About that "acrimonious fall"

They're at it again
Illustration appeared in The Stranger

Catch this. Mayor Ed Lee's mayoral victory had nothing to do with millions of dollars in campaign contributions from private interests, a sophisticated get-out-the vote effort targeting Lee supporters, the advantage of incumbency, some funny business, or a calculated campaign strategy concentrating efforts on absentee ballots.

Instead, the fact that Lee triumphed over voters’ second pick, the significantly less well-funded progressive candidate Sup. John Avalos, is proof that the left in San Francisco has plummeted into a dark abyss. In fact, the progressive movement has descended so far into disarray and become so irrelevant that its condition warrants front page news.

That's essentially the narrative that Benjamin Wachs and Joe Eskenazi of the San Francisco Weekly offer in their cover article, "Progressively Worse: The Tumultuous Rise and Acrimonious Fall of the City's Left," in which they refer to the Guardian as "the movement's cajoling ward boss, kingmaker, and sounding board." Gosh, I feel so goddamn important right now.

Once the blood pressure returned to normal, my initial reaction to this piece was that Wachs and Eskenazi seem to misunderstand who and what progressives actually are. They portray the city's left as a caricature, a brash bunch of power mongers now on the losing end that can be easily summed up with pithy video game references, Happy Meal toy bans, and bikes.

Witness the contrast between the Weekly's portrayal of progressives (helped along by former Newsomite Eric Jaye), and the portrait of the left the Guardian offers this week with an Op-Ed written by NTanya Lee -- an actual progressive who volunteered for the Avalos for Mayor campaign.

Here's the Weekly on the left:

"This is an eclectic group, one often bound not by mutual interests as much as mutual enmity — toward Brown, his successors, and the corporate interests of 'downtown.' As a result, progressive principles are often wildly inconsistent. Progressives favor more government control over people's lives for their own good, as when they effectively banned McDonald's Happy Meals. But sometimes progressives say the government needs to let people make their own choices ... Progressives believe government should subsidize homeless people who choose to drink themselves to death, while forbidding parents from buying McNuggets because fast food is bad for us. ... Without consistent principles, it's easy to associate progressives with the craziest ideas to come out of City Hall, and the movement's bad ideas are memorable. ... Daly's pledge to say 'Fuck' at every public meeting makes a killer Internet meme. Hey, let's legalize prostitution and outlaw plastic bags!"

Here's Lee on the left:

"The Avalos coalition was largely community forces: SF Rising's base in working class Black, Latino, Filipino and Chinese communities; the Bike Coalition's growing base of mostly white bike riders; affinity groups like Filipinos, Queers, Latinos and Arabs for Avalos; progressive Democrats; social networks of creative, young progressive activists affiliated with the League of Young Voters; and loyal families and neighborhood leaders from John's own District 11. The campaign prioritized communicating to voters in four languages, and according to the Chinese press, John Avalos was the only non-Chinese candidate with a significant Chinese outreach program. There were stalwarts from progressive labor unions (most notably SEIU 1021 and USWW) who threw down — but overall, labor played it safe and invested resources in other guys. And then, in the great surprise development of the race, supporters of the new national occupy movement came to be a strong part of the Team Avalos base because the campaign was so well positioned to resonate with the call to take on the one percent."

When it comes to takeaways from the November election, the Weekly's conclusion is essentially opposite that of progressives. While many on the left see themselves as regaining momentum and building the power to rise even in the face of defeat by the established powers-that-be, the Weekly casts San Francisco's left as deflated and out-of-touch.

Speaking of out-of-touch, the SF Weekly refers to San Francisco's "increasingly imaginary working class."  But in reality, 61 percent of students attending public schools in S.F. Unified School District qualify for free or reduced lunch, and a majority of San Franciscans cannot afford market-rate housing.

However, the Weekly is correct in pointing out that shifting demographics have dealt a blow to the progressive base.

"Between 2000 and 2010, the city grew older (every age group over 50 increased), wealthier (there are now 58 percent more households earning $125,000 or more), and more heavily Asian (up from around 30 to nearly 35 percent of the city's population): exactly the groups progressives don't win with. These voters don't respond well to campaigns against developments or for city services, because they're often living in those developments and don't need city services."

I take issue with the Asian part of that statement as a sweeping generalization, however, having witnessed the solid organizing work of the Chinese Progressive Association, for example.

The Weekly also says progressives and the Guardian never called out former Mayor Gavin Newsom for ripping off their best ideas. Oh, they didn't?  That's news to me.

The Weekly article implies that progressives got trounced by moderates because jobs are priority No. 1 for voters, and the left has no feasible economic plan -- but at the same time, the article completely dismisses ideas that the Guardian has put forth, like creating a municipal bank, implementing Avalos' Local Hire legislation, or taxing the rich.

Taxing the rich is precisely the kind of economic solution the international Occupy movement is clamoring for, and the concept has even attracted a few unlikely supporters, like billionaires Warren Buffet and Sean Parker, who is not some conservative a*hole by the way.

"The Guardian ... stays on the progressive agenda because they put it there, along with taxing the rich, tapping downtown to subsidize Muni, and other measures ... Proposing the same old solutions to every new problem turns policies into punch lines."

Speaking of predictable, no profile authored by the Weekly mentioning the Guardian would be complete without some dig about public power. "The Guardian has been flogging public power since Tesla invented the alternating-current generator," the S.F. Weekly squawks. Those clever reporters, turning policies into punch lines.

But wait, I thought the problem was that progressives couldn't get it together on the job creation thing. Consider the CleanPower SF program, which has been strongly advocated for by progressive Sup. and Sheriff-elect Ross Mirkarimi (who it turns out is "not toxic," according to the Weekly, since he was elected citywide and all). According to an analysis by the Local Clean Energy Alliance, CleanPowerSF will create 983 jobs -- 4,357 jobs when indirect job creation is factored in -- over the course of three years, assuming the 51 percent renewable energy target is met. Presented with this kind of information, the Weekly will only yawn and say, "Are we on that again?"

That being said, our friends' article might actually have a pearl of wisdom or two buried somewhere in that nauseating sea of sarcasm. Everyone needs to engage in self-reflection. So right after you're done throwing up, think about how to take advantage of the opportunity this article presents for a citywide dialogue about progressivism in San Francisco.


You just made a joke.

Give me a break. That bullshit backpedal you just typed does not by any stretch of the imagination explain how a -majority- of the city's electoral districts elected progressives and kept them in office for a full decade.

And your "voters want a balance of power" argument is absolutely laughable on its face.

Posted by anonymous on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 11:28 am

and progressive challengers always lose. Shuffle the pack any way you want but the votes are never there for you.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 12:33 pm

no one is buying your bullshit

Posted by anonymous on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 1:41 pm

Wow the discussions here and the endless excuse making and out of touch theorizing made the Weekly's point in ways no one else could .

If progressives are leaving the analysis and political heavy lifting to Eric Brooks, downtown should be paying him. He's doing a great job ensuring progs will continue to be irrelevant to most people who vote.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 12:26 pm

now. If only this, if only that, Lee doesn't have a mandate, blah blah.

The simple fact is that SF is predominatly centrist with a liberal bias. They're bot socialist by any means.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 12:34 pm

The fact remains that Ed Lee has been elected mayor with the fewest votes in history.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 12:39 pm

his ability to govern.

But if it makes you feel better . . .

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 12:59 pm


No one is interested in your John Birch Society reactionary attitudes.

Posted by anonymous on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 1:47 pm

Depends, when an elected official has a narrow electoral base, then they can often be constrained in their range of action.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 1:59 pm

Until the last couple of years when Chiu was convinced by Willie Brown and Rose Pak to stab his progressive base in the back and become a traitor to his former allies on the Board, the Newsom administration pretty much got its ass handed to it on a plate.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 2:29 pm

Really?? In history?? You mean when Francisco deharo was elected mayor in 1835 with less than a thousand votes, he got more than Ed Lee? More like least votes in hyperbole.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 1:58 pm

Reductio ad absurdum.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 2:25 pm

You made the statement the "Ed lee was elected with the least votes in history"
Is this true?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 5:57 pm

In recent history, in our lifetimes, whatever the point stands, nobody here cares what you think.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 8:12 pm

But YOU care Marcos! You care enough to respond, and that's all that matters.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 8:34 pm

Unbelievable. You are actually, with a straight face, comparing modern elections in California at over 36 million population, with an election in the 1800s before California was even part of the United States; all so you can somehow pretend t yourself to have won some stupid blog debate.

You have got to be the post pathetic joke excuse for a human being who ever walked the face of the Earth.

What a dip shit.

Posted by anonymous on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 11:03 pm

What a pathetic life you must have for that to matter to you.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 11:03 pm

Argumentum Ad YourMomium

Posted by Guest on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 8:00 am

shows clearly how irrelevant your backward mentality is to this discussion, and that you are not capable of accurately assessing voter attitudes, because you have a truly freakish right wing bias clouding your thinking.

I clearly have not been making any excuses at all. Where do you get this nonsense. I have in fact been both criticizing progressive failures and likewise criticizing your idiotic claims. I challenge you to copy and paste anything that I have written which proves this wrong. You won't be able to, because such posts do not exist. Your continued Goebbelizing simply does not make your absurd statements to the contrary true just because you repeat them several times a day.

And the fact that you don't seem to know the difference between a progressive and a socialist is hilarious.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 1:37 pm

Eric confuses illegal immigration with legal immigration and then complains that someone doesn't know the difference between socialist and progressive,


Posted by matlock on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 5:39 pm

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion
or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the
leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle
cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too
prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.
Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of
benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.
For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black
people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or
dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a
diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal
and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative
action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take
such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.
Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems
serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and
frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black
people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white
majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would
have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse
for making a fuss.

23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate
description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only
a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the
process by which children are trained to think and act as society
demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and
obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning
part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists
are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel.
Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such
rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can
think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not
supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some
time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are
so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally
imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt,
they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives
and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality
have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe
such people. [2]

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of
powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means
by which our society socializes children is by making them feel
ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's
expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is
especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of
HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized
person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of
the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a
significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty
thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate
someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick
to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do
these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of
shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even
experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to
the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And
socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to
confirm to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading
of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological
leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down
for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of
constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest
that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human
beings inflict on one another.

27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the
modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of
great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism.
Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or
members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university
intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized segment of our
society and also the most left-wing segment.

28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his
psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually
he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of
society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in
conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes
an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses
mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial
equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed
to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to
animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve
society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All
these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of
its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are
explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the
material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and
the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the
oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but
justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of
truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized
leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our
society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists
push for affirmative action, for moving black people into
high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more
money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they
regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into
the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just
like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the
last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white
man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in
what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It
can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food,
listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going
to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express
itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects more
leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform
to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical
subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing
the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white.
They want to make black fathers "responsible." they want black gangs
to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the
industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what
kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what
religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a
respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent,
is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it,
the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the
system and make him adopt its values.

30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the
oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our
society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have
gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society's most important
principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account,
violence is for them a form of "liberation." In other words, by
committing violence they break through the psychological restraints
that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized
these restraints have been more confining for them than for others;
hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their
rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence
they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.

31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing
thumb-nail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is
complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take
several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim
only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies
in the psychology of modern leftism.

32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our
society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and
defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially
noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And
today's society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any
previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to
exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.

Posted by marcos on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 12:35 pm
Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 1:00 pm

It reads like 'the Political Man' from Lipset or another of his books on the subject.


I've always found self styled leftist radicals interesting in that they claim to want to break down barriers along racial lines, but complain about anyone not employed in the lower rungs of society or in the proper government or educrat fields.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 2:16 am

@marcos, what happened to 1>20?.
I heard reports of 3,500 folks on Alcatraz today ??

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 24, 2011 @ 1:33 pm

Wow, Eric and Marc sure have a lot of time on their hands...just remember posting comments on blogs is the path to power and making a difference.

Meanwhile, people who actually know what's going on will pay no attention, progressives will keep their meager turf and Willie laughs . The city will be looted by his pals and by excessive pensions to cops and firefighters and the poorer city workers will pay for the campaigns to protect them .

Progressive fail!!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 11:09 am

When H Brown launched a similar bogus challenge to me as you just did, here's the post I replied with, of just some of my real world accomplishments. I assure you this list is accurate and not in any way exaggerated. So, let's bear in mind that you, do not know what you are talking about. I put my feet on the ground all of the time in myriad campaigns. And I help win them almost every time. Blog posting is merely something I do to relax, and to hone my rhetorical skills.

In the 1980s:

Helped organize in the following successful fights:

- The boycott & divestment movement against South Africa to end apartheid

- The campaign to successfully reauthorize the U.S. Superfund law to ensure ongoing cleanup of our most hazardous waste sites

- The campaign to stop Pacific Northwest Bell from making telephone customers pay measured long distance rates on local calls

In the 1990s:

Helped organize (in almost every case as one of the campaign leaders) the following successful fights:

- The battle to protect the ancient Headwaters Forest in Northern California from being completely wiped out by Maxxam Corporation

- Stronger pesticide regulations in California and San Francisco

- Further elevating LGBTQ rights

- The fight to bring down the WTO the FTAA and other 'free trade' monstrosities destroying this planet's economies, which has now essentially stopped these global 'trade' agreements in their tracks

- The recall of Gray Davis for his, attacking forests (including Headwaters), building prisons, and selling California out to the fossil fuel power industry, all at the behest of the three sectors which each donated over 1 million dollars to his campaigns for office

In the 2000s:

Helped organize, in almost every case as one of the leaders of the campaign itself, in the following successful battles:

- Passing the 2007 ordinance for CleanPowerSF in San Francisco which, once built, will provide the City with 50% of its electricity from local, community owned, clean and renewable sources

- Stopping the Planning Department from weakening citizens' ability to halt developer projects through Discretionary Review

- Stopping the City from weakening citizen's access to using the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to challenge developer projects

- Stopping PG&E's Prop 16, which would have forced local two-thirds votes on any community wide clean energy or municipal power projects, and would have anchored PG&E's monopoly in the state constitution

- Stopping the 2008, Prop 98, which would have decimated California zoning and environmental protections and repealed all rent control and affordable housing mandates

- Stopping a Google/Earthlink partnership that would have taken over San Francisco's local wireless internet services as a private monopoly

- Stopping a new polluting fossil fuel power plant from being built in the Bayview Hunters Point and shutting down San Francisco's last fossil fuel power plant in Potrero Hill (which closed on Feb 28, 2011)

- Passing Board of Supervisors amendments to the Lennar Hunters Point II development project, which, if that project proceeds, will help ensure that the hazardous waste in that area is cleaned up before housing and parks are built there; and which also ban fossil fuel power plants from that development (I wrote most of the amendments and coordinated the floor lobbying for them)

- Writing detailed environmental review comments and helping organize to severely hobble and delay the Lennar Hunters Point II development project

- Writing detailed environmental review comments and helping organize to hobble and delay Lennar's disastrous boondoggle Treasure Island project

- Making detailed environmental review comments and helping organize to -seriously- hobble and delay the Parkmerced project

- Serving as a local leader in the global divestment and boycott movement against Israel for its brutal occupation and genocide of the Palestinian people (I successfully led the SF Green Party - which was deadlocked on this issue until last year - to join the boycott and divestment campaign)

- Elevating the status of animal companions in San Francisco with the switch on city documents to calling humans animal 'guardians' instead of merely 'owners'

- Saving a beautiful, loving dog from being unfairly executed, by coordinating his being adopted by a guardian who could properly care for him

- Stopping a 'Pet Food Express' big box chain store from coming in and decimating local pet stores in northwest San Francisco

Any questions...?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 12:12 pm

Uh, pet food express went in, I shop there all the time. California and presidio.
Why do activists love STOPPING things?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 5:36 pm

Aside from the fact that you ludicrously picked one tiny item on a veritable laundry list of successes to pick at, as if such petty nit picking somehow vindicates you; you are also, of course, wrong.

The Pet Food Express that I helped stop was one roundly opposed by the community. I joined the fight because of that, and because it directly effected the local small pet store at which I regularly shop. Community groups and others succeeded in stopping that big box from coming in, in 2009,

You can see a report which mentions that store being halted at:


Any other presumptuous, incorrect, smart aleck comments or questions?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 6:41 pm

So a store you blocked which then opened less than a mile from its first planned location later on is a win? Exactly how many of your local pet shops have since gone out of business?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 8:02 pm

The store I helped stop would have been less than three blocks away from several local pet shops and other local stores selling pet supplies, and those shops are all still in business.

By all means, continue your petty hyper-examination of a pet shop fight.

You simply look more and more foolish as you dig the hole for yourself ever deeper.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 9:03 pm
Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 25, 2011 @ 10:04 pm

You know what I hate about far right-wing Republicans? They deny facts. They say global warming is a hoax, homosexuality is a curable disease, etc. I don't need to belabor the point; Guardian readers know what I'm talking about.

You're doing the same thing. You are denying the facts. You are no better than the far right.

"Progressives" lost in a big way, bigger than when Matt Gonzalez almost won. That is a fact.

Now you can suggest any sort of action you like about what to do next. But as long as you deny the facts, you'll never succeed -- because if you did, you'd be just like the far right, unfit to govern.

Posted by Blake on Nov. 28, 2011 @ 9:17 am

a significant majority of the BofS since 2000. There's been a huge influx of knowledge workers and affluent professionals to SF in the last 15 years which has swung the balance of voting power back to the center.

While many of the left-leaning poor have decamped to Oakland and other, cheaper places.

Add in that there has been a significant swing to the right since the emergence of the Tea Party, and a lingering distrust of big government, and it's not surprising that the left can't attract support outside it's core union, non-profit and poverty pimp heartland.

Clinton and Obama secured critical mass by moving to the center. But can the SF left pull off the same trick without choking on their own vomit?

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 28, 2011 @ 10:52 am

bogus on many levels, as is the typical empty blitheringly repetitive, reactionary ditto head reply of 'Anonymous'

Posted by anonymous on Nov. 28, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

I've been a candidate for mayor, and this last years showing was exactly as I expected it would be early: weak.

It was all weak. All the candidates, all the 'issues'. All the money. The press. Everything about it was weak. The turnout. The ideas. The legacy.

It was a bad script, a bad show and we got bad results.

Ben's article is spot on. The Gaurdian is irrelivant. And so am I. Nothing I have done in the past 5 years has born any fruit, save content for your paper and his. Straight up.

Your responce here was so predictable, I caught myself skimming. At least Ben's article was funny.

In the end, your both right. But it's a show with no audience. And that's kinda shity, but the progessive left of SF has never been any good at embracing brutal truth.

And that brutal truth is that John Avalos had a zero % chance of winning this election the second ed lee was the iterium mayor. I knew it, everyone else I knew knew it. We all knew he would run, and win. That's why no one bothered to do very much.

The good news? The good news is that Ed Lee might be a better mayor then John. John has a great career in front of him. Dennis is still one of the best city attorney's in the US. Jeff is a great public defender. We have some pension reform. There is a new sherrif in town.

In any event, let this be the last we talk of this. I'm kinda looking forward to having some fun. The die's are cast, the ballots counted. This is the SF that we have. It's not so bad.

Be thinking about who Govenor Newsome is gonna endorse in 4 years. Sigh.

Onward!!!! chicken

Posted by Chicken John on Nov. 28, 2011 @ 3:48 pm

Cluck, cluck, John, but then you had to go and spoil it by raising the possibility of Governor Gorgeous Gav., sigh. Let's just hope the new annointee in 5 is not to 'slick.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Nov. 28, 2011 @ 9:25 pm