The Cal GOP thinks the ACLU is "communist."


It's not a surprise that the California Republican Party is, ahem, a bit out of step with the mainstream of the state (you see a lot of Repubs holding statewide office right now? I don't.) And of course a San Francisco woman of color who isn't a complete right-wing loon is going to have trouble running for a state party office. But what made the Chron's story on Harmeet Dhillon so amazing was this:

"This is not a personal attack against Harmeet," Celeste Greig, president of the California Republican Assembly, said Tuesday. "The ACLU is a communist organization. Do we want somebody who is a member of a communist organization that has sued religious organizations numerous times because they don't like the cross and the Menorah" displayed on public property, Greig said, in explaining why she considers the ACLU - which has no official political affiliation - to be communist.

Gawd, we don't get to see that kind of red-baiting much any more. I used to get called a commie all the time; back in the 1980s, there really were some communists around, too. You'd see the RCP at rallies and events, and the CPUSA was still marginally functional, and there were Trots and Maoists and it was all very interesting, sorting them all out.

But outside of Cuba, there really aren't a lot of old-fashioned commies left. I miss them; nobody could give a four-hour stemwinder of a rhetorical speech like a commie leader. In the old days of the RCP, if you got accused of violating party discipline, you were sentenced to re-read "Combatting Liberalism," which was kind of like having a Catholic priest sentence you to saying ten Hail Marys for masturbating.

There aren't any communists at the ALCU; maybe once upon a time, but the left in America has moved way beyond that (oh, and the real commies never liked the ACLU -- they were never big on freedom of speech or the press.) Now we've got ten brands of anarchists, and a wide range of socialist types, and Greens, and progressives, and a whole lot of others with various ranges of economic critiques and analyses and social platforms, many of which I heartily endorse. But the commies have largely faded away. You'd think the GOP folks would know their enemies a little better.


"coomunist" or "socialist". America's left (such as it is i.e about as effective as the GOp in CA) finally realized that Americans really don't like socialists and communists, and so the name was changed to "progressives" thinking that none of us would notice.

We did.

Posted by anonymous on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 5:22 pm

Except that Democrats that run on watered down progressive positions usually win office only to adopt the Republican final position as their opening gambit and then negotiate down from there.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 5:50 pm

we saw when they voted down the public option of ObamaCare, voted to continue the ME wars and reconfirmed the W tax cuts for all but the very rich.

In the end, you have to go with the moderate majority or risk irrelevance.

Posted by anonymous on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 6:05 pm

Obama lied to get elected, he has no interest in even going through the motions of trying to fulfill his 2008 campaign promises.

LBJ had 535 vises in the WH basement each one with one gonad of each member of Congress and LBJ knew how to operate the machinery of government to reward those whose cooperation was forthcoming and punish those who did not play ball.

The liberals in the Democrat Party don't play for keeps, that's why they've relegated their party to irrelevance once the downsides of the ACA kick in and its multiple sharp moving parts begin to whir.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 6:14 pm

when they all drank together, they all didn't spend time and money on tans and hair dye, they didn't spend the majority of their time fund raising, etc... He came out of the senate from a different era.

Obama and the rest of the senate are a bunch of yuppies who are good at talking.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 6:36 pm

If the SF Mayor can string the supervisors along with carrots and sticks, then the POTUS with many more resources can do the same. If so inclined.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 6:58 pm

socialist show how little you know about communism or socialism.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 10:01 pm

"socialist" because it is not evident from the kind of large-scale social engineering that is advocated here by Tim, Greg, Eddie, Lilli etc.

Posted by anonymous on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 7:01 am

Hell, you can even be a right wing loon... just not a "complete" right wing loon... like Harmeet, who's only a right wing loon on economic issues.

True, most progressives lean left on both economic and social issues, because if you're a progressive, you tend to be concerned with justice, including economic justice. And if you're concerned with economic justice, that generally leads you toward a leftward direction.

But even that isn't necessarily socialist. Progressives only seem socialist to you because your (and this whole country's) compass is so right-shifted. You want to see a real socialist? Try Fidel Castro. Neither I nor most progressives I know believe in that. Most progressives I know believe in some version of a mixed economy -some socialism, some capitalism. Depending on what works best in a given situation. Basically, they're centrists. They only seem socialist to you because you're so far to one side of the socialist-capitalist divide.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 7:23 pm

argument by definition.

Progressive support getting over. They will use any level of government to go whining to, then bemoan that level of government when they don't get their way, an entire philosophy based on narcissism.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 7:43 pm

and using it to bail out failures and losers.

If that is your philosophy, then you're a socialist regardless of what lebel you self-identify with.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 7:44 pm

Economic democracy.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 8:28 pm

The topic of Tim's post was the California Repugnant Party's dislike of the ACLU, not progressives. Let me repeat it so that scatterbrain of yours just might get it - I doubt it but I'll give it a try - their prob with the lady was she is or was in the ACLU, not that she was a progressive.

Nor did Tim bring up progressives or liberals. But that scatterbrain of yours that apparently can't stay on topic went off in a totally new direction that had nothing to do with anything that Tim was talking about.

Maybe you can get some meds for your ADD - and until you get it under control, do the world a favor and STFU.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 8:32 pm

Who's actually a really nice cool person. Did anyone see the article on she has put together an organization which uses sustainably grown and harvested wool from sheep from the North Coast to create scarves, woven locally?

I'd never vote for her though.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

She doesn't share your view that African Americans should be grateful to Europeans for their enslavement?

Posted by Greg on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 6:10 pm

Give it to me Greg, all 2".

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 7:10 pm

"What Lucretia wants, Lucretia gets" (Me, Me, Me, blah, blah)

I've never seen a troll so vainly obsessed with (his/her/its?) own ego. Pathetic.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 1:22 pm

No wonder the little boys here fear her.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 1:45 pm

Hate to break it to you dear, but the only sentiment you inspire in others is contempt.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 2:06 pm

She knows how much they need Lucretia's attention - particularly the Greg pet. She would never leave her precious pets without her care and comfort here - what Lucretia wants, Lucretia gets.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 9:59 pm

All this attention is bloating its already fatuous ego.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 5:38 pm

You just did.

What Lucretia wants, Lucretia gets.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 12, 2013 @ 6:01 pm

to 2007 or so.

They are not communist, just doctrinaire progressive, finding things in the constitution the same way that Born Again Christians find things in the bible.

It's just another opportunistic progressive operation trying to get over.

It might do a real constitutional creationism in school or a free speech thing here and there, but in the end they are just partisan progressive hacks.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 6:41 pm

If you love our freedoms (what's left of them), thank the ACLU.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 7:04 pm

They hate America, San Francisco, Americans and San Franciscans, that is why they keep trying to drown us in their free market tsunamis of capital.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 7:20 pm

"No Human Being Is Illegal"

Nothing constitutional about being here illegally. The constitution is quite explicit on immigration.

The ACLU has become an arm of doctrinaire progressive idiocy.

Why would I belong to a group that claims to support the constitution while opposing the constitution?

Posted by matlock on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 8:01 pm

Because everyone here is supposed to be equally protected by the Bill of Rights irrespective of their immigration status.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 8:14 pm
Posted by matlock on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 8:17 pm


Posted by marcos on Feb. 06, 2013 @ 8:52 pm

I'm the one who first posted that link, so I know what it says. Marcos is right. If Matlock had bothered to follow all the links from the ACLU-IRP page he posted, he wouldn't be less of an ignoramus. Here's what he missed:

"The fundamental constitutional protections of due process and equal protection embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to every "person" and are not limited to citizens. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as well as the authors and ratifiers of post-Civil War amendments, all understood the essential importance of protecting non-citizens against governmental abuse and discrimination."

Posted by Moses Hess on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 2:03 pm

a jury trial. So clearly you are wrong.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 2:13 pm

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 3:12 pm

provided with free counsel and have no right to a jury trial.

They have to pay for their own lawyer to erep them in a special immigration court, where a judge decides their fate. Which is why they are nearly all sent home.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 3:32 pm

Immigration proceedings are treated as an administrative matter rather than a criminal proceeding, precisely to get around the rights mandated by the U.S. Constitution.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 4:24 pm
Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 4:41 pm

Officials are just doing and end run around the constitution.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 5:21 pm
Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 5:40 pm

Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to change the fact that you're going to be the minority here real soon. Better learn that espanol real quick.

Posted by Greg on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 7:27 pm

Do you want taxpayers' money spent defending illegals?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 7:44 pm

he wins, I dare you to come back from that one.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 8:55 pm

The Constitution requires that anyone accused of a crime have representation. It is not an option.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 9:18 pm

The title "Immigrants' Rights" right off there is an issue.


Using targeted impact litigation, advocacy and public outreach, the Project carries on the ACLU’s commitment to protecting the rights and liberties of immigrants. For twenty-five years, the Project has been at the forefront of almost every major legal struggle on behalf of immigrants’ rights, focusing on challenging laws that deny immigrants’ access to the courts, impose indefinite and mandatory detention, and discriminate on the basis of nationality. In addition, the Project has challenged constitutional abuses that arise from immigration enforcement at the federal, state, and local levels, including litigation against anti-immigrant “show me your papers” laws at the state level, local anti-immigrant employment and housing laws, improper enforcement of federal immigration laws by local law enforcement, and worksite and home raids.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 6:52 pm

I think the GOP is fascist.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 6:42 am

While Communists were among ACLU founders, when McCarthyism came down,
the ACLU refused to defend their rights as Americans. Don't bullshit yourselves.

Posted by lurker on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 8:05 am

People of color and children are conspicuously absent from this week's SFBG cover, "Evicted." While I found the profiles in the article interesting, how could your reporters fail to profile the most economically vulnerable members of our community? Could it be that the SFBG -whose pages clearly advertise to the young, white SF crowd- is itself marginalizing and errasing those most affected by the influx of tech. Ironically, your cover reflect the loss of diversity that results from city-sponsored gentrification. And what happens to families in Oakland and Bayview when the artistic, non-profit employee white folks move into the neighborhood?

Posted by Liz Schoyer on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 2:30 pm

beneneficiary of rent control and, in particular, college-educated bitchy whites who are all fesity about their "rights".

90% of the people who visit the SFTU are white, versus maybe 60% of the SF population.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 2:45 pm

Do you have links or do you just pull them out of your ass?

Posted by Greg on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 5:22 pm

seeks help there, which lists age, sex, race etc.. Ask them if you want confirmation.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 5:41 pm

Hi Liz, thanks for your comment. You raise an important point that the photographs displayed on our cover do not demonstrate the ethnic diversity of San Franciscans who are affected by eviction. If you click through and read the profiles, you'll see that we do profile a Peruvian tenant in the Mission who has found herself in this situation. Unfortunately, she had to tend to a family emergency and was unavailable for a photo shoot, so we couldn't include her photograph on the cover. Additionally, we reached out to a representative from the Community Tenants Association who brought Chinese tenants to City Hall on Jan. 28 (more on that here I was hoping to schedule an interview with a tenant from that group so that I could hear their story through a translator. Unfortunately, we did not hear back so we weren't able to include the perspective of a monolingual Chinese tenant, though we tried and were curious to learn more since they took the time to show up that day. Anyway, just wanted you to know the back story. Thanks for reading.

Posted by rebecca on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 3:10 pm

But it does seem that a disproportionate percentage of the people in SF who try and exercize their rights under the Rent Ordinance are white.

The vast majority of people who visit SFTU, HRC or the EDC are white. Whites tend to be moe aware of rent control and more willing to assert their rights.

I know you are looking for more sympathetic victims of Ellis, in the same way that calss action lawyers always seek out the most "vulnerable" looking plaintiff.

But the fact that you've struggled to find Ellis evictees that mirror SF's diversity is no coincidence, and is significant. The focus is usually on older white male gays.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 07, 2013 @ 3:31 pm