wasn't Bill Barnes, the moderate that apparently Garcia loves, Daly's aide? Wasn't he the guy who thought up the idea of appointing Werbach to the PUC?

In a post above, Paul Melbostad says:

“a couple of pitiful toadies”

“lick the buttholes of right wing rich Republicans”

“paid mouthpieces”

“lackeys”

Thank you, Paul, for this display of intelligent reasoning on your part.

I take it that you are an admirer of the reasoning style of Chris Daly and Aaron Peskin, right?

Peskin a lackey for the Downtown business interests?? What are you smokin? I want some of it.

I'm still waiting to see how Time Redmond can justify (in the name of progressive politics!) a machine whose motto is "Payback is a bitch."

Also, speaking of justification, how can Tim Redmond justify supporting Carole Migden for the Democratic County Central Committee? Is there any local politician who is more cheesy, and more dishonest when confronted with her shortcomings, than Carole Migden? Okay, maybe Ed Jew. But what consolation is that?

Finally, how can Tim Redmond justify making excuses for Chris Daly, who is the living embodiment of the abusive patriarchal male? Whatever happened to the feminist critique of male-chauvinist behavior? Has Tim Redmond ever heard of it?

Doesn't this whole scene remind you of the People's Front of Judea in the Monty Python flick "The Life of Brian"?

Yep, it's true. This is a faith-based enterprise.

I've always liked the People's Front of Judea, but the Constitutional Peasant is really more my style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Help, help, I'm being repressed. It's the violence inherent in the system.

Hola.

For those who haven't already figured it out, Arthur Evans (who also goes by the alias Ruth R. Snave over on Fog City Journal) has a few screws loose, or is "off the latch." However you want to put it. He has completely snapped...probably around 1987. Not only is migratory sit-lie addict Arthur Evans/Ruth R. Snave trying to control people with oppressive sit-lie but he's also trying to be parental and controlling the language people use online. He can't stand (what he calls) "foul-mouthed" language. (Translation: Adult sex language.) I thought we were all adults here. I suspect we are, except for Arthur/Ruth (and whatever alias he's using today). And he is happiest when he's involved in drama, continually baiting people on line (this thread is an example) and dysfunction. He fits the definition of an Internet Troll. Why does Arthur/Ruth act so oppressive, repressive and depressive? Might it be because of this stuff he has written on the Internet:

Quote:

In January 1987, I decided to phase sex out of my life. Not out of any sense of duty or fear or piety or anything like that, but because my interests were changing. Since then, I've had sex with another person on two occasions. Both experiences felt like a waste of time. My heart wasn't in it.

As my sex drive has decreased in recent years, I've noticed an increase in another passion that I've always had, but which now is stronger than ever. It's something that's hard to describe to people who've never experienced it. For lack of better words, I call it the intellectual love of the universe.

End Quote

Migratory sit-lie addict Arthur Evans/Ruth R. Snave is now into "the intellectual love of the universe." Oooooooooooooookay.

He doesn't write like he's full of love or "intellectual love." He writes like he's full of bile, venom and hate towards people of a lower class than himself, using his trademark buzz/code words (ex. "Civil Sidewalks Law," migratory packs, testosterone, "Let's all support..." and so forth) in his writing.

Just so you know who you're dealing with...if you didn't already know. He's so wrapped up in Chris Daly's testosterone. I think Arthur/Ruth needs to have his own testosterone level checked.

The guy is not "all there." When will he seek psychotherapy, that I've suggested in all seriousness in past comments? Well he has to admit he has a problem first. I don't see that happening....not from what I've seen from him. From the pedestal he's put himself on, he thinks he's above that.

Tim,

Thanks for your thoughtful post above.

I agree that there should be a special and timely election for supes if a vacancy occurs. The present arrangement, which allows the mayor to fill a vacancy, skews the eventual election dynamic in favor of the appointee.

Also, you're right about Willie Brown. The supes became his rubber stamps. I doubt that any rational person would want to return to such a lopsided system.

However, the problem today is the arrogance of the Peskin machine. His motto is "Payback is a bitch." His people - the Six Guys Club - control the board of supes.

In the last election for board prez, the Six Guys made it clear that the only one they would support for the job was "one of our own" (in the words of David Campos). That was when Sophie Maxwell, who was not one their own, sought the job.

They were terrified that Sophie Maxwell might win. Eventually, after working out their own internal disagreements, they settled on David Chiu, who had never before held elective office.

Today the Six Guys are busily trying to agree on whom they should appoint as mayor, should Gavin Newsom be elected Lt. Governor, as expected. Once again, they want to make sure that the choice is "one of our own." Some possible names which they have hoisted up the flagpole are those of Tom Ammiano and Matt Gonzalez.

Both Ammiano and Gonzalez were rejected by the voters when they ran for mayor in the past. The last time that Ammiano ran for mayor, he got 11% of the vote. A large chunk of the electorate today doesn't know who Gonzalez is.

The Six Guys will eventually settle their differences, as they did before, and impose a mayor on the voters. He (they don't consider women as possibilities) will be part of the Peskin machine.

The Six Guys will rejoice and consider this coup a victory. However, power is not legitimacy. It will be harder and harder for the machine to pretend to be "progressive."

They've turned into another version of Willie Brown.

Well, Sam, I can see that you're back to the old ad-hominem-attack track again.

There's a more grown-up approach you can use when debating. Here are its principles:

*Stay focused on the topic at hand.

*Don't try to turn other debaters into the topic.

*Present arguments that rely on consistent logic and sound evidence.

Good luck!

Tim,

You're absolutely right that there are conflicts among the Six Guys Club at the supes. We all saw that clearly at the last election by the supes of their board prez.

Ross Mirkarimi was all set (in his mind, at least) to win. However, Chris Daly vetoed Mirkarimi because Mirkarimi had gone to the SF Bay Guardian and called Daly a bully (which he is).

There was quite a bit of anguish among the Six Guys over whether they would all be able to hang together, and keep Sophie Maxwell, whom they demonized, from winning. A fascinating, blow-by-blow account of the whole process appeared in Fog City Journal, written by Savannah Blackwell.

In the end, the Six Guys pulled it off. They submerged their egos and conflicts and settled on David Chiu. It was after they pulled off this feat that David Campos boasted that they had saved the position of board prez "for one of our own."

They might not be able to hang together again. You're right about that. However, they are doing their darndest to do so.

My guess is that Aaron Peskin is warning them all that if any one of them sinks the boat, his future career in SF politics will be garbage. That's what Peskin means when he says "Payback is a bitch."

So it will be an interesting spectacle to watch, with lots of self-serving posturing by all parties. But whatever the outcome may be, the winner cannot claim the title of "the voters' choice."

And that's a glaring contradiction for any movement that claims to be an alternative to politics as usual and the vanguard of democracy in SF.

It's ludicrous of "Sam" to accuse any other commenter here of bile when his own comments reek of bile. Here's a sampling of how he's referred to other commenters:

"rabid regressive useless trash"
"A typical smug response from yet another hater"
"smug, bourgeois elite, pretentious, nose-in-the-trash trash"
"disgusting troll"
"regressive nuts"
"it's good to know that there are some people who don't agree with the regressive, rabid trash in our society"
"fascist right-wing trash"

You know who else referred to people as "trash" and actually ordered a removal of the poor and homeless from the streets of his country called "Operation Clean Out the Trash?"

Robert Mugabe. Clearly a hero to Sam.

Sorry to give you the bad news, Sam, but Matt Gonzalez did not win the mayor's race in 2003.

After losing, Gonzalez retired from politics, going into private law practice. His name mostly disappeared from the news.

The Green Party that Gonzalez championed has collapsed in SF. Even Ross Mirkarimi and marc salomon have abandoned it.

SF voters have short memories and a rapid turnover. Gonzalez himself no longer has an institutional platform.

Matt Gonzalez is finished as a politician. However, he could still become a poet or an academician, callings that are better suited to his nature.

Once again, Sam has launched a personal tirade instead of presenting a rational argument.

For the record, I use only one handle on any one chatboard.

Also, for the record, I am not a troll. I'm an equal-opportunity skeptic, independent in my judgments, calling things as I see them. Nobody pays me anything.

Also, if you want to test Sam's claim that I'm crazy, then read my books and decide for yourself.

But none of this makes any difference to Sam. He keeps cranking out his ad hominem slanders, one after the other, against anyone who questions his dogmas, hoping to divert attention away from logic and evidence.

You commonly see this sort of behavior on the part of people in sects. They believe they have the One Truth. So anybody who challenges their dogmas must be corrupt or in the service of malignant forces. Why else would anyone challenge the One Truth?

Sam is not alone. In recent years, SF progressivism has increasingly shown signs of sect-like behavior. Many SF prorgressives have developed a bunker mentality, becoming anti-intellectual, anti-cultural, doctrinaire, and deficient in basic social skills.

It's too bad because SF progressivism was once an engaging, popular movement that valued both intellectual diversity and people who thought for themselves.

But it's now a sect-like phenomenon. At the same time, its political leadership is deteriorating into an old-style political machine, led by a politician whose motto is "Payback is a bitch."

It's time to re-open the gates of intelligence and integrity in the political life of the city.

Tim Redmond wrote:

"You think the Democrats in Congress would allow a Republican to be speaker? Not."

------------------

Will you please stop this "my team is better than your team" cheer-leading shit?... when these two parties (teams) are the same on most issues and work for their corporate owners. I know that most people have been brainwashed into thinking there's something majorly different between the two parties (it's really a corporate one party system), but their voting records and actions say otherwise.

There's a Republican in the speaker's chair now. Her name is Pelosi. She's a Bush-enabling Republican with a D behind her name. In fact, most of the Dems in congress are Bush-accomplice Republicans with a D behind their name. The Bush regime could not have accomplished their goals without the yes votes, complicity and silence from the so-called Dems (Republicans). And who took impeachment "off the table?" Republican Pelosi charading as a Dem. And now it turns out that Bush experimented on prisoners and do you hear any whimper from the Ds or Rs? Ds = Rs. When will people understand that and come out of their Denial? Bush experimented on prisoners and there is silence about that. Have people forgotten WWII and what that was about? "Oh Sam, that was THEM doing it, this is US, Sam. We're the good guys, Sam. It's okay, Sam."

And I see that migratory sit-lie addict Arthur Evans (alias Ruth R. Snave) and paid political troll was the troll to respond to my question about trolls. He was the troll who fell into my trap immediately. Nothing else needs to be said. The true intellectuals understand.

I think we need a special law to ban paid political trolls on the Internet and "bring civility and decency" back to the Internet. Let's take the Internet back from the migratory packs of Internet paid political trolls.

Vote yes on the "Internet Civility Law."

Thank you, Tim Redmond, for your post above. It’s always refreshing to have a discussion with someone who knows how to present a rational argument.

Some responses follow.

You say:

“The progressives control the board, fair and square; they won the elections in enough districts to have a majority. And it's entirely appropriate for the ‘majority party,’ as it were, to decide that the board leadership is going to be a member of that party.”

You’re saying the board’s progressive Democrats regard the board’s liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats as a separate party from themselves, to the same degree that Democrats in Congress view Republicans.

You wouldn’t call this a bunker mentality?

You say:

“Yeah, we're all Democrats here, but the progressives might as well be a party, since they share a basic vision of governing (not 100 percent, but at least 75 percent, which is more than you can day about the Dems nationally.)”

Are the progressive Democrats at the board are so much a party unto themselves that they view someone like Sophie Maxwell as a political enemy?

Is this a rational attitude?

You say:

“You think the Democrats in Congress would allow a Republican to be speaker?”

You’re saying that Sophie Maxwell is to the board of supes as John Boehner, the Republican minority leader, is to the U.S. House of Representatives.

You don’t regard this comparison as a slander of Sophie Maxwell?

You say:

“Sophie Maxwell has shown by her votes that she disagrees with the progressives on a lot of issues.”

She agrees with them on a clear majority of votes. The Six Guys, however, want much more than that.

You say:

“That doesn't make her bad or evil, but it means that her allies don't hold a majority of seats and she wasn't going to get the presidency.”

Her allies? You mean, for example, Michela-Alioto Pier? Sophie Maxwell disagrees more with Michela-Alioto Pier than she does with Ross Mirkarimi.

You say:

“To run a political machine, you need a lot more political control than anyone in SF holds right now.”

Peskin’s takeover of the Democratic County Central Committee, with its power to endorse in the name of the Democratic Party, gives him that power. And his slogan – “Payback is a bitch” – reveals his intention.

Add the power and the intention, and you get the machine.

It would appear that over 75% of the registered voters in San Francisco did NOT vote since---according to the Department of Elections---the turnout was 23.35%. That's not even 25%. If that's the case, the overwhelming majority of the registered voters in San Francisco didn't vote. Therefore, the things that did win, won from only approximately a quarter of the registered voters in San Francisco voting for them. No mandate or "landslide" there for anyone, at least from the registered voters of San Francisco. It takes 2 weeks or more to process the ballots---according to the Department of Elections---so the voter turnout might/could go up a little higher, but that's what they show at this time:

590 out of 590 precincts (100.00%)
Last Updated: June 08 2010 23:17:59

Total Registration and Turnout
Registration 447985
Total Ballots Cast 104616
Turnout 23.35%

Link to the Department of Elections Results Summary:

http://tinyurl.com/24kh9mq

In a post above, Tim Redmond has frankly pointed out an important fact about Aaron Peskin and the Six Guys Club at the supes -

They regard other Democrats who are not part of their own circle as members of an opposing political party. Yes, it's true.

What they look for in filling positions is "one of our own." Tim Redmond has compared this sectarian process to the one by which Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives reject Republicans in choosing officials in the House.

So an obvious contradiction comes to the fore -

The role of the chair of the Democratic County Central Committee is to unite Democrats in SF, as much as possible, for common goals. He or she is the chair of the whole party.

However, Aaron Peskin (as Tim Redmond points out) views Democrats who are not part of his machine in the same way that Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives view Republicans.

We Democrats should have a chair who regards us all as part of the same big family. We do not need a chair who favors only those who are part of his own machine and who marginalizes other Democrats as if they were members of an opposing political party.

Thank you, Tim Redmond, for highlighting this contradiction about Aaron Peskin.

Both the moderates and the progressives suffer from tunnel-vision and arrogance. I remember how arrogant and narrow the moderates were, when they were in power under then-mayor Dianne Feinstein in the late 70s.

Today you see the same arrogance and narrowness on the part of the progressive nasties, Aaron Peskin and the Six Guys Club, which runs the supes.

May all their cages continue to be rattled!

In a post above, Tim says:

"The progressives have a basic vision for the city, which is different from the vision the moderates have. "

Both the progressives and the moderates emphasize certain favored segments of the policy spectrum. For example, the progressives emphasize social justice and environmental protection. The moderates emphasize public safety and sound finances.

All these concerns - justice, environment, safety, finances - are valid. Most voters would like to see some progress in each area.

By wisely supporting either the progressives or the moderates at opportune times, the voters can achieve progress, in the long run, across the policy spectrum.

But a problem emerges when any one faction maintains too much power for too long. That's true regardless of the particular faction and its policy preferences. Such was the case with the moderates in the 1970s and 1980s.

Such is also the case with progressivism in SF today. It is no longer a fresh challenger to the system.

To the contrary, it has ossified into a front for the nonprofit political complex, unions, and the cannabis capitalists. Its principle leaders - the Six Guys Club at the supes - are men who drip with male-chauvinist behavior. Chris Daly, in particular, is the Godzilla of SF politics.

SF progressivism needs a vigorous challenge from other parts of the political spectrum, to counter its current arrogance and turf-building.

Challenging the arrogance of the particular clique that happens to be at the top of the political pyramid is a civic duty.

And questioning the dogmatic presuppositions of all sects is the duty of every thinking person.

Thanks for your comments above, Luke.

I'm the first to admit that I'm not qualified to hold public office. I just wish that certain folks who already hold public office would also admit the same about themselves. Wouldn't that be refreshing?

The problem is that there are no real qualifications specified in the law in order to be supe or mayor, other than being an adult San Franciscan.

Imagine if some folks wanted to do root canal work on your teeth. When you asked them about their qualifications for doing this work, they said they were adult San Franciscans. Would you chose one from this group?

Yet the people who enact the laws by which we all must live, need not have any professional qualifications to that end.

Yet such qualifications are required for judges, who interpret the law.

Why not for those who make the law? Isn't making the law as important as interpreting the law?

With the present system, we end up with supes who are stand-up comics, bartenders, electricians, and English teachers. Each is a good profession. But what qualifies any of these professions to validate its occupant as a legislator?

Elected officials are pretty much held in scorn by intelligent people across the nation. SF is no exception, with its board of supes. Its meetings often look like Monty Python skits.

Let's think about requiring some relevant qualifications for those who create and impose the public law.

Imagine that.

Arthur, an afterthought really, but if you look back at the history of San Francisco, its Mayors and Supervisors, they really all did come from "unqualified" common walks of life. From E.E. Schmitz to Newsom to Harvey Milk.

I totally understand your frustration with the current board, but thats always going to be the way of politics in this democracy. The way to change is through yourself. Again running for office, if nothing else, gives one a deeper appreciation for what the machine really is and how great the voters really are.

I do honestly believe that a dedicated, passionate individual - no matter what background, if they manage to rally the people and persuade them to vote for them deserves the position.

It is a fundamental tenet of our society & democracy.

Arthur, votes are still, in fact, the only qualification for election in this democracy.

Is that qualified enough for you?