Wednesday, December 10, 2003

"Democrat" Gavin Newsom (left) -- a millionaire businessman who has made the persecution of San Francisco's indigent the centerpiece of his "accomplishments" as a San Francisco supervisor and who would be a Republican if Republicans could win elections in San Francisco -- is the city's next mayor. But he beat San Francisco Board of Supervisors president and Green Party opponent Matt Gonzalez (right) by only 5.2 percent after having outspent him by 10 to one and having had national Democratic political celebrities publicly rally to his side. (San Francisco Chronicle photo, left; photo on right by Liz Ross) S.F. Dems shouldn't rest on their laurels For the past month I have followed the San Francisco mayoral runoff race, in which "Democrat" Gavin Newsom yesterday beat Green Party opponent Matt Gonzalez, the president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who left the Democratic Party for the Green Party in 2000 after the Democratic Party left the left. But Newsom didn't beat Gonzalez by much -- 52.6 percent to 47.4 percent -- considering that Newsom, a millionaire businessman, outspent Gonzalez, a former public defender, by 10 to one in the race and had the likes of Democrats Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi publicly endorse him. The Gonzalez camp can't be very happy today, but again, Gonzalez -- the first Green Party member elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors -- lost by only 5.2 percent in a city governed by an entrenched Democratic political machine that put $3.6 million and national Democratic political celebrities behind Newsom. It might not feel like it to the Gonzalez camp, but Gonzalez's 47.4 percent is an impressive achievement, given what his campaign was up against. The fact that only 3 percent of San Franciscans are registered with the Green Party makes Gonzalez's showing yesterday all the more impressive. Newsom -- who looks like a slick, smug frat boy in nearly every photo of him that I've seen -- is as secure in his new position of mayor as former Democratic California Gov. Gray Davis was in his position of governor after he won re-election in 2002 against his Republican opponent by only 4.9 percent. (Davis lost his job in a gubernatorial recall election less than a year later.)   The take-home message is that the establishment Democratic Party is stagnant and stale and the people of California want something different and new -- even if it's Arnold Schwarzenegger. Gonzalez's showing yesterday demonstrates that the Green Party is strong in San Francisco. Green Party member Peter Camejo, whom I voted for governor in 2002 instead of Davis, said after Gonzalez's defeat, "This battle starts tomorrow. This is not over. We must prepare to take the mayorship four years from now." Unless the establishment Democrats in San Francisco get a clue, the Greens easily could take the mayorship next time. In the meantime, Newsom must work with Board of Supervisors President Gonzalez and the rest of the Board of Supervisors, the majority of whom supported Gonzalez, not Newsom, for mayor.   A bright spot in Newsom's election is that, at age 36, he is the youngest mayor San Francisco has had since 1897. (Gonzalez isn't much older; he's 38.) It's about time that we thirtysomethings run the show. Most of the baby boomers and their elders -- such as outgoing San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who termed out after eight years and handpicked Newsom as his successor -- have proven themselves incapable, corrupt and irrelevant. The damage their poor stewardship has created will take years to reverse.  (Disclaimer: I gave Gonzalez a modest campaign contribution of $25, although I live in Sacramento, because I saw the San Francisco mayoral runoff race as a classic case of good vs. evil -- in this case, Gonzalez is the Harry Potter character and Newsom would be, of course, Draco Malfoy. I had to help Harry. And for those still reading this who might be wondering, I vote for both Green and Democratic candidates. [Does that make me bipartisan?] I pledge blind allegiance to no political party.) 1:11:19 PM    Comments []

Former Vice President Al Gore and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean at a love fest in New York City yesterday during which Gore endorsed Dean as the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate. (Reuters photos; hey, don't blame me -- the camera does not lie) Thanks (again), Al I have issues with Al Gore. First, I watched him practically give the presidency to George W. Bush in late 2000. (Fighting for the office he had won, I suppose, was beneath Gore's dignity.) Gore's surrender was surreal and began the Democratic spinelessness that we've seen since the U.S. Supreme Court installed Bush into the Oval Office. Now, Gore -- as though he were the expert on capturing the White House -- is stumping for Howard Dean. The new "argument" goes that if Dean can win the Democratic nomination, which no one thought that he could do, then surely he can win the White House. (Et tu, Molly?) They have words for that kind of thinking: delusion and denial come to mind. Take a look at the Dean vs. Bush poll numbers and then argue that Dean is the best Democratic candidate to take on Bush. Mass political suicide, anyone?   7:00:17 AM    Comments []

These are the graves of Afghan children who were killed this past weekend in yet two more United States military "oopsies" that the victims' families are expected to just get over. Surely the Bush regime is not ensuring itself a steady stream of future terrorists to "save" us from. (Associated Press photos) Suffer the little children The United States military killed 15 Afghan children this past weekend in its strikes against Taliban and al-Qaida suspects in Afghanistan. "Hundreds of civilians have been killed in American airstrikes in the two years since the United States began its military campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan," notes The New York Times. Here is a typical U.S. "apology" for its latest "oopsie" in Afghanistan, this one from Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty via The Associated Press:   "We try very hard not to kill anyone. We would prefer to capture the terrorists rather than kill them. But in this incident, if noncombatants surround themselves with thousands of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and howitzers and mortars in a compound known to be used by a terrorist, we are not completely responsible for the consequences." Translation: It's their own damned fault that they were killed (even though they were children, who are at the mercy of the judgment and the decisions of their adult custodians). They got in the way.  If American children, especially white ones, were killed by foreign forces, even accidentally, all holy hell would break out. But the United States clearly expects the Afghans and others in the Middle East to just get over the United States' frequent military "oopsies." Clearly, the lives of Americans, especially white ones, are sacred, while the lives of non-Americans, especially nonwhite ones, are expendable in the United States' drive to shove its brand of "democracy" down Middle Easterners' throats the way George W. Bush & Co. was shoved down Americans' throats after they voted for Al Gore in 2000 by more than a half-million votes. "But we have to fight terrorism!" I hear some American apologists protesting. Yeah, killing people's children is going to prevent future terrorist attacks. They won't hate the United States even more than they already do; noooooo, they'll understand that the slaughter of their children was just a necessary, unfortunate part of the United States' Holy War on Terror.  Let's face it: The stupid white men running the United States government and military don't have a fucking clue as to what they are doing, and unless we have some serious regime change here in the United States less than a year from now, we're all fucked. 6:03:07 AM    Comments []