Democrat With Local Roots Outshines Triple-Time Trump Voter and Carpetbagger Richard Bailey
Candidate Nicole Crosby has won the OB Rag’s endorsement for the general election to be held in 30 days. Coming to this stance, I looked at Nicole’s campaign website, my experiences over the last year with Richard Bailey, reviewed candidate debate reports from the U-T, Times of San Diego and our own Rag account.
Bailey has been campaigning for over a year and has polished off a number of campaign phrases — he’s into policies not politics, and the city doesn’t have a money problem, it has a spending problem. Yet, of course, he’s into politics.
Although not perfect, Crosby has a more compassionate heart than Bailey does when you compare their positions on San Diego’s homelessness, rent-control, city staffing,Trump’s immigration policies and the constitutional rights of all citizens in the area.
Of note are Crosby’s local roots — they particularly stand out in heavy contrast to the current District 2 officeholder, Jen Campell. Crosby and her family have lived in Clairemont for many years; she was the president of the PTA for her daughter’s school and was the chair of the Clairemont Town Council. This is also a huge contrast between her and the other candidate, Richard Bailey. Bailey — the former part-time mayor of the tiny community of Coronado – just recently moved to Point Loma so he would be eligible to run. That type of movement is often called “carpetbagging.”
Merriam-Webster defines carpet-bagging as “an outsider moving into a new area to exploit a situation or seek personal, financial, or political gain without having local connections.” A similar definition states it’s a politician who runs for office in a region where they do not live or have no prior ties, just because they think it will be easier to win. This is what Bailey has done.
Yet, setting that aside, on the issue of homelessness, Crosby believes the city is spending too much on enforcing the so-called “camping ban” and sees that as a serious waste of money and the use of police officers, that it costs more than providing housing. Bailey wants to cut city funds for homeless programs.
Crosby believes in rent control for senior citizens as a way to cut into future homeless seniors; Bailey takes a typical Republican view and doesn’t believe in rent-control at all.
On the issue of the trash fee debacle, Crosby wants to rid property tax bills of the trash fee and set up a more traditional monthly billing system. Bailey — again spouting GOP talking points — wants the city just to simply get out of the trash business and contract it out to private companies.
Taking on the city’s financial mess, Bailey wants to slash and burn through the city employee rolls to save money. Crosby calls this the San Diego DOGE effort, mimicking Trump’s and Elon Musk’s cuts early in his second administration. Crosby says Bailey wants to cut 1,000 city positions, including police officers, fire fighters, lifeguards, pot-hole fillers — and as a true Democrat, Crosby wants to save jobs and respect union agreements with the various elements of the city’s workforce. Bailey does want more cops, he says.
We’d urge Crosby to look at Todd Gloria’s multiple ranks of middle-managers; they have no contracts and appear to many to be superfluous — especially in a mismanaged city. Crosby also says it’s ridiculous to compare San Diego’s situation with that of Coronado. She wants more audits of current city leases and agreements. (Recent news reports regarding the Barnes Tennis Center and the city’s golf courses have proved her correct.) Bailey says the city already has enough audits. Crosby has distanced herself from Todd Gloria and City Hall — Bailey is the true “outsider” — although not outside the establishment (The U-T has endorsed him.)
Currently, both candidates support the coastal 30-foot-height-limit, want community planning groups to have more respect and be listened to by city officials. Both are critical of Gloria’s Complete Communities housing plan and both agree there’s not sufficient infrastructure and parking in the Midway District. Bailey is more adamant about opposing the Midway Rising project. Crosby questions the project’s ability to lay the groundwork for the necessary infrastructure. A crumbling infrastructure in the city was a big motivator for Crosby to run for office. Both are opposed to bonus density laws that overrule the 30-foot height limit.
At the most recent candidate forum in Point Loma, Crosby came out swinging against Senate Bill 79.
At another forum, the candidates debated the value of automatic license plate readers (ALPRs). Crosby doesn’t support or trust FLOCK — the company that installs and runs them. Bailey has a more nuanced view, and is generally more supportive of the license plate readers.
On the issue of utilities and SDG$E, Crosby thinks the city should plan now to have a different contract when the current one runs out.
From Crosby’s website, she wants to “rein in ruthless ADU development,” wants to stop corporate investors from buying up much of the housing stock; she wants to protect the coastline and Mission Bay. She also wants to rein in short-term vacation rentals. She’s critical of the current non-accessibility of San Diego’s public transit.
Plus Crosby wants to strengthen the Sanctuary City policies of San Diego and wants to defend the rights of women and the LGBTQ community. She was seen protesting and chanting at a recent “No Kings” demonstration in downtown San Diego. Bailey has said multiple times that he supports Trump’s immigration policies and supports ICE.
In media interviews, Bailey denied he moved to Point Loma just to run for political office, and denied he switched parties to be more acceptable to blue District 2. He also said it was wrong to shut down the OB Pier. This is curious. The pier no longer works as a pier; it came to the end of its service life and needs to be totally replaced.
When Bailey was asked about his support for Trump, he deflects. Yet, the night of the June Primary election, Bailey partied with other GOP candidates. He denies his involvement or support for the Awaken Church and its militant arm — despite clear documentation that he assisted the so-called church in training its apostles to run for political office. This raises the issue of honesty. He has not come out clearly against the church and its policies or explained or admitted his involvement.
Yet, he remains very out-spoken, articulate and has worked on his campaign delivery speeches for many a moon.
One other point: Crosby is supported by some unions; and this is a boogeyman for some D2 residents. Yet, critics use a broad brush to paint all unions as negative or corrupt or too powerful. They ignore that in San Diego, the union movement is splintered. Different unions support different candidates, especially in District 8. These critics fail to appreciate the role of labor in uplifting the working and middle-class and view all of it as some monolithic structure that outweighs all other elements of society. No one complains of the role of the Chamber of Commerce, the Lincoln Club or other business and capitalist combines that have controlled San Diego’s politics for generations — until maybe just recently.
For all of these reasons, the Rag endorses Nicole Crosby for city council, District 2.
Hey Editor-Dude!
I appreciate your well-reasoned endorsement of Nicole Crosby, though I’m personally very conflicted about which candidate will be the overall best for our city council, and, more importantly, for residents.
Richard Bailey would bring a very smart, experienced, and much-needed voice for fiscal restraint, and he strongly opposes the Miday Rising developer, as it’s proposed. (Bailey, like, many of us, support redevelopment of that area, and more housing, but don’t trust the billionaire (X25) developer (Stan Kroenke) and really doubt the city’s ability to craft a lease that won’t end up costing us for unseen liabilities while protecting Kroenke’s stake in the project. Not to mention that despicable special-interest legislation that allows Midway Rising, as proposed, to escape legitimate environmental reviews and legal challenges, if warranted.
As for labor union influence in the D 2 race, I agree, in part, with your comment that:
“These critics (of labor’s expenditures for Crosby) fail to appreciate the role of labor in uplifting the working and middle-class and view all of it as some monolithic structure that outweighs all other elements of society. No one complains of the role of the Chamber of Commerce, the Lincoln Club or other business and capitalist combines that have controlled San Diego’s politics for generations — until maybe just recently.”
I would just note that while I and others are critical of labors’ huge political clout, and the allegiance it extracts from the politicians that money elects and re-elects, I for one have been equally critical of the Chamber and the Lincoln Club.
My recent letter to the UT editor explains my position on this issue:
Re: “These are the unions, developers, and wealthy donors fueling this falls San Diego City Council races” Sept 26
“Your story highlights the outsized influence that labor unions have on our elections.
When organized labor’s money makes the difference in a campaign, the chosen candidates have an implicit debt to those unions.
Labor organizations have to date contributed at least $638,000 to city council candidates, including a game-changing $250,000 to one candidate, from the Carpenter’s Union.
It’s no coincidence that the city council’s initial approval of a greatly expanded trash collection program included the hiring of more union-represented employees.
And at council meetings — which I regularly attend — our elected representatives too often sound like they’re representing the interests of unions, not taxpayers.
Labor unions have an important role in our economy, and I was a proud union member myself.
But taxpayers’ priorities often clash with those of organized labor.
And in San Diego, the scales have tipped way too far in labor’s favor.”
Thanks Paul; you’re a treasure and your observations and writings are keen and decisive. I think it also shows our readers that the Rag is not a monolith either — the main writers have differences, yet we manage to crank out a daily online newspaper.
Paul:
Cross over the bridge and ask the Islanders about their impressions of Bailey.
He’s the CHT-GPT checklist candidate with clippy solutions for every problem.
Poor leadership performance and yet at the front of the photo shoot for taking credit.
Witness the sewage tsunami that reach epic crisis level on his watch.
Cheers.
‘
Hi Paul I respect your opinion and input but I do want to clarify one thing voters keep missing. Bailey and Crosby have the same exact position when it comes to Midway Rising. Both are on the record as saying they would vote against it for the same reason at all the candidate forums and debates. Keep up the good input.
I’ve followed the debates closely, and don’t think it’s accurate to say Crosby and Bailey have the “same exact position” on Midway Rising. Crosby has endorsed it, with some caveats, including, to her credit, a realistic plan (which I don’t think exists) for transportation and parking. But Bailey outright rejects the proposed development (which I disagree with, because the area does need to be redeveloped, but size, scope, finances and contract terms are crucial and must be fully analyzed and debated).
Here’s an excerpt from a primary election debate. I don’t see anything more current that shows their positions have changed.
“Nicole Crosby, a deputy city attorney living in Clairemont, said that Midway Rising needs to happen to revitalize the area, but it needs to have transportation baked into the plans.
Richard Bailey, the former mayor of Coronado who recently moved to Point Loma, said that the sheer size of the project is not necessary. He dug into to the Surplus Land Act – which makes public land available for sale and prioritizes developments that include low-income housing – as a detrimental piece of this puzzle.”
Here are two recent debates. I encourage everyone to watch them and decide for themselves.
Pay attention to each candidate’s experience in both the private and public sectors, the solutions they’re proposing, and how directly they’re engaging with members of the community throughout this campaign. The differences are worth seeing firsthand.
This one was hosted by the League of Women Voters on September 28, 2026
https://youtu.be/NvTgqyUQwyg
And this one was hosted by the Peninsula Community Planning Board on Thursday Oct 1, 2026
https://youtu.be/tB7rioPGEXA?feature=shared
I share Paul’s misgivings about Crosby. I’m no Bailey fan, but I am uneasy about her for two reasons. First, at the recent D2 debate, her answer about city staff reductions was disingenuous: She doesn’t want to cut “the firefighters, the lifeguards, the police officers, the stormwater workers…”
That’s the answer Todd Gloria gives when challenged about the 460% increase since 2015 of unclassified middle managers, many of whom make $200,000 to $250,00 a year. Is Crosby aware of this recent surge of highly-paid administrators? Does she understand that we can save a ton of money by cutting such unnecessary positions without touching front-line workers?
The second reason is how Crosby regularly mentions that she has a young daughter. Her September 8 Rag post included this line: “Every night when I tuck my daughter into bed, I think about the future that I want to see for her.” That’s a heartwarming image; politicians regularly put their families front and center. But it brings to mind Gloria’s line about being “the son of a hotel maid and a gardener.” And I have to ask: Does Crosby think that a candidate with a child is somehow more qualified to hold public office than a candidate who, by choice or not, is childless?
I’m jaded, I know. When candidates share tender stories about their families, I feel like I’m being played. Just tell me, as specifically as you can, what actions you will take to protect public safety, maintain neighborhood infrastructure, clean up the urban environment, and most important, restore broken public trust in City Hall.
Great Kate. Money quote:
“Just tell me, as specifically as you can, what actions you will take to protect public safety, maintain neighborhood infrastructure, clean up the urban environment, and most important, restore broken public trust in City Hall.”
We should ask every candidate how many times they voted for Gloria and Campbell.
I was at the Politifest debate today. Somehow in an affordability crisis, Crosby supported the 1% sales tax increase in 2024 and would support it again in 2028 (assuming it were the same once published). Short term rentals have offset all the new unit construction for the past 20 years? As for Union largess, expect all current trends to continue. My assessment was that, other than the Bonus ADU program, Crosby is a vote for the Status Quo. We desperately need voices from elsewhere in our political spectrum on the City Council.
Two comments: I didn’t see anything in your article about how Crosby would make city government run better. Second, on union endorsement, I don’t care who my the carpenters or laborers support. But when I see the public employee unions endorsing and pushing for their next boss, it gives me pause.
A city council member is hardly the “next boss” of public employee unions. Public employees like cops, firefighters, lifeguards, city-attorneys, para-medics all have a say in how the city is run through the leadership they democratically choose to run their unions and associations. They negotiate and sign contracts with the city. Does a city councilmember sign their contracts? Harry, I hope you also had pause over the years to see how Republican and business groups controlled the city and the elected officials.
Frank, I am concerned by your simplistic assessment of how much influence the public employees unions have.
Unions are good FOR THEIR MEMBERS. For many reasons and, hopefully very effective at being good for their membership.
That does not mean they are good for the bosses – whether private or public, or for customers/taxpayers. In many scenarios, being good for the city and its taxpayers has not been the union’s goal because it does not benefit the union, contrary to what you seem to think.
Elected officials are supposed to balance the interests of the city’s unions/employees, city finances and goals, and the residents/taxpayers.
But when unions decide who wins and loses elections, someone who wants to be elected/re-elected is going to have a hard time delivering that balance.
It isn’t just the possibility of money for your campaign, it’s the near extortion of knowing that same money can be used to destroy you. Consider the money spent to photoshop Trump into (mayoral candidate) Barbara Bry’s picture and mail that flyer to tens of thousands of voters. Anyone running for office knows that union money also can be and has been used to destroy their chances.
Unions advocate for and protect THEIR MEMBERS. That is not the same thing as saying they advocate for good government and taxpayer interests.
Instead of shouting ‘GOOD!’ every time you hear the word union like yelling ‘polo’ to ‘Marco’, you might consider a more nuanced assessment.
I’ll say it again, many union members are taxpayers and property owners.
You’re the one with a simplistic view: ‘all unions are only out for their members, they never do any public good.’ It’s a very one-dimensional view.
It does you/ us no good if people who work shit jobs have a union that can help raise their standard of living, is that it?
Unions first had to fight for the right to exist; then they waged battles that brought us the 8-hour day, child labor laws, workplace and product safety laws, the 40-hour work week, vacations, workers’ comp…..
It was the head of a local public e/ee union that rang the alarm about too many over-paid mid-managers within Gloria’s administration. Now, part of that is self-serving but the other part is awake call for how to deal with the city budget.
I’ve been a member of 3 different unions over my life and worked as staff for a local union for a couple of years. I used to go to Labor Council meetings when Joe Francis was head of it.
Is not Crosby the city lawyer who negotiated the contracts with the employee unions?
I could be wrong, but I don’t think that was her bailiwick.
‘No one complains of the role…’ Thank you. Millionaires (& billionaires) can legally, thanks to the corrupt side of SCOTUS, own legislators and judges at any level. They can buy elections. Yet its the villainous unions mostly mentioned. Unions, which brought democracy to the workroom floor. Unions, responsible for wage increases, work standards, abolition of child labor, workplace safety regulations, benefits and job security, and reduced inequality. Unions, once representing 35% of the workforce that made America the envy of the world, and which now stands at about 10%. And, union wages help raise wages in private industry.
I’m sure that 90% of the OBRag readers are aware of the tenuous state of our small-d democracy thanks to the unlimited power of money influencing politics & elections. Where PK got the $250,000 Carpenter’s Union contribution is beyond me ¯\_(?)_/¯. I do know the repeat Trump supporter has received at least $100,000 from a Point Loma millionaire. Crosby, as said, isn’t perfect. But a candidate representing working families, laborers, and the environment has my vote over a potential wolf in sheep’s clothing who’s greatest skill seems to be using other people’s money to excel in social media.
I believe PK got it from our summary of UT David Garrick’s report…
a committee called “Estamos con Gerardo Ramirez for San Diego City Council District 8, got $250,000 from the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters ….”
To clarify for Frank J: As noted in the headline of my letter to the editor, all the information about labor union contributions to the various city council campaigns comes from UT city hall reporter David Garrick’s Sept, 26 story.
If you think my letter was in any way “anti-union,” please read it again. My point is only that I think, based on my frequent attendance at council meetings and my reading about current city government practices, that local (and national) labor unions have an outsized influence on our city council and mayor, and that most — if not all — of our council members (and our mayor), too often prioritize labor’s agenda at the expense of taxpayers and residents. I believe our council members and mayor should — first and foremost — represent the residents in their districts, not the broader labor union agenda. But I frequently see how our they in fact ignore the concerns and requests for help on district issues, while never missing the opportunity to praise or support labor unions, an example of which I cite in my letter. Again, these are just my observations.
All this discussion forgets one key thing: many members of the labor unions are taxpayers and residents!
Sorry Frank. I cannot vote for anyone who supports or even condones the current administration policies and choices. Also, re: carpetbagger…. maybe an outsider can see the problems in a clearer focus, not beholding to the powers that be… whether it unions, existing D2 city council member , or the mayor.
Okay, understand. But where in any article does it state that Crosby supports the current administration policies and choices — other than perhaps Midway Rising? What’s the choice? Sit that one out or vote for the other guy who does support and condones the current Trump neo-fascist policies and choices?
So a carpetbagger who supports Trump and his policies is better than a local, who has clearly differentiated herself from Gloria and the current administration?
Bailey has fantastical ideas that are not based on reality. He makes claims without ever being asked to prove his statements. He’s no different than Elon Musk who thought he knew everything but quickly ran into reality. DOGE didn’t save a penny and neither will Bailey.
Just ask Bailey which private trash company he has received quotes from and how much they will charge SD residents. Ask if he has even identified a company with the capacity to take on trash collection for all of SD single-family homes.
Hey Mel, you make good points here about Bailey. But I was at that forum and Crosby also is in favor of this policy. At least that’s what I heard. Whatcha think about that?
That is not what I heard when she spoke at Pizza Port. She is in favor of not bundling trash fees with the property fees, but still having city run trash collections.
Curious, did the Rag endorse Jen Campbell in 2022 and in 2018?
No, in fact we supported the recall against her in the middle of the pandemic.
After attending the Peninsula Community Planning Board forum, I left deeply concerned about both candidates.
The forum focused heavily on Midway Rising, and homelessness finally came up near the end. Bailey’s response was essentially that we should cut homelessness funding because homelessness has gotten worse while spending has increased.
That oversimplifies a very complex problem. Homelessness has increased significantly across the country, despite increased spending. And much of our homelessness funding comes from federal and other restricted sources, so simply “cutting the funding” isn’t a solution to San Diego’s budget problems. I would have preferred to hear Bailey talk about auditing these programs, demanding accountability, and making sure the money we are spending is actually producing results.
What concerned me about Crosby was her reluctance to use police enforcement of camping ordinances. When enforcement became lax, our parks filled with encampments. At its worst, our parks looked like a dystopian nightmare. With increased enforcement over the past 18 months, I have seen a dramatic improvement. Services matter, but enforcement matters too. Families should be able to use our parks, and our beach communities depend on tourism.
After the forum, I emailed both candidates to explain my concerns.
Nicole Crosby responded within hours and called me the next day. We didn’t agree on everything, but she listened. We had a substantive conversation, and I felt she understood my concerns about what residents in beach communities are experiencing.
I never heard back from Richard Bailey. I later received a mass campaign text from him and replied asking him to please respond to my email. I still received no response.
I don’t love either choice. But between these two candidates, I prefer the one who was willing to listen to a constituent whose views didn’t completely align with hers.
District 2 deserves someone who will listen to the people who actually live here—not simply reduce complicated problems to campaign talking points.
In candidate filings Crobsy was a negotiator for raises.
“She spent ten years on her union’s negotiating team securing fair contracts for her colleagues.”
Bailey is the better candidate and a necessary count point for debate. Councilmember Campillo is currently the only person reasonable enough to go against the toxic group think at city hall.
Crosby doesn’t believe enforce drug laws and holding people accountable for their personal behavior is the right solution, which means she’s happy to turn Ocean Beach into a Venice Beach homeless encampment and allow RVs to take over the parking grounds while ignoring the drug addled open air drug markets.
Research from the PPIC finds that homelessness in CA increased by ~10% become of prop 47. I welcome any doubter here to walk by the SD central Library, Park and Market Trolley Station, and 5th Avenue station to go confirm how much drug addiction is a cause of our increasingly expensive $100 M/year homelessness spending for people that actively give up on contributing to society.
Read the PPIC research, let’s vote for change
https://www.ppic.org/publication/policy-brief-homelessness-and-drug-use-in-california/
So, Crosby is responsible for all the homeless — way to go, Ezra! What acrobatics you play. You go from Crosby’s stance on police enforcement of the ban on camping — which is ridiculous in and of itself — and jump to how the 5th Ave station is overwhelmed by drug addicts — all Crosby’s fault, by golly.
There’s an old French adage: making it illegal for a man to sleep under a bridge affects both the poor man and the wealthy man equally. (But the rich man doesn’t want or need to sleep under the bridge.)
Although, many would agree with your observation re Campillo.
Here’s the problem: the other guy’s values have been exposed: he’s a three time voter for Trump (and would do it again if he had the chance –?) and supports ICE. Not to mention he’s a life-long Republican who changed his party affiliation so he would be more attractive to deep-Blue District 2, where Democratic voters outnumber GOPers by 2 to 1.
She’s not responsible for homeless, but she could take a firmer stance on prosecuting the local drug dealers feeding drugs to the addicted. If they lost access to their drugs, they might choose to get sober. Crosby literally said we need to help them to want to get sober. Do that by taking away their dealer. And, if she doesn’t enforce encampments in OB, we can assume families and tourists will never visit our beaches. The way she say Sacramento shouldn’t dictate zoning laws, she can’t put a blanket statement that she’s against camping enforcements. If we don’t enforce it at the beach, what is to stop every single homeless person from living on our beaches, not looking for work. My phone call with her convinced me she will hear this side of the story, but she needs to be more publicly clear on her stance of protecting parks, beaches and rethink prosecuting low level drug dealers who are keeping our homeless addicted. And, FYI, Ezra, in preparation for the LA elections, Venice homeless are suddenly cleaned up. They’ve all relocated to Santa Monica now. And, Frank, this isn’t idealistic oh, the rich man is inconvenienced by the homeless. We want to get these people help. They aren’t accepting the help that is offered. So, we need enforcement of our laws.
Frank,
The tragedy of the greatness of opportunity in the US is that whether we would like to believe it or not, there are in fact some individuals that have chosen a life on the streets with drugs.
I am not saying that poverty is a crime because sometimes bad things happen to good people, or we’re born with disabilities and/or circumstances that inhibit fair competition for resources. We should help the legitimately down trodden.
However, we cannot turn a blind eye to the drug epidemic that is occurring on our streets and is a leading cause of homelessness. We must compel people to treatment and take dealers off the streets because we will never win against a person’s addiction, it literally alters the mind and neural pathways which takes treatment, and yes sometimes tough love to accomplish.
Please read the PPIC article on homeless I provided because the justice system unfortunately must play a part in this solution. This is why Prop 36 passed with ~70% voter approval in 2024.
Drive through East Village/Downtown to see first hand how badly drugs inhibit our homelessness reduction solutions.
We cannot continue to function as a divided and polarized people. The empowerment of the fringe is how we ended up with Trump and now the democratic socialists of America, neither is good for America.
Immigration is a necessary evil for every nation with a border. Every major nation has an immigration system and seeks to enforce its laws, including those in Latin America, Asia, Europe, Africa, Middle East, etc.
We can agree we do not agree with ICE’s current unconstitutional methods and borderline policies and should hold them accountable. President Obama deported more people than Trump because he did it respecting the law and treating people as humanely as possible.
But saying to abolish ICE is as foolish as defunding the police. More people here should rather push their federal representatives for bipartisan immigration reform to solve this issue. Don’t forget each party benefits from this current chaotic immigration situation.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/policy-brief-homelessness-and-drug-use-in-california/
I’m not going to respond except to say that recent polling shows one-third of Democrats identify as democratic socialists. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Ezra. In fact, if you look at our history, socialism is as American as apple pie. So, yes the problem of homelessness is still with us, but you fail to mention or even hint and the economics. Right now, we’re in a second Gilded Age where the disparity between the poor and the very rich is as worse as it ever has been. maybe that’s why so many people look upon socialism favorably — look what capitalism has gotten us.
Frank,
The cannabuds smoked are green with capitalism lol!
Unfortunately, democratic socialism is as toxic to our collective economic well-being as meth and fentanyl are to health.
Polling also shows that more and more California voters are registering as independents, so it could well be that those remaining in the CA Democratic Party are simply the fringe, which will run its course given the horrible leadership in LA that is sinking that city.
The DSA is simply riding the madness and derangement of Trump opportunistically to get people to an opposite but equally toxic fringe.
The US economic system has never been socialist as individual freedom and ownership are ingrained in the U.S. constitution, and even federal laws passed against socialism/communism (Communist Control Act of 1954; Internal Security Act of 1950 (McCarran Act), etc).
FDR created state welfare programs but was never a socialist, “I am fighting Communism… I want to save our system, the capitalist system.” FDR.
Let’s define democratic socialism because too many try to confuse it with Scandinavian economic systems which are very capitalist, Scandinavians simply choose to have high taxes across the board and fund welfare programs, this means you and I and the entire middle and lower class pay much more taxes than today (NO THANKS!).
“Democratic socialism is as a political ideology that advocates social ownership of the means of production and is therefore committed to the overthrow of capitalism as an economic model, while maintaining a commitment to political democracy; this latter commitment distinguishes it from authoritarian models of centralized socialism, such as the Soviet model. Informally, the term is often used synonymously with social democracy, which seeks not to overthrow capitalism but to reform it using existing democratic institutions.“
https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/democratic-socialism/
People advocating for socialism throughout modern American history were the ones who fought and won public education, the right to unionize, the 40-hour work week, child labor laws, work and product safety rules — all in response to the dire extremes and abuses of your capitalism. Not to mention the civil rights/ Black power movement, the feminist movement, the environmental movement and the movement against the war in Vietnam, which your capitalism started.
Maybe we can share your capitalist buds in my socialist pipe.
Socialists may have participated in labor, civil-rights, feminist, environmental, and antiwar movements—but they DID NOT uniquely create or win those causes.
Public education predates the “American socialist” movement, and major reforms like collective-bargaining rights, the 40-hour workweek, civil-rights laws, OSHA, and environmental protections came through broad coalitions of unions, progressives, liberals, religious groups, Democrats, Republicans, and others. Largely won because of existing constitutional rights and/or their expansion.
And saying “capitalism started the Vietnam War” is ideology, not serious history. U.S. involvement was driven primarily by Cold War containment, decolonization, and geopolitics. Which is why many agree that the US remaining the world’s police is a slippery slope, but unfortunately seems like a necessary evil.
Socialists may have participated in American reform. They DO NOT get exclusive ownership of it.
The socialist pipe is a dangerous pipe dream. My family escaped socialism and have first hand knowledge of the ills that come from that economic system. Human nature always wins and those in the government will enrich themselves at everyone else’s expense. California and the US will never be an exception to that rule, and the economic system under socialism will make everyone worse off.
And the broader historical record matters: the era of industrialization, market economies, technological innovation, and expanding trade produced an unprecedented rise in material living standards. OECD historical estimates find global GDP per person increased roughly 13-fold from 1820–2016. Global life expectancy rose from about 32 years in 1900 to 73 in 2023, while extreme poverty fell dramatically in recent decades.
Capitalism has flaws worth reforming and/or regulating as history proves, but that history was not written by socialists. It was won through constitutional law and broad coalitions across political, racial, and ethnic lines.
Capitalism’s contribution to the historic expansion of human prosperity is much harder to dismiss.
Not to belabor the point, but sadly it wasn’t “socialism” your family was escaping from — wherever that was, maybe assuming eastern Europe — hardly a true socialist model –. But like pipe dreams there’s never really been a true socialist state. But such movements have greatly tempered the worse of the capitalist state, and developed the safety net that true capitalists ignore and in fact take advantage of its absence.
WTF, man. Capitalism has held back the “historic expansion of human prosperity.” We’d be so much better off if our peoples didn’t have to worry about food on the table, roof over the head, and medical problems too expensive to deal with — and are able to let their creative juices flow to the height of their imaginations and solve our problems.
Not debating this with you anymore.
Frank, there is no need for debate. The evidence is clearly in favor of capitalism, of which this newspaper and everyone reading it has benefited.
I agree it would be nice if we didn’t have to worry about scarcity of resources, but creation and destruction are inevitable natural laws.
Capitalism is simply the best economic system available today to deal with the sad reality of scarcity of resources, and yes capitalism can always work better for the greater benefit of society and that is a worthy debate and discussion.
This doesn’t change you being wrong, although, you are free and entitled to a wrong opinion. Just be prepared to get called out when you’re spreading misinformation.
Likewise, dude.
Amen!!
The thing is that Trump has gotten so bad, so toxic that any connection to him blasts away the old axiom that the most important politics is local politics. National politics is clearly seeping down to the local level – and the San Diego citizen cannot ignore Bailey’s connection to Trump; it shows his values and true yearnings. The D2 voter can no longer ignore Bailey’s adoration for Trump.
I feel like two things can be true:
1. Trump is toxic and anyone who has continued to support him should be questioned or disqualified.
2. Gloria and Campbell are toxic and anyone who continued to support both of them should be questioned or disqualified.
As a resident of D2 who will turn the tide of this council from a clearly disaterous direction.
The parties that control the candidates have failed us, Chase Oliver 2024…
I was a little surprised (and sad) to read this. I completely understand not endorsing Bailey, but I was hoping there would just be no endorsement, period. I fear she is a continuance of the same that’s happening in city hall.
It’s funny how Bailey the “no fee guy” raised fees in Coronado by 50%
I asked Bailey about Chris Wards Bill to exempt Mission Bay park from the Surplus Land Act to prevent housing He stuggled to answer and question and understand the issue. He would say “I don’t like bills that single out particular land use from Sacramento.” The proper aware in my opinion is absolutely and I will fight tooth and nail to make sure no condos ever come to Mission bay park. When I asked Crosby that question she was difinitive in her opposition to condos being built and supportive of Chris Wards bill to exempt Mission Bay Park from the surplus land act. No struggle on her part with this important issue!
Decades ago my mother commented to me that her choice of candidates was almost alway to go with the least worse.
With our current choices for Council District 2, that is a very easy decision for me. I’m not delighted with some of Nicole Crosby’s positions, especially her support for Midway Rising, but I don’t choose my candidate based on a single issue. I consider her by far the better choice over Richard Bailey.
Prior to the D2 primary, I was inundated by expensive Bailey mailers. That alone leaned me against him. I read the small print “funded by” notes on them and for the primary mailers, I noted some were paid for “Policy Over Politics” a positive sounding title until I researched it. I suggest that readers take a look at their Vision and consider whether this represents Bailey’s actual beliefs: https://www.policyoverpolitics.org/vision
Now his mailers (I must have received close to a dozen so far) list his largest donor as one Steven Richter, a Point Loma resident. I suggest readers take at look at Matt Potter’s SD Reader article in October 2024 and, again, consider whether Richard Bailey is acting as a trojan horse. https://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2024/oct/09/radar-a-spam-king-and-his-dad/
Thank you Judith
That’s a good article Potter,
I sat down with both Bailey and Crosby and there was something I didn’t trust about the guy. He also full on 100% behind Trump and all his policies including immigration policy detention centers you name it he loved it! That’s a red line to me since people have died but he didn’t care.
As it relates to Midway Raising Crosby I have her repeatly say she would vote against its current form since it by-passes CEQA. As for Bailey all he has told me he wants some for improvement but just didn’t support midway raising. What he would support I don’t know except he’s also funded by the Developer freind Lincoln Club headed by Mayor Kevin Faulknour.
Bailey is NOT “full on 100% behind Trump” or immigration detention centers. Where are you getting your intel, TickTock?
Bailey has said that he supports ICE and Trump’s immigration policies — you know what they say — ‘if you break the law by immigrating then you need to be held accountable’ by ICE agents. It’s as simple as that; no recognition or acknowledgement of the role that immigrants have played in US history.
Where was Bailey when the Abraham Lincoln arrived? Was he jogging right along the slacker
Hegseth?
If he wasn’t with him physically, he was with him ideologically.
Reiteration: No on Bailey
I’m shocked! The OB Rag endorses a Democrat.
Our entire City council and mayor are democrats and wow, what a great job they’re doing.
Remember them closing the public restrooms in Mission Bay during August?
The voted in lockstep to shut them.
Democrats are a cult.
Great job.
Mark, maybe you’re too young or weren’t here when the republicans had a lock on both the city and county of san diego governments. And yeah, we’ve had lots of problems with city hall and the current council, except for some exceptions. The republicans pulled a lot of fast and stupid ones too. But you cannot blame Democrats for the stupid policies that local and state GOP’ers have put forward over these last few years.
Huh?
That makes zero sense