("Perhaps he meant...") is a severe grasping at straws.
Life is great in this city as long as you are white and rich.
Excuse me, Cerberus, but you've described every city in the entire country, not to mention much of the rest of the world. If you think somehow you're scoring any good points (besides Tommy's parrot-like cheerleading) about San Francisco, I would suggest you're seriously deluding yourself.
San Francisco is not like every major city in this country. And much of it's ills are due to the way it's governed, that is a fact. It is a beautiful city, desired by many, but many of it's idiotic liberalization has fueled much of it's problems.
back up your assertions. I'd like to see some concrete examples of "idiotic liberalization" that has caused San Francisco to be the lawless city Rollins claims it to be.
hold your breath
. . . making unsupported and not even well-argued points like this: "And much of it's ills are due to the way it's governed, that is a fact. " It's a "fact?" Oh,well since you said it, it must be true. I guess we can all agree that much of our country's ills are due to the way it has been goverened by the Republicans in power in both Federal and Legissltive branches, right? I mean, they certainly have governed, and their certainly are some real probleems in our country. They must necessarily be at fault. Who needs actual causality or evidence? Or is it only "liberals" whose policies can be idiotic? Conservatives, by definition, cannot be idiotic? Thanks, that makes so much sense. I'm glad you are able to appproach things objectively.
It's posts like this that make you seem like a simplistic buffoon who wishes to engage in reasoned debate but can't let go of your partisan bias.
Show me one major American city that doesn't have some problem with poverty and crime. It's all a matter of degree and statistically San Fran is not one of the worst. Rollins was wrong...
Rollins is right. The San Francisco elite power structure regularly flouts laws it doesn't approve of, hence it is lawless.
So I guess then the Bush administration is lawless, since they flaunt laws they don't agree with.
Websters Online defines 'lawless' as:
1 : not regulated by or based on law 2 a : not restrained or controlled by law
Hence, Rollins is WRONG. We have laws in SF.
Now, if he would have said something about the types of laws we have in SF, that might be different. We do have some liberal laws, but they make sense for the area and for the people they serve and protect.
Your example was inane. The guy that married gays was NOT flouting ANY law. At the time there was no law against what he did nor did it violate his interpretation of the law. Later it was overturned THAT made a legal finding which had been lacking before. Has he married people since? THAT would be flouting of the law. Your only real argument is the same as Rollins. As a conservative you dont LIKE what the liberals are doing which is serving their LIBERAL constituents. They dont think like you, they arent going to any time soon, get over it.
All politics is local. Pelosi represents the people of San Francisco. From what I can see she does a good job representing them. Her constituents like her.
American voters are smart enough to know that she represents a district in San Francisco, not the entire nation. The November elections will be about the local incumbents job performance, not Nancy Pelosi. No Democratic representative has to distance themselves from Ms. Pelosi, Will the Republican representatives up for re-election stand next to George Bush? So far it doesn't seem like they will, but it's still early.
I always wondered what happened to this man. He seemed like a non partisan in 92 when he supported Perot then he went right back to his Republican partisan hate .
us on lawlessness Ed as you bribe African American pastors. That takes moxie.
The resemblence is uncanny. I'm going to have to translate for him: Ed Rollins is a "HORNOSENSUAL", but he hasn't found his "Mr. Hat", yet. His GOP personality won't let him explore that side of himself. Therefore, he's become fanatically OBSESSED with homosexuals. He wants to eat and drink them night and day. So, when he gets asked to say something in the media, he can only attack what's constantly on his mind. He thought everyone got his little joke re.: San Francisco is the modern day equivalent of Babylon in his tiny little mind. He's ready to join Chimpy.
FBI statistics prove Rollins was right.
In 2003...San Francisco had higher than average crime rates for murder, robbery, larceny/theft, car theft, and arson.
In 2004...San Francisco had higher than average crime rates for burglary, larceny/theft, car theft, murder, robbery, and assaults.
2005 statistics will be out next month...I'm betting Rollins is still right.
How does that relate to Nancy Pelosi?
That could put it at the 51% mark. Doesn't tell us much.
What does a U.S. Congresswoman have to do with local law enforcement?
What does a U.S. Congresswoman have to do with local law enforcement?
Nothing. Which Ed Rollins either doesn't understand (doubtful) or thinks his audience is too ignorant to understand (likely).
Care to elborate? Higher then average compaired to what?
Please provide the link where your getting your viewing the data.
Higher than the national average...it's all in the FBI crime statistics...google away.
Rollins is right about crime in San Francisco...now about his connecting Pelosi and the democrat party with higher crime...just political pandering to agitate the left.
Supposedly Wesley does all of his research, but expects everyone else to do it again. What inefficiency.
Why do conservatives so rarely provide the sources for their supposed facts?
What I have often found to be the case is that there is usually something wrong with their source. It is either from a dubious source (like NewsMax, CNSNews, Townhall.com, FreeRepublic or the bathroom wall at the local Sizzler) or it shows information otherwise damaging to the point they are trying to make.
Telling everyone to "google it" is either laziness, hubris or just a veiled "up yours!" as far as I am concerned.
You need support your own arguments, Wesley.
"...connecting Pelosi and the democrat party with higher crime (is) just political pandering to agitate the left."
It's not.
It's political pandering to feed the Republican base.
It is trying to fire up dumb Republicans, and is not trying to aggrevate Democrats. It is aggrevating Democrats, but its purpose is to invigorate Republicans who aren't very happy with Bush. They have to be scared into voting for Bush and voting against Democrats.
It's all about driving their base!
Wesley is using statistics misleadingly, which is to be expected. SF is "higher than the national average" per 100,000 people, which fails to account for the fact that ANY large city will have more crime than a smaller town.
You can see for yourself here: [link to sanfrancisco.areaconnect.com]
Compare SF to such nice, Red State American burgs like Tulsa or Omaha. You will find that their crime rates are worse than SF's.
Try using the link I provided to compare the big cities in George W. Bush's "home state" of Texas to SF. Their crime rates are much, much higher.
Or Memphis, in Bill Frist's home state of Tennessee.
Or Miami, down in Jebby Country.
Or Philadelphia (Santorum), or Phoenix (McCain), etc., etc., etc.
to wonder how many of those crimes are commited by people that have no business living here....... Illegal Aliens
Look at L.A.'s most wanted list. LOLOLOL
Not everyone with a hispanic sounding name is an illegal alien. LOLOLOLOL
did I imply that? Stop putting words in my mouth you "Tolerant Liberal"....
Take exception with Rollins comments concerning Pelosi and crime...I couldn't care less. Rollins has made a career of running campaigns against democrat party candidates.
It's mudslinging...pure and simple...yet he was correct about crime in SF.
You cannot change the fact that SF has a higer crime rate per capita than the national average...it's not about total numbers of crimes...maybe you missed the braille link.
If he was trying to smear Pelosi...he succeeded.
If he was trying to outrage the left...he succeeded.
Your disgust is noted...expected...and accepted.
Rollins said:"Speaker wannabe Pelosi, who comes from San Francisco, one of the bastions of lawlessness in this country...".
So according to your logic, would any city with a crime rate higher than the national average be considered a "bastion[] of lawlessness" then? Or does that only apply to San Francisco?
Yep...you got it...and you don't even have to google it.
Your trick statistic isnt comparing large cities with large cities no one is fooled. You are constantly carrying water for Repunklicans, but this is a disengenuous argument.
Your claim was disingenuous (as usual) because all big cities have crime rates higher than the national average. When comparing apples to apples - big cities - SF is safer than most.
I'm sorry if it upsets you that crime in SF isn't as bad as you wish it were. Perhaps if you go there and commit some crimes (play your strengths - commit fraud) then you can "smear" Nancy Pelosi.
All BIG cities will have higher than average crime rates. Unless you are comparing cities of over 500,000 with OTHER cities of over 500,000 then you are comparing apples and oranges. Show that the statistics MMFA cited were wrong which put SF in the top third of safest BIG American cities or you are bloviating. Rollins was NOT right, neither are YOU.
- All BIG cities will have higher than average crime rates. - solon
Wrong again, bucko. NYC crime rates are LESS than the national average in the categories of rape, theft, burglary, and car theft.
SF...with 1/10th the population of NYC... has a HIGHER crime rate than NYC in murder, rape, theft, robbery, burglary, and car theft.
NYC crime rates are LESS [sic] than the national average in the categories of rape, theft, burglary, and car theft.
And HIGHER in murder, robbery, and assault. So Solon was right.
SF...with 1/10th the population of NYC... has a HIGHER crime rate than NYC in murder, rape, theft, robbery, burglary, and car theft.
And a LOWER rate in assault. Still, I look forward to Ed Rollins giving Hillary Clinton credit for NYC being a bastion of lawfulness.
Again please cite the data your reviewing.
I know your going to tell me to "google" it myself, but I want to know that we're all looking at the same data from the same year or same report.
Thanks!
On a side note
The whole point of this item is not about SF being better or worse then NYC.
ROLLINS: Speaker wannabe Pelosi, who comes from San Francisco, one of the bastions of lawlessness in this country, [laughter] is certainly not going to be the one that's going to convince Americans that Repub -- that Democrats are going to get tough on these issues.
Can you please clarify what Rollins ment by "lawlessness" and provide solid examples on how its one of the "bastions" of lawlessness? His statement is a bunch of garbage and extremely misleading for a number of reasons.
I was wrong making a generalization, saying ALL is usually a mistake. However it still doesnt change the FACT that when you compare cities of over 500,000 people San Fransisco falls in the lower third of violent crime rates. Showing the flaw in your skewing of statistics. That SF has a higher crime rate than Barstow just doesnt mean that much. When compared to MOST large cities they compare favorably. Nothing you can do to refute that and THAT is what is pertinent. Not how they compare with Emporia Kansas.
What is this, slam San Francisco day?
I'll preface my comment by stating that I live AND work in San Francisco. The things that Tommy, Evillib and Cerebrus are saying are true, to a certain extent, but misleading in the same vein.
To begin: Smoking in San Francisco. You know, it's no different than New York, or many other cities throughout the U.S. You cannot smoke indoors, within public confines. Smoke in your own home as much as you want. You just cannot smoke inside of buildings anywhere in CA - not just SF, so don't act like SF is SO different from anywhere else with regards to smoking.
Rusty is correct: Housing prices in SF are high due to the desireability of the city. As someone who moved to SF from the midwest, I was shocked at the average price of a home. I was shocked at the rental rates. HOWEVER, our local economy SUPPORTS the high home prices and high rental rates. BUT, what does Pelosi have to do with it? NOTHING. Just because she is from SF doesn't mean that as SotH, or possibly president, she will run SF as Gavin Newsom does.
Every city has it's shady spots. Yes, there's the Tenderloin and Bayview/Hunter's Point. But ALL cities have blighted areas and areas with high crime rates.
I'd like to see what kind of lawlessness this jackoff is talking about. It's obvious that he was vague on purpose. SF may be a bit more liberal with regards to its citizens, but it's a damn fine city to live in. I, for one, am a proud resident.
Look, it's more about POWER than it is about ideology. American urban centers are, and have been, a study in the amazing disparity between the wealthy and the poor. Read City of Quartz by Mike Davis. It's brilliant, even though it is over a decade old. Major American cities are built around huge class divisions, and the physical structures are often designed to solidify those divisions.
The silly bashing of the "liberals" who run San Francisco is idiotic because the folks who run San Francisco are just as much a part of the power structure as the "conservatives" who run other cities. People in power (whether politically, economically, and/or socially) are loathe to relinquish power for themselves and those with whom they identify, and when marginalized groups appear to be gaining power, those with power already freak out and attempt to prevent it beecuase they see a loss of power with others' gains. The poor are marginalized because that's where they are designed to be.
For conservatives to whine about "liberal social policies" as being either ineffective or harmful to the very people they are designed to aid they must ignore the many structures in place designed tomaintain the balance of power. From the media (all of it) to education to social services to law enforcement, American institutions are designed to maintain the status quo in terms of power. Otherwise, how do you explain that even with the advances of civil rights and a general "liberalizing" of society, you still have huge (and recent data indicates growing) disparities between rich, middle class and poor?
Conservatives whine about social policies without being able to admit that Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II have all enacted legislation and policies that directly benefit those with power and thrust more burden on those without it. Cities are microcosms of the larger country. Politicians are paralyzed by the realities of power and economics. Conservatives want everyone to be "responsible," but refuse to acknowledge the complete lack of responsibility those with power have as well (tax breaks for the wealthy & corporations, de-regulation, defunding oversight agencies like OSHA, starting wars based on untruths and then refusing to acknowledge any culpability).
I live in SF. Mayor Gavin Newsome (D) is not progressive. He is part of the power structure and while I think only bigotry and fear motivate opposing gay marriage, that was really just a ploy to earn points with true progressives after the election.
This is just stupid: "Since most public school kids are from black, Hispanic and Asian families the public school system is wretched." Your causal link is insipid. I teach in SF. Public schools are wretched for many reasons, none of them CAUSED by their population, but rether by the attitudes & actions of those who fund and run them, in addition to the "white flight" evident by the population of the pivate schools. BTW - studies now show that, controlling for income, private school students score no better than their public school couterparts. Our public school system has been killed by conservative policies like prop 13 which destroyed education funding. And for those of you conservatives & libertarians who claim more money won't solve education: 1) Duh. Money by itself never solves anything. You need good, research-based policies both standardized and flexible. 2) Have you ever tried to teach a class of 40 or 50 students all with disparate needs and skills? 3) Why does money make a difference in everything BUT education? We fund the defense department more than anyone else to be the most "secure" country on earth - doesn't it then follow that funding the education system to be be the most "educated" country on earth is a decent goal?
"Life is great in this city as long as you are white and rich." Wow. You are some kind of genius. Life is great EVERYWHERE if you are white and rich. You just identified the two strongest indicators of power and privilege in this country. People of color, the poor and working class struggle in a world which privileges those who already have power. It's American capitalism at work. To miss it, you must either: 1) be blind, deaf and dumb 2) believe that the reason income level and minority status coincide so well is because of some inherent deficiencies - otherwise, in the Land of Opportunity, why aren't more people economically free? Do you really believe that poor people remain poor because they just don't work hard enough?
Systemic policies & actions(mostly covert) and socially accepted attitudes of superiority, arrogance, inferiority, and shame maintain a stratified economic stats quo. The exceptions that "make it" just serve as distractions fromthe reality of how rigged the system actually is. Blaming "liberals" or "conservaatives" simply defelects the focus from reality to ideoology. It's easier to blame the "other" ideology than to examine how they actually are part of a larger social construct.
Sorry for the rambling - y'all got me on a roll.
PS - To echo others: 1) Pelosi has no connection to the amount of "lawlessness" in our city 2) I find it hilarious that a Republican who supports a president trying to make himself above the law (and just admitted to secret prisons, which are illegal by definition) can call us "lawless." Irony is funny when done well.
Great post. But if you want cons to read your posts, you have to make your posts shorter.
(Attention spans, you know.)
Thanks. I appreciate your compliment,as I've seen you produce someof the most insightful and strong posts here. As for length - you're spot on. I just got a little excited/aggravated after such idiocy. Big problemis that complexities are exactly what must be understood to truly have debate, but you get fools unable to deal with more than soundbites and reductionist, simple notions. Reasoning is dead.
BTW - if anyone here is still paying attention, The Daily Show did an AMAZING piece on CNN & FOX (especially Cavuto) using the question mark in their propaganda/tabloid reporting. You can find it on this page (which is always awesome): [link to onegoodmove.org]
This deserves an MMFA link if Olbermann does.
Using Steroids?
That will be next by the Repubs
They where not illegal when and if he had been doing them at the time. That is why the MEDIA makes me puke.
in baseball at the time.
I'll admit it and we can move on to another post. I was vsiting SF last weekend and I jaywalked twice and once let my meter run out. I'm sorry Mr. Rollins, I'm sorry.
I only hope that my thouhtless actions didn't cost Nancy Pelosi her job.
I live in the Bay Area and you sir, are so full of crap and are just another typical disgusting, lying Republican.
Please let me know when you are out our way again I will be happy to tell you more in person.
Frisco talked about turning the cheek to pot smoking. I heard it on the news just last night. Great, more pot clubs, more scum hanging around them.
I've never seen a seedy bar before, and I've never seen shady characters hanging around them. I'm sure you haven't either.
Now, look at the one in Hayward off of Mission Blvd. You seen the people that hang there? How about the ones in Oakland, have you seen those?
I have endulged for longer than most. I am a "TRUE" canididate for the card. But I REFUSE to get one because it is one of the most abused laws ever written! PERIOD! I have sriven by 3-4, and all of then invite SCUM bags! And the doctors that write the perscriptions don't care if your hurt. I know many to many people with BS injuries that have the card. SF is a haven for these clubs, and a good reason for familes with children to leave the city.
everyone flee SF based off the observations provided by Evil and the local news.
Mr. Savage/Weiner, leave us alone. Calling people SCUM because they use a pot club or go to a bar is ridiculous. The next time you decide to buy a case of PBR, do it from a grocery store. Don't use the liquor store. You know, lots of unsavory characters hang out in liquor stores.
sarcasm OFF.
anything about a liquor store or bar. Stop putting words in my mouth. Ever been to a pot club ohh sensible one?
What the heck are "pot clubs"?
A while back a law passed to allow people with illneses to smoke pot with a Doctors perscription . Shortly after, these "Clubs" started to popup. My problem with this is most people with these, "Medical Marijuana Cards" are simply abusing the law. I have heard countless times, and been witness to people going in a buying a load of pot, then selling it on the street. As well, a good majority of the people do not deserve the card. To many doctors will prescribe it to "Patients" for a meer $250.00. No proof required to show any kind of injury. These are the liberalist of Doctors. You can buy Pot, Pot brownies, Hash oils, and a couple other forms of pot. They are poping up everywhere, and invite many shady people. I am not against the use of pot, for many it is comforting. But this Club card is very abused.
Thanks for the info, Evillib.
Since your objection seems to be with the abuse of the card system, rather than with pot itself, would you favor decriminalizing marijuana outright? (That is what I personally would favor, even though I don't partake.)
I feel it is a much safer drug than alchohol. It seems it would put a end to dealers. I would just hate to see our kids subject to it in the open.
Based on what? I'm more frightened about the possibility of meth labs in my county than I am about liberals in San Francisco.
because Families are fleeing SF like there is no tomorrow. They must be afraid of the Liberal SF.
Didn't he get in trouble a while back when he bragged about secretly paying some black ministers money to suppress black voter turnout? Where supposed to listen to him about lawlessness?
How on every single one of these FoxNews, or Conservative-Liberal roundtable debates, the MOMENT a liberal starts to criticize Bush's failed policies in Iraq, or the War on Terror, he gets IMMEDIATELY shouted over and cut off. Watch the video again. The moment the other guy started to get into Iraq, Rollins just dove in with this idiotic non-sequitor. It happens EVERY TIME, and I wish to hell, a liberal would say, Excuse Me! I was just about to criticize the war and you cut me off! Why is that? Is it because you know you can't win this argument in front of the American people? But nobody ever does that; they let the conservative just bulldoze their agenda straight through. Let ME on the air.
Pelosi running for something? Where do I vote? I suppose I can even though I live inPa. Hell, Santorum votes here all the time and he lives in Virginia. BRING BACK NEWT......that will make everyone vote for PELOSI..
Talking about the lawness, I wonder what does Rollins think of his pals at the white house that has turn this institution into bastion of lawlessness to the point that world has no longer any respect for this country. But, like other GOP foot soldiers, he is casting th blame on someone else.