BOTTOM FEEDING
Even when you’re crawling around on the bottom
by your own admission, it’s sometimes possible to sink to a new low. And so comes
the item “Dellums vs. De La Fuente?” by East Bay Express columnist Will Harper
in this week’s “Bottom Feeder” column about a possible heavyweight matchup in the
2006 Oakland mayoral race.
Several months ago, the anticipated match was between Oakland City Council President
Ignacio De La Fuente of the Fruitvale area and Councilmember Nancy Nadel of West
Oakland. There are several other “name” candidates in the race–including Oakland
School Board members Dan Siegel and Greg Hodge and Alameda County Treasurer Donald
White–but it was Mr. De La Fuente and Ms. Nadel who were expected to get the most
attention from the media.
There was already an interesting spin in the race before the name of retired 9th
District Congressmember Ron Dellums began surfacing as a possible candidate. Media
outlets were saying that Mr. De La Fuente was the frontrunner in the race, even though
the last time he ran for mayor he came in a distant fourth in an 11-candidate field.
That was 1998, the year Jerry Brown first won, and to show how bad Mr. De La Fuente
was defeated, he got a little over 5,000 votes in that election, while Mr. Brown
got almost 44,000.
One of the things that hurt Mr. De La Fuente in 1998 was high negative ratings among
many Oakland voters. Those high negatives never went away. And so, while media outlets
were consistently calling Mr. De La Fuente the 2006 mayoral frontrunner, Oakland
political insiders were pointing to two unreleased but respected political polls
that showed Oaklanders feeling more comfortable with Ms. Nadel than they did with
Mr. De La Fuente. In my mind, even while Ms. Nadel was taking some peculiar turns
away from her normally reliable progressive positions, she and Mr. De La Fuente were
dead even last winter, and the race was up for grabs between them.
That all changed when a group of Oakland black political activists began a very public
campaign to woo Mr. Dellums into the race, and Mr. Dellums said that he was considering
it, with an announcement to come by the first of next month. Even a possible candidacy
by the powerful and still-popular Mr. Dellums sucked all of the air out of Ms. Nadel’s
room, taking away many progressives and black activists who would have supported
her.
It also set up a possible Dellums-De La Fuente 2006 mayoral race to succeed the outgoing
Mr. Brown, if Mr. Dellums decides to run. That would pit two powerful, savvy, experienced,
well-financed candidates against each other, candidates with contrasting visions
and politics that would give the citizens of Oakland clear and distinct choices for
the future direction of the city. Living in a democracy, you can’t ask for better
than that.
A Dellums-De La Fuente race would also bring a lot of media attention to Oakland,
although Oakland citizens would probably prefer that it not be the type of attention
that Mr. Harper demonstrates in his most recent “Bottom Feeder” column.
In the September 21 “Dellums vs. De La Fuente? item in that column,
Mr. Harper decides to focus on what he says is one thing that Mr. De La Fuente and
Mr. Dellums have in common: serious criminal problems suffered by one of their adult
children.
“De La Fuente’s son, Ignacio Jr., currently faces rape charges,” Mr. Harper writes.
“Dellums’ son, Michael, has spent the last 25 years in state prison for killing a
man in 1979 over a $20 bag of weed. How the two dads have dealt with their troubled
sons also shows their contrasting styles. De La Fuente, at least for now, has struck
by his son, even attending some court hearings. Dellums, who has publicly lamented
the plight of young black men who end up in prison, has seemingly forgotten his own
imprisoned son: In his memoir, Dellums acknowledged all his kids except for Michael.”
What, exactly, does that paragraph tell us about the character of either of these
two men–Mr. De La Fuente or Mr. Dellums–or how they might govern as mayor of the
City of Oakland? Nothing, as far as I can see. It doesn’t even tell us if they were
good parents, since even children raised by loving and attentive parents sometimes
go wrong and get into trouble, particularly in these difficult days, despite the
best efforts. And the accounting of the two instances of how the two men have dealt
with the two situations–Mr. De La Fuente showing up at court hearings and Mr. Dellums
leaving an acknowledgement of Michael out of his memoir–also tells us absolutely
nothing about the two men’s relationship with their sons, or exactly what they might
be doing behind the scenes, one way or the other.
It’s just gossip. And sometimes, even for a political gossip column, that’s not enough
to pass the test for publication.
The Dellums item has a history with the Express. In 2003, when Michael Dellums
was coming up for parole on the murder conviction, Mr. Harper wrote a piece about
the issue called “Not-so-favorite son” in the newspaper’s “7 Days”
column, the predecessor to “Bottom Feeder.” In that earlier item, at least, Mr. Harper
attempted to give some possible context to Mr. Dellums’ relationship with his son,
stating that Michael “was born during the divorce proceedings that ended his first
marriage” and adding that when asked in a 1988 East Bay Express interview
“’Your son by your first marriage is in jail for armed robbery and murder. Do you
feel that you could have done something different, as a parent, to have prevented
his troubles?’ Dellums tersely replied, ‘You're in an area that I don't want to get
into. And I did not raise him. ... I don't want to deal with that.’”
I don’t have a clue as to Mr. Harper’s motivation in writing these pieces. I will
simply note that I find it interesting that in the item when Mr. Dellums was retired
and seemingly out of local politics and living in D.C., Mr. Harper included information
that might explain Mr. Dellums’ actions–or non-actions–towards his son. But in the
recent and later item published during a time in which Mr. Dellums is now considering
running for political office in Oakland again, the explanatory information is left
out, and you have to have a long memory–or do an internet search–to find it.
In any event, sometimes the allegations against an adult child has the possibility
of reflecting on their politician parent and in those instances, it is entirely proper
for the media to link parent and adult child together. That’s the case with State
Senator Don Perata and his son Nick, both of whom are under investigation by the
FBI and a federal grand jury for allegations of working together for illegal political
payoffs and kickbacks. They key phrase here is “allegations of working together.”
But at least as far as the information available to the public goes,that is not the
case with the problems of the sons of Mr. De La Fuente and Mr. Dellums. As far as
we know so far, both Ignacio De La Fuente Jr. (the Councilmember’s son) and Michael
Dellums acted on their own, as adults. Unless someone has some other information
that changes that, the De La Fuente-Dellums sons “Bottom Feeder” item is something
that should have been left on the bottom, where it belongs.