Can you vote in Oakland?
If you're a registered voter, a resident of Oakland, and an A's fan, I implore you to vote for De La Fuente for Mayor.
In a letter that De La Fuente sent me he stated, "The A's are an asset to the city and, with a lease extension, there should be time to work out a plan for the new stadium".
He likes that WolffCo wants to build a community around the stadium, and will use little public money to get it done.
Since this is a A's forum and not a political one, I'll leave it at that. Support the guy who supports the A's in Oakland.
0 recs |
30 comments
|
Comments
De la Fuente is the A's best chance in Oakland.
Ron Dellums has made very clear
I will say nothing more about the candidates/election, except that anyone who thinks that the sum total of the issues worth considering in such an important election is germane to a sports blog is probably a tad short sighted.
Dellums is a chump.
by AinOz on Jun 5, 2006 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions
the a's staying in oakland
by ucla kid on Jun 5, 2006 8:22 PM PDT reply actions
I don't think any of the candidates care.
Gosh! Isn't this a political diary?
After all, someone could get offended. And we couldn't have that now, could we?
DMt
As our resident thin-skinned member
Inappropriate Diary
IMO any diary that says "vote for X" clearly violates this rule. I hope that Blez removes this diary ASAP.
That does not mean that these issues cannot be discussed. A nonpartisan diary that presents both Dellums' and De La Fuente's statements about keeping the A's in Oakland would be informative, relevant, and within the guidelines. In contrast, this diary presents only half the story (it says nothing about Dellums' views or commitments) and reaches a clearly political conclusion.
There's also an interesting question about how far a municipality should go in trying to keep a team. I'd want my city to work with a professional sports team, but not to break the bank for a stadium deal. Whatever else you may think of the the Giants and PacBell, er, AT&T Park, I think SF's refusal to buy the Giants a stadium is extremly admirable.
FWIW, I don't live in Oakland (or even in California). And I'll keep my opinions about who would be a better mayor of Oakland off this blog.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Jun 6, 2006 8:33 AM PDT reply actions
I disagree
The conclusion the diarist reaches is political for reasons specific to A's baseball. I don't happen to agree, but precedent suggests the diary meets the baseball-related threshold, just as one questioning the merits of civic funding of stadiia would.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jun 6, 2006 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions
I disagree ...
I have no problem with ballpark advocacy
This diary, on the other hand, is explicitly asking ANers to vote for a particular candidate. And it doesn't even bother to make a comparative analysis of the candidates in the race regarding their attitudes toward the A's or a ballpark. Such an analysis would, IMO, be the minimum necessary to come to a baseball-relevant conclusion that one should vote for one candidate over another. This diary is just De La Fuente electioneering with a single line about the A's thrown in as cover
Would a diary that simply said "George W. Bush was a former baseball owner, so he deserves our support!" be acceptable on AN? I think not. The mere mention of a baseball-relevant subject in a diary should not overcome the AN presumption against politics.
Needless to say, whether or not this diary is acceptable is obviously not my call...these comments are just my $.02 as a concerned community member.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Jun 6, 2006 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Intent versus Content
The diary at hand does not just throw in A's issues as cover for an IDLF plug; A's issues are the diarist's main theme. Just because it may be foolish to base one's vote solely on a ballpark doesn't mean it's a forbidden suggestion, nor is the diarist obligated to cover the positions of other candidates. Doing so could help raise the appraisal from silly to substantive, but that's in the eyes of the reader, and not of relevance to a CG determination. For me, anyway...the Beria-Hoxha-Ashcroft-Ahmadinejad committee may see it differently (I kid, I kid).
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jun 6, 2006 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
The CGs are pretty clear:
5. Comments that bring politics into AN
Neither enforced nor enforceable
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jun 6, 2006 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions
True ...
My preference is for leniancy -- let the rule exist so that it can be enforced if and when there is a need, but, until then, let well enough alone.
This diary, however, is a different story.
It leads with the line: If you're a registered voter, a resident of Oakland, and an A's fan, I implore you to vote for De La Fuente for Mayor.
That's not a discussion of the merritts of a ballpark or the need for civic cooperation -- it's politics, plain and simple.
The fact that anyone who makes any voting decisions based on a single campaign mailer alone is pretty clueless aside, the A's are pretty clearly the secondary theme in a generally worthless diary supporting DLF.
And it should be "merit"
I agree with you on the benign neglect practice as the best way to go, generally speaking.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jun 6, 2006 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
I thought you were in the vanguard
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jun 6, 2006 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
"links to two political organs"
Again, the personal is political
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jun 6, 2006 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Blemonge!
Do you mean...
by GreenNGoldSooner on Jun 6, 2006 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Skyron!
Look, I'm an artist, and as such I reserve the right to use creative license in my spelling, and I don't appreciate all this pressure you're bringing to bear on me for such a simple matter. I think you need to take a really hard look at yourself and try and figure out what's causing you to react in such a hostile manner, cause it's quite evident to me, and I'm sure everyone else who's reading that you've got SERIOUS ISSUES!!!!!!!
YOU! YOU! NOT ME ME ME ME MEME MEME MAAAHHHH!!!
Btw, thanks for the tip. :)
LOL! (I think....?)
A couple years ago, we had a group of friends who'd get together once a week to watch a film noir. One time we were watching a 1940s British film rented from Netflix (I can't remember the title). The DVD was seriously scratched. After coughing and weezing at various points earlier in the film, it became completely inoperable during a scene in which the protagonist's mother says to a friend "You wouldn't turn up your nose at my raspberry blancmange." The DVD played this scene over and over and over again. After trying two laptops in addition to my DVD player we gave up and sent the DVD back to Netflix for a replacement. Needless to say when we gathered to watch the new DVD, I made raspberry blancmange for everyone.
by GreenNGoldSooner on Jun 6, 2006 9:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Good story!
Returning to the point...
"De la Fuente and Nadel, while maintaining they haven't given up the fight, have steadfastly maintained no public money will be available to finance a new park in downtown Oakland. Dellums, on the other hand, has said there might be a chance of some public assistance but also has conceded that at this stage, there is nothing the city can do to stop Wolff from leaving if he strikes a better deal elsewhere."
It doesn't sound to me like De La Fuente is any more committed to keeping the A's in Oakland than the other candidates. It's become increasingly clear that Wolff isn't interested in any Oakland sites unless he gets massive public subsidies, and none of the candidates is going to promise that. Nor should they, given the state of Oakland's finances these days. On the other hand, it sounds like all three would like the team to stay, and are willing to work with Wolff if his Fremont/San Jose plans fall through, which is probably more than you could say about Jerry Brown.
Re: Wow, etc.
Keeping the A's is important to Oakland, both economically and culturally. It goes beyond "professional sports" to the health of the city itself.
So, to answer your "question", yes. It is at the forefront of issues. If not, it should be. And yes, Oakland has other issues, primarily crime and education. But this is important too. I don't see how you could miss that.
by 66th Hegenberger on Jun 6, 2006 2:34 PM PDT reply actions

by 























