Catching up with Shirley Golub

When I interviewed Shirley Golub on May 3, she was in the midst of challenging Nancy Pelosi for her Congressional seat in San Francisco’s 8^th District. Three days prior to the election (May 31), I phoned to check in with Shirley just to how things were going with the election just around the corner.

D: So, Shirley, how are things going out there on the left coast?

S: Well, it’s pretty amazing! I have three days left to make an impact here.

D: What are you focusing on right now?

S: Well, right now, I have volunteers lined up to walk the neighborhoods and distribute flyers. I have another set of volunteers going out to put up signs. I also have volunteers from all over the country making last-minute phone calls on my behalf.

D: How has media coverage of your campaign been in the last month?

S: Well, it’s been disappointing. It’s disappointing enough when the mainstream media doesn’t provide coverage, in spite of the fact that I’m challenging the nation’s first female Speaker of the House. However, it’s especially disappointing when the progressive media is missing in action.

D: What do you think the reason is for the progressive media’s lack of attention?

S: I’m not sure. Maybe they think I’m running against Cindy Sheehan, which I’m not. The idea is to get as many progressives in as possible. If I win against Nancy Pelosi in the primary, then Cindy Sheehan will just run in another district. The whole idea was for us to run as a one-two punch, if you will. If I fail in my bid to win the primary, then Cindy will run against Nancy Pelosi in November as an Independent.

D: I know Cindy was in the process of getting the required number of signatures. How is that going?

S: Right now, she has about 2,000 of the 10,000 she needs to get on the ballot. I believe she has until August to get all the signatures she needs.

D: Has Nancy Pelosi responded to your challenge at all?

S: Not at all. She’s been running as though she doesn’t have an opponent. I’m sure she sees my candidacy as nothing other than an irritant.”

At this point, Shirley had to cut the conversation short. I assumed it was because there was so much to do with so little time remaining. We agreed to reconvene and continue the interview the day after the election. When I spoke with Shirley on June 4, the day after the election, I found out why she had to end our conversation so abruptly.

Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich appeared together in an ad on climate change that was paid for a group called the Alliance for Climate Protection, an organization started by former Vice President Al Gore. Several people contacted Shirley encouraging her to file against Speaker Pelosi because they believed that the ad was a violation of the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, which limits the degree to which a candidate’s campaign can work with an independent group.

After investigating the situation and thinking about it for several days, Shirley decided it was not worth pursuing. As it turns out, Judicial Watch did file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said, “Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore may want to save the world, but they still have to follow federal law.” After a few more minutes on this topic, Shirley and I picked up the interview, albeit from a different standpoint.

D: So, the election is over. How did you do?

S: Well, the numbers show that I got 10.83% of the vote. That means that something like one in ten voted for me.

D: Considering what some of the presidential candidates did on a national level, I’d say you did pretty well.

S: Oh, thanks. It would probably have been higher had the voter turnout been better. It was pretty low. We tried to use the rent control issue to increase the number of people going to the polls. A bit more media coverage would also have helped.

D: And how did the rent control ballot question fare?

S: It did well. We managed to keep rent control in place.

D: What else has happened since the election? Any more excitement on any fronts?

S: Well, I just did a press conference for the California Impeachment Slate. We have about twenty candidates running across the state on an impeachment platform. We’re trying to get Monica Conyers to run for Congress in Detroit on an impeachment platform. Do you know who she is?

D: I could take a guess.

S: She’s the wife of Representative John Conyers, who is on the House Judiciary Committee, where impeachment is stalled right now. She is the President Pro Tempore of the Detroit City Council. In May of 2007, she placed a pro-impeachment resolution in front of her colleagues and it passed unanimously!

D: So, Shirley, now that this is all over, do you think you’ll stay in politics?

S: I don’t really know. Politics is a lot of work, even though it can be very rewarding. You know, my goal was always to push the impeachment issue, so I don’t know what the future holds for me beyond that. Right now, I’m just going to lay back a bit.

D: Well, thanks, Shirley for giving us a look inside your campaign and taking the time to talk to me now that the battle is over. I hope we can stay in touch.

S: Oh, you’re welcome and we will stay in touch. Talk to you later.

A few days after this interview was over, I received an email from Shirley. She forwarded an email that she had received from another member of the California Impeachment Slate who attached a story that had run in the Sacramento Bee Capitol Alert. The article stated that only 30% of registered voters gave Nancy Pelosi a positive job performance rating in a survey conducted at the end of May, just before the election. Who knows what might have happened had Shirley Golub’s campaign received more media coverage.

Even though Shirley Golub fell short in her attempt to remove Nancy Pelosi from office, her impeachment message was not lost on her constituents. Perhaps Shirley has lost this battle, but the war can still be won!