A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Quan Agonistes « Back to Story
Showing 4 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
It's mayors like this that make MY San Diego Mayor Sanders look good after all.
I guess I'll have to forgive his compulsion to build more legacy buildings than an Egyptian Pharaoh -- the "edifice complex" that too often afflicts public officials.
Where is the surprise here? Like all Democrats, especially liberal Democrats, Quan doesn't have a clue about how to govern. What Democrat in recent memory has ever been an effective at governing - anywhere?
In my state - New Jersey - the large cities have been basket cases not just for decades, but for half a century or more despite enormous infusions of money from the surrounding suburbs and legislature. It is money wasted - or put o corrupt purposes - since the cities simply get worse.
Yet, like automatons voters year in and year out vote for the same party, despite the worsening or static conditions. It's what happens since Democrats have control over almost all the important means of communication - people think that current dismal conditions are normal, and therefore acceptable. They do not comprehend how it could be different - that there is an alternative to broken families, criminalized communities, bloodsucking poverty hucksters (both politicians AND community organizers) and the like.
As long as Democratic media continues to blame the problems of cities like Oakland on everything but where the blame belongs, nothing will change. If not Quan, someone else who will be equally ineffective - there is simply no way that the methods by which people like this govern that the problems of the cities will ever be solved.
And how long is too long before people wake up to the foregoing? Camden, for example, has been a basket case for 60 years, with no end in sight. Nothing works because the people in power never change - and, as I have argued elsewhere, nothing changes because the people in charge don't want change. For the corrupt organization that govern places like Oakland the present situation is perfect - change would only mean less money going to the right people, and less votes for the party. Why make conditions better if you already get 100% of the vote. It's almost a waste of time to talk about it because these people in government have a completely different agenda than that which is put before the public.
You tell me what could possibly account for the fact that these places stay essentially the same year after year, decade after decade after decade. It doesn't take that long to solve these problems, unless the people in power have no incentive to change a damn thing. And that's what we have here in Oakland, in Newark, Detroit, East St. Louis, Camden, East Orange, Irvington, Hillside and a thousand other places - as long as people are being fooled 100% of the time, and supported by a media devoted to a corrupt system, nothing will get better. ever.
Jean Quan is to Oakland what Neville Chamberlain was to England, except he took the request to resign to heart, and did.
If 90% of Oakland voters are not signing the recall petition for any canvasser, Oakland deserves to go swirling down the drain with Quan.
Jennifer Alexander's comment is just ground clutter and chaff, collectivist noise to confuse the issue.
Gene Hazzard's recall campaign was never predicated on public safety concerns or business concerns. If you are going to write about Oakland politics, it would be helpful to know the issues. Gene's most pressing critique of Mayor Quan was her deisire to appoint a competent individual to the Oakland Port Commission when the term of one of former Mayor Dellums' appointees expired. Gene's desire is to retain the appointees of former Mayor Dellums on the Port Commission. Politics, plain and simple. Gene's concerns have absolutely no connection to public safety or Oakland's business community.