Holy shit! Josh wolf is running for mayor!By G.W. Schulz
So, people want to hate Josh Wolf for being what they perceive as a lawless anarchist. But he's just so damn polite. He defies virtually every useless assumption about the actual history of anarchism (still little-known among many Americans).
Wolf is like the consummate Boy Scout, but with badges that feature political slogans and old crustcore bands instead. My mom would love this guy's manners -- the way he politely addresses everyone he communicates with and doesn't seem to really have a hostile bone in his body.
And now he's running for mayor. Jeez, Wolf's already spent half the year in prison, and now he has to run against The Douchebag, because no one else wants to do it? (I have good reason for nicknaming Gavin "The Douchebag" -- he's always reminded me of the elitist bad guy from Better Off Dead who stole John Cusack's girlfriend.) Good luck, Joshua. At least someone's going to make The Douchbag work for it. Jello Biafra couldn't even claim a prison stint when he ran for mayor back in 1979.
The Gentleman*
vs.
The Douchebag
Challenge to be reffed by Jello
"There's always room for Jello"
*Photo from www.joshwolf.net
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (5)
Yet the bad news for San Francisco's so-called progressives is that 'the douchebag' has higher approval ratings than any known progressive on the city's political scene, let alone any progressive running for mayor. Why would the citizenry want a charming, polished, handsome young guy instead of some nameless, rumpled, surly progressive? As soon as progressives figure that one out, maybe they'll be able to come up with a viable opponent.
Posted by jeff | July 5, 2007 05:47 PM
Surly? Josh Wolf is hardly surly. That's part of what the blog entry was all about.
Yes, the Gavster's charming. Yes, he's handsome. My shoe's are polished, but that doesn't mean they always smell good.
Why couldn't you come up with one word to describe him that didn't involve his physical aesthetic? Where's "intellectual depth"? Or "leadership qualities befitting a man at the helm of one of the world's most sophisticated, passionate cities"?
The features you listed look more like a desperate "missed connections" post than those belonging to a visionary leader who truly lives and breathes byzantine public policy. If I wanted handsome, I'd look at the Sunday department store ads in the Chron.
Posted by G.W. Schulz | July 5, 2007 07:01 PM
Where's the intellectual depth? Can't it be enough that Newsom does his homework and is well versed in the city's issues? I find that infinitely preferable to the self-serving bloviations of purported intellectuals like Jake McGoldrick. Civic administrators are elected to fix potholes, not to be philosopher kings, a fact that many of San Francisco's politicians don't seem to grasp. I'm just happy that Newsom speaks to the city's issues without talking down to the voters.
And if you resent him so much for being as pretty as he is, then maybe it's your own values that you should examine.
Posted by jeff | July 5, 2007 11:57 PM
Good Christ, so I guess we're continuing on with this. I started it, after all. My editor would have perhaps discouraged me from calling the mayor a "douchbag," but this is the nature of New Media.
I never implied that I preferred intellectual depth as an exclusive quality. I implied that in addition to other reverential qualities, perhaps the leader of a city like San Francisco can do more than operate solely in the context of his own image.
Hell, as you've pointed out, the mayor doesn't have to worry much about his image. He could shoot puppies and still get good ratings, apparently, so why not take some risks instead of waiting indefinitely on everything to find out how the public is going to react to each step he takes? Dishing out seemingly conviction-laden quotes to the national press doesn't count, particularly when they involve ideas he didn't generate on his own.
I like pretty people, too, Jeff. But my values don't hinge on them. Can you imagine a city where each of us backed only our local crushes for mayor? That would undoubtedly place a lot of baristas and bartenders in City Hall.
Posted by G.W. Schulz | July 6, 2007 12:31 PM
God this bolg sucks. Progressive really will vote for anyone but Newsom. You can't even call this a Politics blog how about the Petty Name Calling Blog
Posted by Dave | July 6, 2007 04:02 PM