Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Tear Apart of S.S. Vanguard Lukewarm Jones Pro-ish Post

By Alan C. Miller

And now, another blog posting from S.S. on the D.V.G.:

https://davisvanguard.org/2026/10/eric-jones-mike-thompson-ca4

And my tear apart:

“I am not fully for one candidate or the other. I see that Mike Thompson’s Establishment-Democrat methods and policies have been failing us for a while now.” — S.S.

You’re not fully for Eric Jones, but you claim Mike Thompson has failed us. Uh huh . . .

“Eric Jones offers a worthy alternative, even as he and his supporters have drawn significant ire . . . ” — S.S.

Can’t imagine why.

“Perhaps the independent, patriotic right can join the independent, patriotic left (and the middle, too) to vote for change” — S.S.

Perhaps those right/left patriotic pigs can fly [see illustration, above].

“While I might have preferred an outspoken progressive in the mold of Abdul El-Sayed . . . ” — S.S.

So, you’d like an Israel hater, by any other name.

“Jones is a populist/progressive, anti-establishment capitalist outsider . . . ” — S.S.

Outsider, of Yolo County, as well . . .

“Blue Dogs are notorious for breaking rank to vote against progressive populists, usually against most everyone’s interest . . . ” — S.S.

Your interest, in other words.

“[Thompson] believes he has been a good steward of an economy and social structure that serves the very wealthy.” — S.S.

And Eric Jones’ campaign is funded by the very wealthy.

“Jones is new, and not a progressive panacea.” — S.S.

What ever happened to those progressive panacea candidates?

“His reliance on market solutions makes his economic views closer to Thompson’s than mine.” — S.S.

The nerve of him relying on market solutions.

“Has [Jones] stuck to his no-PAC, corporate-money, and anti-donor-influence positions? Yes.” — S.S.

No.

“Critics of Jones complain that his rhetoric changes with the audience.” — S.S.

Thank you for trumpeting our point.

“Eric’s position on affordability hasn’t changed; he won’t accept the status quo system where most won’t be able to buy a home until they’re 40, if ever.” — S.S.

And I won’t accept the status quo on pigs not flying.

“[Jones] did not become convinced of the infallibility of foreign countries and their insatiable need to massacre an entire people under the pretext of safety.” — S.S.

Any . . . particular . . . foreign country you are speaking about, SS? Flying pig got your chicken tongue?

“[Jones] is more likely to continue fighting for structural change rather than settling for the decline of business as usual.” — S.S.

I thought the decline of business as usual was what you were looking for, SS

Posted by

Alan C. Miller

on

in

Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

9 responses to “Tear Apart of S.S. Vanguard Lukewarm Jones Pro-ish Post”

  1. Roberta Millstein

    Spot on, ACM.

    Wow… Scott Steward’s article is…. odd. My favorite part is where he admits that “Thompson is a Democrat, and many of his policies are preferable. He cares deeply for his community.” Exactly. He should have stopped there. Vote for Thompson.

    So what is it that overturns things for Scott? Well, Jones is new. So? A lot of people would be new. JD Vance. Trump’s sons and daughters. Do we want any of them? And he doesn’t fit the mold, whatever that is. Like Fetterman? Do we want someone like that? Because Jones shows all the signs of being a Fetterman. Better to have a reliable Democratic vote than a turncoat.

    Scott thinks that Jones has “drawn significant ire from those who view challenging the Democratic establishment candidate as a personal affront.” Who is that?? Not me, who has been one of the most prolific Jones critics out there. And not anyone I have read. I’ve said from the beginning I’d be happy to have a credible progressive challenging Mike Thompson. But Jones is neither credible nor progressive.

    Finally, Scott conveniently leaves out the MILLIONS of dollars from the Silicon Valley Super PAC supporting Jones and the MILLIONS more in direct donations from his former venture capitalist colleagues and other Silicon Valley execs. So, exactly as ACM says above, that the answer to the following question is “no” : “Has [Jones] stuck to his no-PAC, corporate-money, and anti-donor-influence positions?” Not by a longshot. Yet Jones continues to repeat that ridiculous claim. So he’s bought and paid for by Silicon Valley AND he’s deceptive at best, lying at worst.

    Unless you are a tech oligarch, Jones is not someone you should want in office.

    Reply
  2. lindajeankevo

    This is disappointing.
    “While I might have preferred an outspoken progressive in the mold of Abdul El-Sayed . . . ” — S.S.

    “So, you’d like an Israel hater, by any other name.”

    Your “article” just lost credibility. Abdul El-Sayed does not hate Israel and that is what rightwingers on Fox, etc., are repeating. It is a lie.

    Btw, I have no intention of voting for Eric Jones who obviously is not who he claims to be. That doesn’t mean that Thompson is without fault, and he has voted for policies on occasion I do not agree with.
    It’s too bad that we can’t have a genuine progressive candidate, but not surprising. Eventually, leadership in this district will change, but not in the upcoming election.

    Reply
  3. lindajeankevo

    This is a lie, and constantly spread by rightwing propaganda outlets like Fox, etc.
    “While I might have preferred an outspoken progressive in the mold of Abdul El-Sayed . . . ” — S.S.
    “So, you’d like an Israel hater, by any other name.”

    Abdul El-Sayed does not hate Israel. Tired of the neverending smears against him because he is a genuine progressive candidate. Your so called “tear apart” loses credibility by doing so.
    While Eric Jones is not who he claims to be, Mike Thompson has definitely leaned too center right, particularly regarding support for U.S. military spending. It would have been nice to have a real progressive running for this district but that won’t be happening this election.
    Unsubscrbing.

    Reply
  4. lindajeankevo

    This is a lie, and constantly spread by rightwing propaganda outlets like Fox, etc.
    “While I might have preferred an outspoken progressive in the mold of Abdul El-Sayed . . . ” — S.S.
    “So, you’d like an Israel hater, by any other name.”

    Abdul El-Sayed does not hate Israel. Tired of the neverending smears against him because he is a genuine progressive candidate. Your so called “tear apart” loses credibility by doing so.
    While Eric Jones is not who he claims to be, Mike Thompson has definitely leaned too center right, particularly regarding support for U.S. military spending. It would have been nice to have a real progressive running for this district but that won’t be happening this election.
    Unsubscrbing.

    Reply
    1. Alan C. Miller

      LJK, I’m impressed. You were so offended by one sentence in my article that you posted about it not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES in 28 minutes, including posting essentially, but not exactly, the exact same comment twice. We heard you the first time. But since you apparently wanted to make absolutely certain that nobody missed your indignation, or your repetition, let’s look at what you are actually objecting to:

      First, you seem to misunderstand how The Davisite works. The Davisite publishes articles by individual authors. I wrote this piece. These are my opinions. There is no mysterious Davisite Editorial Politburo meeting in a smoke-filled room to decide what Alan C. Miller is permitted to think.

      So “Unsubscribing!” is certainly your prerogative, but it’s a bit like cancelling your newspaper subscription because you disagreed with one person who wrote an op-ed. I am but one author. There are other authors. They have their opinions. I have mine. You may even find, astonishingly enough, that we disagree with each other. That is rather the point of media, IMO.

      Second, calling my statement a “lie” and blaming “rightwing propaganda outlets like Fox” does not magically dispose of El-Sayed’s actual record. And I certainly don’t need Fox News to tell me what to think about him. Especially because I never watch Fox News, sans occasional clips that leak onto media that I do watch.

      El-Sayed has called Israel a “rogue state.” He has accused it of “genocide” and “apartheid.” He has called the Israeli government “evil” and has advocated ending both offensive and defensive U.S. military assistance to Israel. Most significantly, when repeatedly asked whether Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state, he has conspicuously declined a “Yes.” At a “Jews for Abdul” event (antizionist Jews, I’d wager), he explained that he “struggle[s] with the question” because of what being a Jewish state means. What does it mean?

      El-Sayed’s own statements give Israel-supporting Jews plenty of reason to regard him as profoundly hostile to Israel as a central component of Jewish communal identity. One needn’t be a “rightwinger,” watch Fox News, or take instructions from anyone else to reach that conclusion. He has separately argued that “every definition of a Jewish state ends up in some articulation of illiberal values.” I can’t know if Abdul El-Sayed personally “hates Jews”. But the parroting of overused dog-whistle words such as the “G” word and the “A” word clearly shows which side he is on regarding what he thinks thinks should exist between the Jordon and the Mediterranean.

      Indeed, after an attack on a Michigan synagogue, El-Sayed’s response included the spectacularly ill-considered phrase “hurt people hurt people.” While he subsequently apologized for those remarks, his positions and rhetoric have produced considerable concern. So disagree with my characterization if you like. That’s what a comment section is for. But calling it a “lie” three times doesn’t transform a disagreement over the interpretation of El-Sayed’s very public positions into a factual falsehood.

      And if three comments weren’t enough, by all means post a fourth. Oh that’s right you’ll never see this, because you unsubscribed. Or more likely, you are reading this, but now you can’t respond, because pride would prevent you from admitting you went back and looked.

      Reply
  5. John Smolenski

    Alan’s point here about Jones’s views about Israel is important. I am going to say up from that Alan and I disagree about Israel and Gaza. I do not want to argue about that.

    But I want to make a point about Jones. At his first town hall in Davis, someone asked Jones about his thoughts on Israel and Gaza. He then went right for “killing children is bad,” and have an answer that studiously avoided using the word Israel as much as possible. (It slipped in; but he still refused to use the word Palestine.)

    Jones actually said that he didn’t want to be divisive, he wanted to find common ground here and go with that.

    I think whether someone shares Alan’s view on this issue or my views on this issue, they deserve a straight answer. This is not a topic where saying “I want to do the common sense thing” or “can’t we all agree children should die from bombs” are acceptable solutions.

    It is insulting to everyone’s intelligence. And an intentional one.

    Reply
    1. Alan C. Miller

      “can’t we all agree children should die from bombs”

      Is that supposed to be someone’s opinion, as framed?

      Reply
      1. John Smolenski

        Wow, that is a is a slight paraphrase that I BADLY* botched. Jones says that no matter what your views on Israel are, “we can all agree that children shouldn’t be bombed.” Which, like…bold stance? He also said that he doesn’t think tax payer money should ever towards a bomb that would kill a child, followed by saying h supports the US military (which has bombed children before).

        My point, since I stated it inartfully with the botched contracted—Jones isn’t necessarily wrong in the general idea that children shouldn’t be killed by bombs.

        But children are, in fact, killed by bombs. It matters what one thinks about the struggle in which people are dying. I don’t mean to be callous when I say that civilian deaths happen in war. It matters to me that Jones avoids talking about specific things when asked.

        (When asked about Iran, Jones said that that he “wasn’t in favor of stupid wars.” He did not say whether he thought Iran was a stupid war or not.)

        Jones dodges where people deserve straight answers. If someone asks about Israel, say whether you support or condemn Israel’s actions. Don’t give an answer where you won’t use the word Israel. If someone asks you about Iran, say whether or not you support the war in Iran. But actually use the word Iran.

        And I say this as something people on different sides can agree on in the sense that these are obviously very significant political issues. I want to know *exactly* what my candidate thinks. For everything else you and I might disagree on, Alan, I think we might each be more satisfied if Jones came out and said what side he’s on rather than leave people guessing.

        I could go on, but I would like Jones to stop playing the game where he just lets people reading to what he’s saying. People actually have to take stands, and Jones doesn’t.

      2. Alan C. Miller

        JS, you sound like someone I could disagree with and still have a conversation with (maybe!). Yeah, those squirrely answers are the sign of a person who is scared of saying the ‘wrong’ thing and so says nothing that means anything. Integrity is a trait, and a good one. And Jones has no such trait.

Leave a Reply