For Chesa Boudin, it goes from bad to worse
Now that San Francisco has seen three days of smash-and-grab robberies on its remaining retailers, following the shutdowns of many more, he's making noises about being tough on crime.
The problem for him? Nobody's buying it.
Here's what happened when he tried to organize a rally for himself in a bid to whip up public support against his recall.
🔈SOUND ON: Recall supporters heard chanting “Recall Chesa Boudin!” as @chesaboudin looks on and @SFDAOffice staff scrambles to move press conference inside#2Little2Late #RecallChesa pic.twitter.com/HuqWJkPxBw— safersfwithoutboudin (@safersfnoboudin) November 24, 2021
The locals just chased him off.
Worst still were some of the answers he gave to the press, which up until now had been fairly solicitous. In an interview with KPIX's Betty Yu:
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who is facing a recall election in June, called this weekend's brazen robberies "absolutely unacceptable" and was preparing tough charges against those arrested during the criminal bedlam in Union Square.
In an interview with KPIX 5's Betty Yu, Boudin said that "if you bring that kind of nonsense, that kind of behavior to our city, there will be consequences."
Boudin said his office was eagerly awaiting more arrests and plans to announce felony charges on Tuesday. He said 25 individuals are still at large in connection with the Union Square burglaries on Friday night.
"This is not a San Francisco specific problem. It doesn't have anything to do with local policy," added Boudin.
Did we hear that right? "Absolutely unacceptable"? As if San Francisco's problem were comparable to some unruly classroom? "Nonsense"? The old schoolmarm tut-tutting the class cut-ups?
This is an unprecedented crime wave, one so bad that more than half the city wants to move away, while city officials worry the tourist industry may have taken a hit. He views it as tomfoolery? It's a problem of tone, linked to an inability to fathom what's happening, which points to a rather tardy and insincere conversion as to what public sentiment is.
And that claim about the lootings happening all over, so no blame to him, is utter bee ess, too. San Francisco is the nexus of the problem and much of it has spread to its suburbs such as Walnut Creek. What's more, Chesa's lax-on-crime, let-'em-out stance is not San Francisco–specific. Wherever Soros-financed district attorneys come to blue cities to roost, crime waves of this kind are happening. San Francisco just had more fertile ground based on its being a progressive blue city for a lot longer and a lot loonier than most of them. Play stupid games, get stupid prizes.
The interview shows even more disconnect the more you read of it: he claims he's not soft on crime.
Yu: "Do you believe that you are soft on crime?"
Boudin: "Absolutely not, nothing could be further from the truth. Anybody who says that isn't looking at the facts, or the evidence, or my record."
He then goes namby-pamby, demonstrating that yes, he is soft on crime, from a question about whether looters should be jailed, claiming each case is different, meaning, exceptions to the law can be granted to all, which is the kind of news that gets out in the criminal community before it takes up on looting sprees.
Yu: "Do you think jail time is sufficient punishment for such behavior and if not, what is an alternative that you see fit?"
Boudin: "I think it depends on how much time and what the criminal history is. We can't generalize. If we're going to be smart on crime, if we're going to be effective at breaking the cycle of incarceration and stopping the revolving door, we need to look at every single case, based on the facts, based on the law, based on the individual circumstances."
Then it got very bad for him: He got an off-script question from a reporter he'd normally never take a question from, following a police officer's statement about 'lack of consequences' at a community meeting and became a deer in the headlights:
Hilarious to watch Boudin freeze when asked a question on his ineffectiveness by a reporter that is not Chronicle-gullible.— Lou B (@LuigiCPA) November 24, 2021
He's a Rhodes Scholar? Really?
A speechless prosecutor?@SusanDReynolds @meganrcassidy #GBTB https://t.co/RTkh6MhmGw
If this is how things are going for him at this early stage, he's not going to make it through his recall in June. Part of his problem is that he's not in a red-blue city where blues control the ballot-counting and can rig the results; he's in an all-blue city, and everyone who's against him is a fellow progressive. That gives him no leeway through the typical rigging mechanism, which keeps Democrats in blue cities in power. The people who are mad at him are other progressives, and surely some have their hands on the election machinery, which should deprive him of the padding of rigging that normally gets unpopular Democrats through, as was recently seen in New Jersey.
San Francisco's locals are all progressives, so there was no one to shut out at the election office. And more important for him, they seem to be onto his scam. It may just explain why he's starting to take one pratfall after another, defending the indefensible. It's not working.
Image: Twitter video screen shot.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.