Vote Recs, Working Down From Obama

This is how I’m voting in the national, California and San Francisco elections. Recs are me only. Feel free to convince me I’m wrong on any of my choices.


US President: Barack Obama
Note: Duh.

US Congress: Nancy Pelosi
Note: Sorry, Cindy. I like having Madame Speaker as my rep.

State Senate, 3rd District: Mark Leno
Note: Incumbent, has done pretty good so far.
UPDATE: Leno’s not the incumbent, he’s a State Assemblyman who beat Migden in the primary for this Senate race. H/t: Benjamin in comments.

State Assembly, 13th District: Tom Ammiano
Note: So-so termed-out supe with no real rivals here, as far as I can see.


Prop 1: Yes
Note: Starting out with a $19 billion bond, this is expensive, but we need to kickstart high-speed rail in this state. No idea how we get the additional $30 billion. On the other hand, this eventually results in a lot of jobs. This is my big-ticket item on the ballot, and I’m voting no on other worthy spending measures to support this one.

Prop 2: Yes
Note: Be nice to animals.

Prop 3: No
Note: Normally a children’s hospital bond is a ‘yes’ for me, but in this economy, I’m picking and choosing where to vote for spending pretty carefully. See: State Prop 1.
UPDATE: I’m seeing a lot of arguments in comments for voting ‘yes’ on all the spending propositions (the mostly progressive ones, anyway), in an effort to inject stimulus into the economy during a rough patch. I’m of several thoughts about this. One is that these bonds often get partially paid off by regressive taxes, which are by definiton not progressive. Another thought is that money really is going to be tight for some time to come, and in many cases it’d be better to have Sacramento iron out details on where to inject spending stimulus and have more ability to shut down initiatives that don’t pan out, rather than handcuffing everybody with an irrevocable mandate from the voters. On the other hand, consider that there are voters in this state and in all our local communities that only ever look at costs of these sorts of proposals, and if there are any, they vote ‘no’ reflexively — that dynamic looks to increase in this particular election. In that sense, it might pay off more to just vote ‘yes’ on the good spending initiatives regardless, because most will always fail, so you’re probably never going to get the one you really want (e.g. Prop 1 in my case), but you might sneak one of your second or third choices through (e.g. Props 3 or 5).

Prop 4: No
Note: Another parental notification attempt by the anti-choicers.

Prop 5: No
Note: Again, this measure to spend more on drug rehab for non-violent offenders would get my vote some years, but not in this economic climate.
UPDATE: Leaning ‘Yes’ here, based on commenters’ arguments. Read ’em.

Prop 6: No
Note: More prisons at the expense of schools. No thanks.

Prop 7: No
Note: Green in theory, but more of a flat-out taxpayer gift to some rich guys.
UPDATE: Robert Green makes a case for this one and Prop 10 in comments.

Prop H8: No
Note: Please please please don’t let this nasty bit of hate pass.

Prop 9: No
Note: Costly criminal justice ‘reform’.

Prop 10: No
Note: No more tax dollars for you, T. Boone Pickens.
UPDATE: Robert Green makes a case for this one and Prop 7 in comments.

Prop 11: Yes
Note: The progressives and the Dems are all against this redistricting reform. The impression I get is that our side is waiting for a redistricting fix that clearly helps us more than the GOP. Fine, but we could be waiting for that forever, and the current redistricting malarkey has to stop sometime. The League of Women Voters endorses a ‘Yes’ on 11, and so do I.
UPDATE: Plenty of good arguments against this scheme in the comments.

Prop 12: No-ish.
Note: It’s spending in a downturn, in the form of another bond. But it’s for veterans, who deserve more of our support … so I’m a bit torn on this one. Would be willing to listen to a good argument for voting yes.
UPDATE: Switching to ‘Yes’ here, based on commenters’ arguments. Read ’em.


Measure A: Yes
Note: SF General is the only trauma center in the City, it needs to get earthquake retro-fitted, it’s gonna cost a ton, it sucks, oh well.

Measure B: No
Note: A small amount of permanent spending for affordable housing. Sounds like a winner. Can’t afford it along with the more expensive, but one-off fix-up of SF General Hospital.

Measure C: No
Note: Stop making me vote on bureaucratic inside-baseball shit. Work it out yourselves, public servants.

Measure D: Yes
Note: Funding of Pier 70 development contingent on City getting more cash from developers to do it in the first place. My kind of spending.

Measure E: No
Note: Increases number of signatures required for a recall vote. Whatever. There hasn’t been a giant wave of recalls in the City, so stop wasting my time.

Measure F: No
Note: City elections only in even-numbered years. Slippery slope to only in leap years.

Measure G: No
Note: As far as I can tell, this would mean City workers would get to retroactively claim bennies that weren’t in place when they would have claimed them. Are you fucking kidding me? These people get health care for life after working just five years for the City. Go cry a river about some perk you missed out on to somebody who actually has a pension.

Measure H: Yikes
Note: Gives the City control over PG&E. I can’t decide which entity would screw up the other one more. Please somebody tell me how to vote on this.
UPDATE: I still don’t know how to vote on this, but am kinda-maybe leaning ‘Yes’. Thanks to all who’ve commented.

Measure I: No
Note: Creates a new City salary for a job I neither understand nor will ever qualify for.

Measure J: No
Note: Creates a new Commission full of City salaries for a job (historic preservation) that is already done by dozens of groups.

Measure K: Yes
Note: Decriminalizes prostitution. ‘Bout time. Arguments against that hold water with me have to do with human trafficking, but keep in mind we have laws against that already.

Measure L: No
Note: Gavin’s fer creating a new Justice Center kitty, I’m agin’ it.

Measure M: No
Note: Tenant rights are important, but this measure would massively complicate communications between landlords and tenants. At worst, this thing is a giant gift to the lawyers who would profit from drawing up the legalese M requires in such communications.

Measure N: Yes
Note: Tax hike on real-estate transfers over $5M.

Measure O: No
Note: Changes general 911 service charge from a fee to a tax. It could be a smarter way to do it, but I just don’t get what this is about. When in doubt, vote ‘No’, etc.
UPDATE: I am starting to get the advantages of passing O and am probably going to change my vote to ‘yes’.

Measure P: No
Note: Some inside crap with the Transportation Authority. Yawn. Go away and figure out how to pull off your own power grab without my help, whoever wrote this measure.

Measure Q: Yes
Note: Payroll tax reform.

Measure R: Yes
Note: Names sewage plant after the Chimperor. Love it.

Measure S: No
Note: Something about ‘set aside policy’, whatever that is.

Measure T: No
Note: Drug treatment on demand, but with no way to pay it. Voting for this is like voting for ponies for everybody, only there aren’t any ponies, but hey! Ponies!
UPDATE: t3h l4m3 thinks this is a good idea and I respect his opinion. So I dunno … vote your conscience here, if you’ve still got one.

Measure U: No
Note: Typical Board of Stupes symbolic moonbeam statement, in this case, a declaration to ‘defund’ the Iraq War. I like that my City is progressive and often in-your-face about it. But I draw the line at mindlessly ineffectual and retarded.

Measure V: Yes
Note: Revives J-ROTC at City schools. My position isn’t the hard-core progressive one, but again, why do we always have to be so effin’ weird alla time?

That’s my ballot. Feel free to talk about yours in comments.


Comments: 131


Jesus, we have a lot of frickin’ local measures on the ballot in San Francisco. It’s ridiculous, it really is.


I’m not from CA, but I am not sure your financial austerity reasoning makes sense. We need to spend our way out of recession, and, hate to say it, when things are good (or get good again), we will all be told how we deserve to keep more of our money.

Tax cuts and lack of spending are always the answer for Republicans. Economy bad. No new spending, must cut taxes. Economy good. Too much spending, must reduce taxes, it is our money.

In short, if something is worth paying for, we need to pay for it, current economic situation aside. Plus….money offered by locals attracts money from feds. More jobs.

I have no qualms with any of your choices, I just hate to see people think that raising taxes is something that ever will be justified in the minds of most voters. You wanneee, you need to pay taxeee. (OK, I lied, drug rehab for offenders would pay for itself so many times over in terms of money and human suffering that I can’t imagine you not voting for it).


I might end up voting for the state prop on drug rehab. The bonds are trickier, because we don’t know how those will eventually be paid for, and often it’s in the form of a regressive tax.

Keep in mind, too, that I’m voting for the two biggest-ticket spending items at the state and local levels. And also that federal money to the states is seriously drying up and likely to dry up even more.


President: John McCain/Sarah Palin.

McCain/Palin is the only bulwark against the tyranny of Obamacommunism. Obama has no respect for democracy or freedom. John McCain has the experience and judgement we need right now. Sarah Palin will use her experience as an executive to fortify the decisions made by John McCain.

Governor: Kenny Hulshof

Hulshof is 100% pro-life and pro-gun. Jay Nixon is an opportunist big spender who is on the wrong sides of big issues.

Lt. Governor: Peter Kinder

Secretary of State: Mitch Hubbard

Hubbard is the only candidate who will bring intregrity back to Missouri elections. He will crack down on the Acorn fraudsters and he supports Voter ID to clean up Missouri elections.

Treasurer: Brad Lager

Attorney General: Michael Gibbons

Who do you want as your attorney general? an experienced person with results? or a guy who has been arrested for passing bad checks and associates with the trial lawyers and mobsters.

Congress: Jacob Turk

Turk is an actual leader who will get results. Cleaver ignores his constitutents constantly if they’re white.

State House: Gary Hisch.

Amendment 1: Yes

Of course we should have a government conduct its business in English!

Amendment 4: No

Costs too much money, expands government

Proposition A: No

Too much big government, and pumping money into failing education systems with no limits

Proposition B: Yes

Proposition C: No

It’s a big Government idea.


Correction: Mark Leno is not the incumbent. He is currently holding the Assembly seat Amiano is running for. That Senate seat is currently held by Migden that he successfully and thankfully primaried out.


“Feel free to convince me I’m wrong on any of my choices.”

I don’t know if you’ve heard, but I hear this Obama guy is some sort of Muslim or something.


Also, I’m voting for an appalling number of Republicans downticket, risking my status as a librul internet demagogue. Thanks for sucking, Cook County Dems!


Well, then. I love your snark, and your research ethic. I hate your stab at “balance”. Pelosi over Sheehan? WTF? The “economic climate” as justification for a failure of courage? I’ve got you bookmarked, angel, so I know this: You’re not the type run from a fight. I hope. Anyways, I’ve got yer back on most of yer picks. I look forward to many loud arguments about the rest.


Hey, we’re neighbors! (coming to you from Potrero)

Voted no on H. Last thing we need is a business run by the always-competent Board of Supervisors.

Voted against the Bush Sewage Plant. The less memories of him, the better. And what message does it send to workers there that their job is low enough to warrant the Bush name?

Voted to keep the judge, not replace him with a Supe.

Voted yes on V. If kids want to serve, let ’em.

VOTED NO ON 8. Stood in line for 2:30 (that’s hours and minutes) at City Hall in the City of San Francisco today, the place where it all started, to vote to preserve marriage equality for all. The No on 8 picketers all deserve high-fives.


Spent an hour and a half waiting outside in the line next to No on 8 picketers (on the corner in front of City Hall). They would often break into chants of “Barack Obama says No on 8! … Dianne Feinstein says … No on 8! Arnold Schwarznegger says … California Teachers say… Maria Shriver says…. Barbara Boxer says ….” We finally got inside the building, and formed a line against a wall. As we waited, delivery services walked by bringing roses, wine and champagne, glasses, and trays. Someone asked what they were for. The answer? Weddings. Plenty of couples were rushing to get married before the deadline on November 4th.

I turned to my girlfriend and noted that the best advertisement for No on 8 were these wedding preparations. Just imagine that whether or not you could be married was going to be decided by your neighbors. And that your neighbors would vote against you. What a terrible thought.

So to Focus on the Family, I say: sorry about your fear and bigotry. Hope you get over it soon.


Thanks for the correction, Benjamin.

Rugged in Montana

But look at the Democrats: Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd…

Does anything else possibly need to be said about this hall of shame that hasn’t already been said?


I saw Harry Reid with the devil!


Pelosi over Sheehan is the same reason I liked having Willie Brown as Speaker of the House all those years — he was (is) an egotistical asshole, but he was OUR egotistical asshole. Got the City some pretty good shit in the process.

Same with Pelosi. Look, I’m sure I agree with Sheehan on a lot more than I do with Pelosi. But I like having Madame Speaker funnelling pork our way that only a Madame Speaker can funnel. Call me a cynic.


Oh, and a less polite fuck you to the Church of Latter-Day Saints. Thanks for going out of your way (and out of your home state) to make sure my friends and neighbors have second-class citizenship. Thanks for stoking fear and promoting discrimination. So much for that love and compassion guy you claim to follow, eh?

Nominee for best editorial of the year:
No on Proposition 8 (LA Times)


Rugged in Montana,
George W. Bush is all that ever needs to be said. Liberals get a 25 year pass by invoking his name. Talk to you again in 2033. Until then: George W. Bush.

Rugged in Montana

“Funkhauser said,

November 3, 2008 at 8:55:

You go girl! Because obeying God’s command to oppose sin is sooo 1950s.


Pelosi doesn’t need your vote. The more votes Cindy gets the easier it will be to scare Pelosi into doing the right thing. Right now Pelosi takes you for granted.


Prop. 12, the Cal-Vet bond, has been floated for something like 30 years and never once cost the taxpayer one red cent. Fiscal austerity is simply not applicable.

As for Prop. 5, it would SAVE the state money. You know how much it costs to warehouse a nonviolent drug offender? Prop. 36 has worked pretty darn well and saved the state lots of money and 5 builds on it. Right now we’re on the verge of handing over the prisons to a federal receiver because the state’s politicians, on a bipartisan basis, have fucked up prison policy hard. Over 30 years, 1,000 sentencing laws have been signed and every single one of them increased sentences. Time for something different.

And on Prop. 11, I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but gerrymandering isn’t the deterrent to competitive races that everyone thinks it is. The best example of this, other than the numerous social science studies that show people self-selecting to live with people of like minds and the impossibility of redistricting in a way to produce 100% competition without re-gerrymandering, is the fact that in dozens of races up and down the ballot, Democrats are going to win seats from Republicans. About 30-35% of Republican-held seats are legitimate races this year. Barely any Democratic ones are, but that’s really not the fault of redistricting any more than the fact that California Republicans are batshit crazy. 11 is a stupid plan that, by law, chooses people who haven’t voted in the last 4 elections to draw district lines. In other words, apolitical rubes making these decisions based on who knows what. It’s a dumb idea.


Oh my God, have a read through of the comments below this story of the elderly daughter of a slave who voted for Obama. Wingnuts are really and truly the most vile and vicious scum bags, not to mention sorest losers EVER. I cannot believe my eyes. My eyes cannot believe their eyes. BLEEDING.



Prop 12, per K.Drum:

“We’ve been issuing Cal-Vet home loan bonds for decades, they genuinely don’t cost the taxpayers anything (the bonds are paid back by the vets who get the loans), and it’s for a good cause.”

Enough for a “yes” for you?


Prop 12 YES!. Unlike regular bond measures, the vets pay this back so it is economically neutral. I am not exactly impartial as a VA employee but this is a no-brainer.


Funkhauser, Yes, that editorial today was just great. The Prop 8 supporters are heartless.

I live in Orange County and yesterday we saw quite a few NO on Prop 8 volunteers in Fullerton, waving their signs on the corner of Harbor and Commonwealth, and some people honked in support. That was really refreshing.

Today the Prop 8 people were out standing on a different corner, but they weren’t getting a lot of honks in support. I really wanted to yell at them and flip them off but I know better, not to mention that it would have just upset my long-suffering husband. If it amuses you, however, you may imagine a gray-haired lady of nearly 60 doing just that.


I’m one of hundreds of thousands who’ve benefited from the Cal-Vet Program over the years.

Listen to what the people upthread are telling you, D. Vote Yes on 12.


Thanks, opiejeanne, that image does make me smile.

I really just feel a little sad about most Prop. 8 supporters, not too angry. I should dispense rent-a-gay-friends so that their lives are a little brighter and less frightening.

By the way, recent SacBee story about how the hi-speed rail has no feasibility study and no business plan made me leery. Voted no. Flame away.


Y’know, I really don’t like the prop/measure stuff. I know that CA is gerrymandered to hell, and that SF is, well, SF, but I’m also a fan of having elected people make those decisions and not electing them next time if they fuck up.


dday at 9:07 (I’ve always wondered what the heck time zone this is) —

you’re smoking some serious weed to reach your conclusion on prop 11.

CA has mostly non-partisan races. The partisan races influenced by gerrymandering are: the 53 us house seats and the 80 assembly and 40 state senate seats (20 of which are up for election this time). At the Congressional level of 53 house seats, according to Congressional Quarterly one is a toss up (CA-4), four lean Rep (and almost certainly will remain Rep) — my friends, that’s not competitiveness we can believe in.

I don’t have a quick and dirty link to CA state leg races, but they are likely similar.

The occupants of partisan office in CA are determined in the primary of each political party and both parties want to keep it that way.

The idea that people choosing to live near each other causes gerrymandered districts shows complete lack of understanding of the districts in CA. Districts in CA are specifically drawn to chop up communities to create maximum partisan advantage for each party. “Community interest” is specifically ignored by the CA pols drawing what they believe are THEIR districts.

As it stands now in CA politicians choose their voters, rather than voters choosing the politicians.

Prop 11 is a definite improvement over the Rep biased plan Arnie put forward in 2005.

Incontinentia Buttocks

Two major disagreements:

1) Sheehan over Pelosi. She’s not your egotistical asshole. She’s her big donors’ egotistical asshole. At any rate, she’s certainly not my egotistical asshole, so I’ve given to Cindy.

2) No on V. The military-industrial complex has way too much power in our society. Keeping it out of schools is a good first step to rolling it back a bit. In this case we have to be so effin’ weird because the “normal” position on things military sees killing millions of civilians overseas as a brave and necessary measure to insure our national security.

Here in Oklahoma, I’m voting for the Democrats (mostly lesser evils of one sort or another). The only ones with any chance of winning are Corporation Commissioner Jim Roth, who is distinctly less bad than his Republican opponent, and my state rep who is similarly less bad than his (it’s possible that the sheriff might win, too, fwiw).

As for the state ballot measures: yes on exempting fully disabled veterans from property taxes; no on some constitutional amendment regarding filing for tax exemptions (don’t know why it’s there and when in doubt vote “no”); no on making fishing and hunting constitutionally protected rights (they are in such grave danger in this state!); and yes on allowing Oklahoma wineries to sell wine directly to consumers.


more pop 11 — Argh — and if you read the prop summary you can see its not going to be a random group of people drawing the districts, it will be people who know what they are doing with a specific mandate to protect community interest — rather than politician’s interests.

This idea that the lines will be drawn by a random group of people is such a red herring — read the prop summary


I’m almost with you all the way, especially on 1A, 4, and 8. As people above have mentioned, though, Prop 12 is a pretty clear Yes vote. If you’re in D5, you probably already know that Ross Mirkarimi is a solid dude. But in case you don’t already know: Ross Mirkarimi is a solid dude.


I don’t agree with Pelosi on everything, but she’s the most powerful progressive in D.C. She failed to stop the war in Iraq because she didn’t have the votes; the answer to that is to bring in more, better Democrats, not to replace the Speaker with Donna Quixote.


I understand I’m not the only mother-fucker repping Clark County, so here’s what I’m going to be telling my family in a few hours:

Congress.. 3 (THREE)
Senate…. 5 (FIVE)
Assembly.. 29 (TWENTY-NINE)
Commission G (GEE)
Education. 4 (FOUR)
Regent…. 4 (FOUR)
School…. A (AYE)
Ward…… 3 (THREE)
Township.. HENDERSON


Between Nevada being a swing state on every level of government, the first cracks appearing in the ongoing Northern and conservative Mormon effort to assume permanent control over the state government, and the fairly low enthusiasm for third-party candidates among third-party observers, I would strongly recommend the Democratic ticket in general. Even where the Democrat is relatively undesirable, the third parties generally fielding local candidates are either Libertarian – a party which has over the last few decades become a dumping-ground for failed Republicans – or Independent American Party, a fringe group including neo-Nazis, violent survivalists, and other ridiculous candidates about as far from ‘independent’ or ‘American’ as you could ask for.
If specific exceptions occur below, they will be noted.

Recommendations are as follows:

URGENT – The only other major candidate in the running is an active danger to the office and the state and electing his opponent is a matter of the utmost gravity.
VERY STRONG – This candidate should, without some profound and pressing reason, be voted for.
STRONG – This candidate is far preferable to any other electable candidate in the running.
MODERATE – This is the better of two electable candidates.
WEAK – While enough information exists to form an opinion, either the candidates are close enough or the office is obscure enough that the matter is relatively unimportant.
V. WEAK – I was not satisfied with the availability of information on this race and the recommendation is likely second-hand, a result of desirable (Nevada Dems, AFL-CIO, reputable healthcare, education, social PACs & NGOs) or undesirable (Nevada Republican / Independent American / Libertarian Party, right-wing “astro-turfing” groups, hard-conservative think tanks, survivalist PACs, the NRA) endorsements.
Very Weak does not, unlike “Weak”, necessarily imply the candidates to be close – simply that there is far too little evidence to make much better an assessment.


The general consensus in the family has been strongly in favor of OBAMA/BIDEN (DEM); the ticket has been supported by figures as diverse as Hillary Clinton and Colin Powell, and they’ve had not just the only serious platform in this race but a legitimately sound and appealing one, promising a clean withdrawal from Iraq (opposed to the almost certain “dirty war” involvement planned by Republican strategists, similar to the situations in Nicaragua and Columbia in which areas destabilized by US policies had US money supporting death squads and other atrocities), increasing the tax burden on the top one percent, to reduce our own obligations and keep the rampant speculative bubbles plaguing the economy since Reagan in check, and rebuilding America’s tarnished image in the world. While it’s not difficult to beat a campaign that has been more or less cobbled together of minced ethnic slurs, Obama and Biden are already looking like they’ll do a fantastic job in the White House.

I can personally vouch for Dina Titus’s political acumen and character; Porter is one of the youngest and most dynamic cadres of the neoconservative wing of the Republican party and it’d be nice for once not to be represented by some white and delightsome crank. Let’s send him back to Boulder City.

Shirley Breeden (DEM) is a relatively weak candidate (supporting tougher sentencing laws, careful stricture on taxes funding Nevada schools, and the ‘backroom deals’ hypothesis on prescription drug prices blaming the price inflation from industry practice on the actions of individual doctors), although she is very strong on labor (garnering support from every union in Nevada to have announced a candidate in this race) and the environment (on which Heck is strong, but does not show the same commitment to windfall taxes and price restrictions on oil profiteering and the development of solar and wind power as a profit-making enterprise). As a former educator and a strong proponent for education, she would seem to be the best family candidate on the ballot. Heck, an osteopath, has – in spite of being much better than the Republican norm on the environment and education – an abysmal record on the war (jumping aboard the asinine comparison to the Civil War when it was popular and generally stonewalling any effort to draw back American presence) and key social issues (support from the NRA in Nevada generally suggests a candidate to be an explosion enthusiast without any respect for the challenges or needs of an armed society; almost no mainstream candidate in the Southwest has a position on gun control to the left of the national center).
Heck is better than most Republicans, but Breeden is better than Heck. And unfortunately, the third parties on the vote are the fascist IAP and the pseudo-Republican Libertarian Party.

In addition to being associated with – and endorsed by – the Nevada Democratic Party, Schumacher was and is, remarkably, the only sitting judge in the Nevada Supreme Court Seat B race; the remainder are lawyers, clerks, or politicos. Her opponent, Pickering, is a right-wing ‘constructionist’, regarding anything deviating from the Republican ideology as automatically unconstitutional; she hopes to parlay her moderate experience arguing in front of the Nevada Supreme Court into a seat on the same. In this race, a moderate, experienced sitting judge faces a woman who toured Nevada to drum up support for Sarah Palin. Schumacher is essentially the only sane choice.

Gibbons is the sitting Chief Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court and has generally made reasonable and well-construed decisions, striking down various efforts – largely flown in from out-of-state and often profoundly ignorant of the Nevada constitution – to destroy the revenue base and social infrastructure of Nevada through strictures on spending and taxation. His opponent is part of the ‘drown the government in a bathtub’ school that runs northern Nevada and seeks to clamp down on the ability of Clark County to fund its growing schools and hosptials. His reason for running is the belief that a decision in 2003 striking down the unconstitutional restriction of tax increases to a supermajority was “illegal”, and his inability to clearly discern law, statute, the Nevada Constitution and the national constitution suggest that he’s a jumped-up ideologue who moved to Nevada under the delusion that it was Somalia. URGENT recommend vote to reelect Chief Justice Gibbons.














Cursory investigation reveals Moss has been mired in scandal and almost categorically refuses to recuse herself from cases involving political donors. MUIRHEAD seems by far the stronger candidate.










While Gibson seems to have run away with many nominations – including several important unions and the Sun – Allred-DiGiacomo has been consistently rated as a more or less equal candidate in terms of experience, and she lacks the worrying personal and political connections in evidence in Gibson’s campaign – as the brother of Republican Henderson mayor Jim Gibson and the endorsed candidate of the Nevada Concerned Citizens (one of a number of splinter groups related to the Council of Concerned Citizens, a notorious clandestine white-power group), it is worrying to consider how completely the office of the Justice of the Peace would be dependent on that of the Mayor. Between that and the effective interdict placed on donations to DiGiacomo by Henderson businesses by Jim Gibson in David Gibson’s favor, it would seem that Allred-DiGiacomo is the only candidate who cannot be suspected to be actively dangerous.


Amendment to the Nevada Constitution
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 10 of the
73rd Session

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended
to eliminate an unconstitutional
requirement that a person must reside in
Nevada for 6 months prior to an election in
order to be eligible to vote in that election?


The imposition of an ad-hoc electoral law on Nevada by the US Supreme Court wouldn’t be that great a loss, but the fact remains that the six-month limit has been ruled unconstitutional and must go.

Amendment to the Nevada Constitution
Shall Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution
be amended in order: to provide that the
transfer of property from one private party
to another private party is not considered
a public use; to provide that property
taken for a public use must be valued at
its highest and best use; to provide that
fair market value in eminent domain
proceedings be defined as the “highest
price the property would bring on the open
market;” and to make certain other
changes related to eminent domain


This amendment masquerades as a solution to eminent domain abuse, but does a better job of solving the use of eminent domain than its abuse: block-busting private companies can often meet the inflated prices ‘highest-use open-market assessment’ can produce, while public actors often cannot. Between that and the raft of sneaky and regressive changes hidden behind ‘certain other changes’, I consider rejecting this dangerous and dishonest ‘solution’ to eminent domain abuse the second-most-important item on the entire ballot. Even if we leave Nevada before the amendment actually comes into effect, it will make our lives measurably worse.

Amendment to the Nevada Constitution
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 16 of the
73rd Session

Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to
require that, before it can enact an exemption
from property tax or from sales and use tax,
the Nevada Legislature must: (1) make
certain findings regarding the social or
economic purpose and benefits of the
exemption; (2) ensure that similar classes of
taxpayers must meet similar requirements for
claiming exemptions; and (3) provide a
specific date on which the exemption will


There is simply no need to introduce this, which is not threatened by the Constitution and already has force of law, into the Nevada constitution. This makes ‘no’ on the balance the better choice.

Amendment to the Sales and Use
Tax Act of 1955
Senate Bill No. 502 of the 74th Session
Shall the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 be
amended to authorize the Legislature to
amend or repeal any provision of this Act
without an additional direct vote of the
people whenever necessary to carry out
any federal law or interstate agreement for
the administration, collection or
enforcement of sales and use taxes, and to
repeal an exemption from the taxes
imposed by this Act on certain aircraft and
aircraft components?


This is a measure designed to modernize the collection of sales taxes on the highly federalized aerospace business, which provides significant benefit to Nevada’s economy. Without this measure, many of the taxes required by state, interstate, and federal law and agreement will go uncollected or undermodified. This is a good measure and should be added to the Constitution to further cooperation with our neighbors and help build Nevada’s aerospace industry through that cooperation.

Room Tax Question

This question is advisory only: Do you
support the imposition of an additional
hotel and motel room tax of not more than
3 percent to be used in the first 2 years
after imposition to avoid large cuts in the
funding of education and other state
programs and to be used thereafter to
increase the funding of K-12 Education,
specifically to improve student
achievement and for salaries of
non-administrative educational personnel?


While this measure is a stopgap one, it is seriously needed: supported by educators and casinos, the room tax would generate relatively large amounts of income purely out of the pocket of a fairly inelastic and cash-indifferent supply of tourists. It makes good economic sense, and on a political level this advisory question is a good stepping-stone to more measures allowing Clark County to wrest total control of its failing schools’ funding and administration from Carson City.


Pelosi, like Willie Brown may have been our asshole but Willie was also PG&E and Bank Of America’s asshole. Guess who got fucked in that troika? Hint: It wasn’t PG&E, BofA or Brown.

I voted for Pelosi when she first made the jump. I’ve regretted that decision many times since. She hasn’t matured into the leader I had hoped for. She has her moments but they’re too few and far between. She’s often on the wrong side of the standard lib stereotype giving away the farm before the game is even over.

Over and over again, we need better dems. Maybe this isn’t the election to make happen but goddamnit, the next fucking one had better be. We need to get rid of the losers, the blue dogs and the spineless wastes of space that are on this side of the aisle and that has to come from the voters, the DNC sure as hell isn’t going to help.


H: I voted yes, because it’s about time the City had it’s own MUD. Fuck PG&E — this creates a level of accountability that didn’t exist before, and frees SF to pursue greener power-generating policies.

I voted yes on T — D., the money is there, but right now we’re spending it on cops and vice and booking people and probation and emergency room visits when it gets to be too late and blah, blah, blah. Better to spend a lot less up front.


I am SO looking forward to casting my vote for the guy in the party that DOESN’T call me an un-American traitor at every opportunity.

I think the Repugs made a mistake with their motto. “Country First” obviously means Barack Obama.


I’m not from CA, but I am not sure your financial austerity reasoning makes sense. We need to spend our way out of recession, and, hate to say it, when things are good (or get good again), we will all be told how we deserve to keep more of our money.

I honestly think this is right. The right thing to do in a recession or depression is to make sure you can afford it and spend money wherever it will multiply fastest: poorer recipients and others less likely to save or spend non-domestically prioritized over others.

Unfortunately, for the most part in Nevada our ballot questions are ridiculous. This year is no exception. I’d vote spending increases across the board, although that’s without knowing much about how much CA can raise. If you gotta be austere, balance it out on the basis of what gets money spent and re-spent, not on the basis of what builds long-term! While it’s nice to get good, solid infrastructure built, it’s a lot better to keep cash flowing – without that cash your ACALA is just gonna get pared to the bone by 30s Dems anyway.


Also, we can afford measure B, if its passage means we stop hemorrhaging taxpayer dollars to keep potemkinizing the City and sweeping the homeless and the marginally housed under the rug. Criminalizing poverty and incarcerating the homeless costs too much money — no one should be able to balk at spending that money instead on housing.


I’m still frankly undecided between Nancy and a pointless protest vote.

I like Ammiano. I think it was when he was running for Mayor, he actually came into the divey-ass bar I frequented in the Mission, pressing the flesh and sayin’ hi. He was most certainly the only one of the candidates to do that. He seemed like a good guy. I’m not in that district, though. Just thought I’d share.

1, fuck yes.

On the fence on 2. I love the little animals, but I don’t know if I want the price of pig scrota to climb out of reach in the coming depression. Also, something the legislature really ought to take care of.

Hemming and hawing on 5. Treatment=win. It can also save dough and God knows our prisons are crowded enough. The idea that bathtub meth dealers could benefit in the slightest from this bothers me, though.

12 is a go here.

No on everything else from the State.

Christ, who lets anybody with an issue and a crayon put initiatives on our city ballot anyhow?

The idea behind F, I think, is to coordinate city elections with federal ones, hopefully keeping the total costs down and turnout up. I could be wrong, but that’s what it looks like to me. As it stands, we have sort of an odd schedule, and a lot of screwy elections that not so many folks show up for, which is a recipe for initiative disaster. So I’m up for F.

G, yeah, they have it okay, but really, as long as it doesn’t cost me anything, and just lets them buy in, I don’t see the harm.

H. Fuck. Wow. H. I’ve been wanting public power since before Willie gave away Hetch-Hetchy, but this is fucking scary. I may have to bring a Magic Eight Ball with me on Tuesday for this one. The ads against it reek of sleaze, and some good folks are for it, but yowza.

O looks like a bummer all around, but I’m leaning yes. It looks like the original “fee” was rammed through, and is now being called out as bs by a judge, so they’re trying to legitimize it as the tax it always has been. It’s first responder money, so it’s probably good to have coming in. I also have a tough time when someone named “Starchild” starts spouting Libertarian scripture at me in the rebuttal.

R? Oh, hell no. As clever a piece of poetic justice as it may be, thanks but no thanks. I don’t want a medical waste baggie named after that turd, much less anything as useful as a sewage plant. It’s going to take a long time to dull the memories as is. I don’t need any help keeping them fresh. Besides, I walk down there a good bit (Fort Funston is lovely), and never want to see that dipshit’s name in bronze letters on anything in my city.

I’ll probably go no on V, but it’s fairly unimportant to me.


Your economics needs help. In this economic climate you should vote yes on all bonds, they will provide needed fiscual stimulus. The bonds will be paid back long after the recession is over, not over the next 12 to 24 months, which is the probably length of this recession (unless McCain wins, but in that case, CA will really really need the fiscal stimulus since nothing productive or helpful will be coming from the feds, and we will paying the bonds back with worthless green paper, so who will care)

Check out the Nobel prize winning shrill one’s (Krugman’s) intro economics text -cheap used copies on Amazon.


I don’t live in SF, but I think the arguments against R (yeah, yeah, it’s not that important) are weak — the SEIU Local 1021, representing the workers at that plant, actually endorses R, and also, of course they’re going to name other stuff after teh Chimperor. I mean, hell, there’s all kindsa shit named after James “Ass” Buchanan, Rutherfraud B. Hayes — there was a Richard M Nixon Elementary (torn down to build the RMN library, but still).


Rutherfraud B. Hayes

Where I come from we don’t mention the man that served Samuel Tilden’s term, boy.


I believe the city should run PG&E only if the city adopts “Are You Ready?” as it’s theme.


Also: has anyone seen ‘Commander in Chimp’ used seriously? I kind of use it as synecdoche for ‘liberal, but no idea why’, and ‘chimperor’, while clever, comes disturbingly close.


So, *you like* having your representative Pelosi as Speaker…does that mean you endorse her positions, too? Or you just vote for a candidate because *you like*?

Like taking Impeachment off the table?

Like continuing funding the obscene genocide of Iraqis and Afghanis?

Like avoiding debating Sheehan?

Mind stating precisely, specifically WHAT she has done as Speaker that you would wish her to continue?


haighterade: Pelosi didn’t have the votes to end the Iraqi occupation? Really?

Did she vote YES to continue funding it? Over and over?

Did she have the votes to NOT fund it? Could she have simply REFUSED to bring the funding to vote???

What a pathetic excuse.

YES to Sheehan, NO to business as usual.


How many millions does Pelosi have invested in one of the bankster corporations she voted to “bail out”, haighterade?

Gee, I used to wander around your neighborhoodt when I was a kid growing up in the 60’s in S.S.F..

Didn’t meet many “haighters” supporting WARS and CRIMINALS then. My my, how things have changed….

I like Sheehan, I LOATHE Pelosi, and her Bush-loving, neocon supporting ways…..I guess this blog ain’t what I thought it was…



Look, I’m sure I agree with Sheehan on a lot more than I do with Pelosi. But I like having Madame Speaker funnelling pork our way that only a Madame Speaker can funnel. Call me a cynic.

How about I split the difference and call you a sensible liberal?

She failed to stop the war in Iraq because she didn’t have the votes; the answer to that is to bring in more, better Democrats, not to replace the Speaker with Donna Quixote.

Yawn. This is why I have long since given up on the Democratic Party. Most Dem partisans are interested in keeping their own in power, and they’ll accept the triangulation, the right-ward shuffling, the corporate kowtowing, the warmongering, etc., in order to keep battling with the Rethugs for their turn at a slim majority in Congress or another Rethug table-setter in the White House.

You’ve got a chance to put a real shit-stirrer in Congress, and instead you’ll vote for the corporate whore who so condescendingly announced that accountability in government was ‘off the table.’ The two party system is a fraud, and here is more evidence.


Gosh, I feel special knowing.
Thanks for sharing.


Prop 2: Yes
Note: Be nice to animals.

I don’t know what it is, but I am all for being nice to animals.

And getting drug users help instead of jailing them is a good step forward. There are people who should be locked up (and we can start on all those indicted Republicans) but non-violent drug offenders are not them. Of course the poor are disproportionately targeted, of course they don’t do anything any different than what a lot of rich people do on the weekend, and of course… it SAVES money.


Sorry, sorry, I changed my mind: I LIKE having a Speaker that voted FOR retroactive immunity for Bush’s spying on us.

And this “pork” Pelosi has “funneled” to S.F.: Specifics, please…..


Look, I’m sure I agree with Sheehan on a lot more than I do with Pelosi. But I like having Madame Speaker funnelling pork our way that only a Madame Speaker can funnel. Call me a cynic.

How about I split the difference and call you a sensible liberal?

To be fair, it’s not a situation like ours or Daschle’s – it’s more or less an open secret that Reid is an execrable right-wing shithead here, but the remainder of our delegation are Norquistite jacknapes and we have enough trouble squeezing blood out of our own state.

San Fran isn’t getting any more pork with Pelosi than it would with Sheehan. Or at least only marginally more – you can cut a hole like Nevada or Maryland or one of the Dakotas out of the budget; doing so for California tends to result in a major scandal.


Honestly, if I were in SF, I’d vote for Pelosi if only because I couldn’t vote for a 9/11 truther. I’m frustrated with Pelosi too but that’s just a deal-breaker.


Not Madame Speaker’s biggest fan. While she’s good on most issues, she has the habit of fucking things up for the rest of us by making noises about “The Fairness Doctrine” and feeding into the old right wing persecution complex. If there was a serious challenger, I’d consider voting for him or her over Pelosi.

That said, Cindy Sheehan is an asinine woman. She’s yet another truther with a college freshman’s level of political intelligence. She doesn’t have the sense to avoid going up on stage with the execrable Hugo Chavez just to shake a fist at the Bush administration and stunts like her 2006 “hunger strike” do nothing but win her the admiration of people who think dancing around outside the Pentagon with a thousand other hippies with a giant Darth Cheney puppet counts for something. We do need better democrats. We don’t need a loon who’s only claim to fame was a life of political ignorance right up until it was her son being killed.


hey, as a californian (modesto), i am voting NO on all of the ballot measures. they all suck, especially 1A and 2. they are chickens for gawd’s sake, they don’t need to be free. and for president: bob barr! i hate both democrats and republicans (i used to be a republican but they left me behind many years ago).


Come and have all the snark in here you want

Why, thank you.

when you get in the voting booth, vote your conscience.

Already did.

Any other cut-and-paste newspaper endorsements you come across should be shoved directly up your a-hole. Thank you, and Barry X to you.


I repeat, please vote your conscience, you lying, baby-murdering, treasonous, communist scum.

Your friend in good faith,

The Truth


I endorse and will be voting for McCain. I urge all of you to do the same, and here is why:

1) I am so tied to my party that I am pathalogically incapable of voting for anyone else, and capable of making up clearly and empirically untrue and deluded reasons for doing so, including crediting my candidate with insights and knowledge that he evidently does not possess, as is made obvious simply by looking at the very things I quote, ostensibly in his support.

2) The other guy’s a socialist nigger. I mean he’s niggardly.


Has anybody said : FUCK GOD! lately?

No? Well, I’ll take a shot…

Fuck ALL your ‘gods’!


“McCain is and was right about the economy. He raised questions about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac well before the meltdown, and (with other congressional Republicans) fought to regulate them more stringently while the Democrats fought to deregulate them. He’s right on taxes, too, the key arena in which the government can affect business growth and job creation.”

Two words: Phil. Gramm.

“McCain is and was right about national defense. He champions the successful Bush policy of keeping our foot on the neck of Islamic terrorism, pursuing them by all means: military, economic, diplomatic, intelligence, etc. He is familiar with the international arena and has deep experience in foreign affairs.”

Yes, our winning strategies of ruining Iraq, spending billions on weapons systems designed for the Cold War, and saber-rattling against Iran have definitely got those terrorists right where we want them. I’m feeling better already.


Big, big YES on H. Public power is very, very necessary, especially in the current economic climate, and PG&E are as big a group of fuck-ups as you’re likely to run into–has the city government caused any explosions under the streets downtown lately or opened any nuke plants?


So, for the common good you take a principled stand against Pelosi? Sadly, no.


I hope you consider the arguments I’ve listed here.

I don’t consider any argument by a flailing racist, so no.

Nice try, though.


Jesus Christ, I haven’t lived in CA for many years, and had forgotten about the absurd number initiatives/propositions/measures. I would surely like a piece of that advertising budget.

One thing I’ve wondered about: how many “Yes on Prop 8” people are going to mistakenly vote “No”, thinking it’s a vote against teh gays? I’d kind of made the assumption that the proposition was confusingly worded on purpose, just to create that kind of ambiguity, but maybe it’ll backfire on them?

Trilateral Chairman

I’m here in Jamaica Plain (Boston), so:

PREZ/VP: Obama/Biden. I think Biden’s a clown and a liability; I wish Obama had picked Richardson instead. Nevertheless, even though I used to like McCain, I can’t vote for him.

SENATE: Kerry. Whatever.

HOUSE: Capuano’s running unopposed. No vote. If you want me to participate in a democratic election, then you have to *have* a democratic election.

STATE SENATE: Chang-Diaz. Actually, I’d vote for her even if she were unopposed, just to flip off that crook Wilkerson.

STATE HOUSE: Another unopposed candidate, I believe. Bah.

QUESTION 1, ELIMINATE STATE INCOME TAX: I actually kind of want to vote yes on this; it’s just that it’s a crazy thing to do.



I don’t have my sample ballot with me, but I think that’s everything.

Trilateral Chairman

Also, I’m voting for Obama because I SAW THE VIRGIN MARY IN HIS EAR:



Remember, Pelosi put together the opposition to privatizing social security.


McCain is and was right about the economy. He raised questions about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac well before the meltdown, and (with other congressional Republicans) fought to regulate them more stringently while the Democrats fought to deregulate them.

Well blow me down, great minds think alike. You are just as clueless as your hero St. McCain.



Remember, Pelosi put together the opposition to privatizing social security.

is damning with faint praise. Look, Pelosi needs to get the scare of her life and to be reminded of who her constituents are. Cindy won’t win–there’s too much of the residual George Schultz/Dede Wilsey contingent infesting Seacliff and Pac Heights and Laurel Heights and so on–but it need to be close enough to scare the stupid out of Pelosi. She sucks, really hard, and she’s capable of doing much better. Time to push back.


The Royalist Right is turning the U.S. into a monarchy and war crimes (1,000,000 dead in Iraq) have been committed on a massive scale based on a hoax. Yet Pelosi says impeachment is off the table.

Rome burns, Pelosi fiddles, Arisophanes applauds.

Sadly lame, bro.


mmmmmm! That’s good bread! When’s the next circus? Thanks Nancy!



You really, really need to learn about the Fairness Doctrine. It was the law of the land until Reagan–it’s not anything egregious. It merely means that broadcasters using the public airwaves (not satellite or cable) must allow for rebuttal to partisan political speech. That’s it. Listening to Rush Limbaugh about how it’s going to bring on censorship and communism is not real swift. Read up on what you’re going on about.


I’m with you on the State Ballot measures, except I did vote yes on 3 and no on 11.


PREZ/VP: Obama/Biden. I think Biden’s a clown and a liability; I wish Obama had picked Richardson instead. Nevertheless, even though I used to like McCain, I can’t vote for him.

I kind of agree, although on the plus side this does leave him free to take up pretty much whatever role in the Administration Obama wants. Same goes for Edwards, although the impression he’s a dead fish since the sex scandal has probably tanked him.

He’s right on taxes, too, the key arena in which the government can affect business growth and job creation.

He was right on taxes before he decided supporting Bush’s ridiculous high-bracket tax cut was politically expedient; now he’s just a shameless tool falling over himself to appeal to petty idiots like you with impressive displays of immunity to common sense.

He champions the successful Bush policy of keeping our foot on the neck of Islamic terrorism, pursuing them by all means: military, economic, diplomatic, intelligence, etc.

Same story: McCain 2000 wouldn’t have launched a discretionary war in Iraq if you paid him and even in 2004 he regarded torture as unacceptable, but Neocon Playhouse McCain isn’t gonna make you feel bad by challenging your stupid ideas or using big words. He’s a functional retard, just like you!

I don’t know if, in your position, I’d be more insulted that McCain could run a campaign essentially formulated on the idea that you, his base, are bafflingly ignorant dupes – or that the Republican Party actually believed it would be effective. McCain/Palin ’08 has been one long, mean-spirited joke at your expense by people smarter than you; what makes it especially hilarious is that you still don’t get it!


Well, the new meme is that unless they’re allowed to speak without rebuttal they’re being censored. It’s silly, but they’re sticking with it.


Oh. I voted yes on 5 too.


Yeah, I’m leaning towards yes on 5, as well. (See update)


Note to ittdgy and RB: Fool sighting at 17:56.


DocAmazing – I think it is a good idea to put a scare into Pelosi, and it looks like it’s going to happen. Where I’m coming from is that a vote against a candidate is fine (e.g. Bush in 04), but you have to also want the person you’re voting for more than the one you’re voting against.

I don’t want Sheehan as my rep more than Pelosi. As opposed to 04, when I definitely wanted Kerry more than Bush, even though Kerry wasn’t great.


5 is a clear yes. it will save a ton of money and it is also the right momentum generator. too long have we had the same answer on crime: “toughness”. given the epic fail of such answers, it is beyond time to start looking for new ones. cali can lead on this as always.


7 is also a close call. it is a giveaway to elon musk (paypal, tesla etc.) amongst others, but fuck it, it’s the kind of giveaway we need. i’m spending a ton of money right now putting in solar panels and any and all govt help would be appreciated. i’m rich, relatively speaking, and it’s bankrupting me, all this green stuff that i’m doing to the house. it shouldn’t be. i’m pretty much for most proactive greening of our state (and yes, i know that people were making this argument about biodiesel and ethanol 6 years ago and they were horribly wrong, but solar and wind are way safer bets).

neither 7 nor 10 are perfect, but neither are they that bad.


My general opinion on Sheehan is that she represents our debased time’s answer to Abbie Hoffman: all the right gadfly instincts and a complete lack of the common sense that generally weeds out the best gadflies, but ideologically fetishistic and in love with being radical.

I’m pretty hard-a-left on almost everything. That doesn’t mean my opinion of trying to levitate the Pentagon with yoga should be better than Nixon’s – hell, Nixon was the gnostic in the room there, not us.

Similarly, I consider appeals for or against the ‘radical’ or aggressive or whatever behavior of Sheehan ridiculous. I don’t think she would be acceptable as a politician; whatever good she does she does as a public enemy. When they get into the system, their opinions about 9/11 and the Maharishi become more powerful than they deserve to be. This is why, at all costs, they must be kept out of the system.

The problem is that the good, stolid lefties generally either stay private or wind up dragged down by their flighty, high-visibility comrades. There is the additional problem that American politics is constitutionally bipartisan and too few legitimate leftists have resigned themselves to follow the outward rules of the system before they try and knock shit protected by those rules down.


Measure O – vote yes, otherwise comcast keeps the dough.
It’s because of various court cases, and how various fees for 911 funding get allocated. Dumbness and obscure tax wonkery, but yes.

Measure K – ugh, some of the provisions about not fighting human trafficking seem dubious. And if you want to legalize prostitution, perhaps it’s better to regulate it rather than say “just don’t prosecute”.


I think the editors should give us a thread in which we can all make our predictions and then gloat when we get it right.


Prop 1 would be great if it wasn’t based on lies and magical thinking. A $50 ticket from SF to LA, when the cheapest NE corridor Acela ticket from Boston to DC is $125? $30 billion in funding which is going to come from, where, the feds? If we ask really nicely?

You want to connect SF to LA, a city that can barely get one subway line built?

Also there’s just no way the system can be built for anything like the quoted $40 billion. California isn’t a particularly flat state – there’s a massive amount of tunnelling and grading to be done to get a high speed line from LA to SF, not to mention a lot of expensive construction through built-up urban areas.



sorry, nothing is perfect. there will always be flaws. none of your objections, even if i grant them (which i’m not, but they are certainly reasonable) are in any way more important than starting the ball rolling on high speed rail for what more and more is becoming “our” country–cali and the pacific northwest. we need this. will there be hiccups along the way? hell yes. but that shouldn’t stop us, it should make us work harder when things begin. only prop is going to get that ball rolling. and i do think the feds are going to be a slightly different group with i-love-trains-so-much-i-should-have-been-in-that-danny-boyle movie dude biden in the white house without portfolio.

this is an extraordinary opportunity to move us up to only 15 years behind europe–we’ve got to take it.


Could I write-in “Fuck no” on 8?


Similarly, I consider appeals for or against the ‘radical’ or aggressive or whatever behavior of Sheehan ridiculous. I don’t think she would be acceptable as a politician; whatever good she does she does as a public enemy.

Well said, Alec. As much as Pelosi aggravates me, Sheehan would aggravate me more.


Prop 2 sounds nice on a warm and fuzzy level, but since the HSUS is behind it, I’d be careful.

They are an animal rights organization, not an animal welfare organization, which is an entirely different thing. Nothing in Prop 2 guarantees that farm animals, most notably chickens, will be any better off. What will happen is production will decrease so people will buy imports or if they want local, will pay a lot more for a wide variety of foods. This is fine by me, btw, since I think food is ridiculously cheap in NA.

Currently, about 5% of consumers buy free range chickens and eggs (I’m one of them). If consumer demand increased for these products, more would be produced. Legislating animal rights legislation usually backfires – unless your goal is to eliminate animal husbandry including pet ownership, farming, etc. Then it works really well.

Just so you know.


and i do think the feds are going to be a slightly different group with i-love-trains-so-much-i-should-have-been-in-that-danny-boyle movie dude biden in the white house without portfolio.

I hadn’t thought of it that way – it’s a really good point. Biden’s one of the few legislators who refuses to live in Washington – has commuted from Wilmington (I think) since he got elected.

Of course, another good source of funding would be cooperation with OR, WA, and BC – a rail corridor in California will accomplish nothing existing highways don’t, but an interstate high-speed rail link on the west coast would be a huge counterweight to the Phoenix/Vegas/Reno/etc. highway-driven megasprawl. Of course, the reverse isn’t true – there’s no practical way to achieve a LA-PHX or SF-LV high-speed linkup – you’d need digs, fills, and viaducts on a scale unheard of in public works since the 30s.

That said, I would expect a good high-speed line to be expensive. Be really zealous about budget cuts – doing ACELA on the cheap made it pretty weak-sauce as high-speed lines go, and ACELA is through generally flat, uniform territory. Pussing out on the expense of a high-speed Pacific rail corridor will kill it in the cradle – and make absolutely sure you’re getting the best people for the job, not just lowballing it. Massive infrastructure investments are tolerable as long as they create work for people likely to spend their wages domestically without too much worry about savings. Otherwise, stick to drug clinics, hospitals, and HUD. Hell, especially the clinics – until we got convinced it would be a good idea to fuck with sudafed consumption, meth was the only thing we were actually making in the American West any more.


They are an animal rights organization, not an animal welfare organization, which is an entirely different thing. Nothing in Prop 2 guarantees that farm animals, most notably chickens, will be any better off. What will happen is production will decrease so people will buy imports or if they want local, will pay a lot more for a wide variety of foods. This is fine by me, btw, since I think food is ridiculously cheap in NA.

Currently, about 5% of consumers buy free range chickens and eggs (I’m one of them). If consumer demand increased for these products, more would be produced. Legislating animal rights legislation usually backfires – unless your goal is to eliminate animal husbandry including pet ownership, farming, etc. Then it works really well.

Just so you know.

Meat-industry work is mind-numbing, violent, typically extremely exploitative, and subject to increasing antipathy from a society that has absorbed the feel-good exterior of the green left without actually taking the tenets to heart.

Between that and the strong tendency of animal-rights and animal-ethics groups to be not just anti-scientific but un-scientific – witness the entire cattle industry basically deciding that because a chick has Asperger’s Syndrome and has done a little bit of research she qualifies as a talking cow.

There’s nothing like ethical consumption available in meat. I tend to be pretty fatalistic about this; having serious allergies to most things with protein in them besides meat, I’ve resigned myself to avoiding oppressing pigs or sheep too badly and cannot be aroused to concern myself overmuch with creatures outside of Mammalia. Service capitalism, in its infinite brilliance, has taken the producers’ vicious maltreatment of animals and found a way to take it out on the women and men working minimum wage in dismal conditions on the factory floor.


Between that and etc. I tend to be extremely wary about efforts to push animal rights or welfare in a socially acceptable fashion, I mean.

I’m just not sure how constructive it is to, when faced with a man-devouring mechanical monster, fret about how ethically it was oiled.


It’s true I hadn’t considered Biden’s rail advocacy. I find it bizarre, though, that we’re considering high speed rail to connect two cities that at best have a wavering commitment to commuter rail (LA in particular). I can’t think of a successful high speed rail project that didn’t 1) replace existing high-usage conventional rail transportation, and 2) connect terminal cities with comprehensive local and regional rail transportation.

A possible exception to #1 is the chunnel, and it’s been far less successful than predicted at getting travelers to switch from air travel than predicted.

For the kind of money we’re talking about spending on high speed rail, we could electrify and grade-separate Caltrain and the East Bay rail corridors, upgrade Capitol service to Sacramento, upgrade Metrolink and provide viable commuter rail to LA’s westside and harbor areas, as well as a host of other projects which would provide daily benefits to millions of Californians. If there was a funded plan to create comprehensive regional rail at both terminal locations (and yes, BART is a start but compared to what exists in Paris, Tokyo, London, or other terminal cites served by successful high speed rail it’s rather incomplete), then I’d say high-speed rail might be realistic for California.

A high speed rail line up the central valley would of course be teh awesome and I felt bad about voting no on 1A, but I just don’t understand the reasoning behind spending billions on some vague goal of “getting the ball rolling”.


Re: Measure H, my understanding is that it would create an entity similar to the LA DWP, i.e. a city-owned utility. During the California power crisis that brought down Gray Davis, LA DWP customers were completely unaffected.

So if I could (I’m in CA but not in SF) I’d vote yes on H.

I would also, if I lived in SF, support changing the name of Church Street to Harvey Milk Boulevard, esp. if Prop 8 passes.


I voted the same ballot from down here in Guatemala. So take everything I say knowing that I am totally out of the loop for the local city stuff.

I mostly agree, but differed from you in a few places. I could not stomach voting for Pelosi after being stabbed in the back on impeachment, FISA, and the bailout. I don’t expect leadership from her, just for her to get out of the way of the real leaders on her own side. So I voted for the Libertarian as a pure protest vote.

Also, on measure O, my 3-second googling of the issue seemed to show that there was no real opposition, this is good for some reason I don’t understand. So I went yes.

And on the stupid stuff (C, L, P, U, V…) I just exercised my right not to vote. Better than feeding either side of stupid.


alec, that’s what you get for not hailing to the chimp.

Really though, I don’t think W’s often chimp-like facial expressions are a legit reason to dislike him; they’re just doofy and a little amusing (ironically humanizing). Using the term also reminds me that I’m kind of a hypocrite, as the Obama monkeys really really bug me, even if he does have big ears or whatever.


You say you can’t vote Sheehan if you don’t want her more than Pelosi. How then can you vote Pelosi if you know she sucks? You really do have a right not to vote. And it’s not as if SF would go to the dogs if Pelosi doesn’t win.

Or, as I am, you could vote for the libertarian. I disagree with Ls on some big issues, but honestly I would prefer a libertarian, I think that there will be more close war/executive power votes than tax/social spending votes in the next two years.

Please don’t reward Ms. FISA – she needs a scare.


Oh, and to those who’d rather forget W than paste his name on poor sewage workers: I, for one, would be proud to be a sewage worker in the GWB plant. Historical memory means you remember the good AND the bad, and I would feel I was doing my part, turning fetid sludge back into something which can feed future growth.


triozyg: At Calitics I cover the Congressional and legislative races with a fair amount of obsession, so let me just say that you are completely, utterly wrong about competitive races in the state. The Republican lean of lots of these districts have gone down between 5-8% in the past four years because of new voter registrations. See, people die, move, and turn 18 every day in America. So the notion of gerrymandered districts as static is actually completely absurd. It also happens to be an overblown thing that people yell about without noting the real issue. The reason incumbents do well is M-O-N-E-Y. Not gerrymandering, which has a minimal effect.

And the “you can’t be on the commission if you’ve voted in the last 3 elections” is very real and the cause of a drafting error in the initiative. So, you know, you read it.


Please don’t reward Ms. FISA – she needs a scare.

And based on comments here and my conversations with assorted City voters, she’s going to get one. What I don’t need is a ‘scare’ in the form of Sheehan actually winning, so I’m voting Pelosi.

Hey, it looks like that vote is more than countered by Sheehan voters on this thread, so it’s not such a terrible thing.


1a. From what I can tell this is a big sink hole of money. By the time construction starts I’ll be in the grave. I’d rather see all that money go to light rail in metropolitan areas.

Tom Ammiano is running for state senate? Oh good lord, one of the reasons I moved out of the city was to get away from the nut balls on the Board of Sups (ok, that really didn’t have anything to do with me moving out of the city, but the sentiment stands)


Not as many local ballot measures down here in L.A. this time, but we’ve had ’em before, so I feel your pain. For the state ballot propositions, I’m going with the Calitics line, which would be the same as yours except Yes on 3, 5, and 12 and No on 11. And I see dday’s commented upthread…


Yeah, well good pts. However, I don’t know that we know what a good spending initiative is in light of the fact that we don’t know what tradeoffs we are making.

What does it mean to vote for the drug rehab thing? Does it mean a few yrs down the pike when we have to pay off bondholders we will be taking money from school infrastructure or bridge infrastructure or roads or hospital upgrades? Does it mean a new tax (about which we know nothing today ?)

It seems irresponsible to have the good feeling of voting yes for new ponies when there are no consequences, no tradeoffs that you have to face today. I just don’t like the implicit framing of something for nothing. Yes, you get a new pony and you don’t have to sacrifice the party dress. I don’t believe it.

The more I think about this issue in general the more it seems to lend itself to rank choice voting. Let the legislature build out a budget that says we can manage X billion in new bond debt (ah leverage, our old friend that got us into this crises) . Then get a list of all possible ponies and party dresses and ask the voters to rank them. If a bond does not meet a certain threshold that money is not spent (bonds not issued) until we see the new list next year or 2 yrs from now.


As far as Prop Q is concerned… keep in mind that this has an effect on all employees who work for LLPs. I work for a rather large LLP, myself (disclosure) but I am not one who benefits from an investment in it (I am staff… so tangentially, I guess, I benefit from a small portion of profit sharing). In any event, I get paid (raises, bonuses, etc) based on what money is left over after paying the share-holding members. By imposing additional taxes, this amount is lessened, and so staff like me (at the near bottom of most pay-scales) will also be affected by smaller raisers and/or bonuses. Besides, this money is more akin to capital gains than payroll, as most of the members draw a salary and then make this money as a return on their investment in the partnership.

I get that we need more money, but simply going after wealthier individuals does trickle down and hit those solidly in the middle (lower-middle, even) class too.

My two cents (or one cent, possibly, if this passes).


like i have been telling people, NO on 8 because if flaming queers want to marry, let them. they can experience all of the heartache and drama of a marriage just like us normal people.


…they already do.


I just don’t see why it’s fair to exempt small business but not larger ones? I mean, times are tough for everyone, why should on pot be smaller than the next guys?


Are there really people here who are considering voting for Sheehan? Really? Let’s say, just for fun, that she wins. I’m sure you’ll feel very self-righteous listening to her rant about melting steel and so on. Meanwhile, Rhambo or Hoyer will become Speaker of the House and third in line for the Presidency.


I’m in CA, not SF. I voted a straight Democratic ticket in my district races. As always, I voted for the one Libertarian who’s ever made it to public office in my area, a non-partisan seat on a hospital board whose continued existence after its sale to a Catholic health care concern made it obsolete confuses me. He’s agitating for its dissolution on the one hand and made damn sure the hospital stayed put instead of being relocated to bring it up to new standards. Moving it within a quarter-mile of a major freeway on the opposite side of town would’ve driven people batty, especially with an urgent care center going in not two miles away from the new site.

On the props, I voted yes on 1A. These things need startup money and backing to generate the necessary infusions to keep it going until it’s done. That includes feasibility studies.

No on 2. Neither side was telling me science. Both sides were feeding me scare tactics, but the No people at least had more on their side than bunny huggers who want to eliminate carnivorism from the human diet. I also know that the HSUS uses exaggerated statements to agitate for factory farming reform.

Yes on 3. Children’s hospital bonds. Please. Health issues are a community matter, so the community should help pony up.

No on 4. Better put, H to the ELL to the NO.

Yes on 5. Rehab, lighter sentences, and funding arrangements for the rehab? Go, Prop 5, go.

No on 6. Mandatory minimum spending, 30 new crimes, weakens rights of citizens, and no real proof it’ll help a damn thing except the prison builders’ pockets.

No on 7. None of the power companies, large or small, like it. I read it and found it to be as onerous as they say it is. If a green company says it’ll put them out of business, I’m willing to believe it based on what I saw.


No on 9. Strips people of rights and costs more money for feel-good legislation.

No on 10. The bonds have no funding to back them up. I don’t see this as the right approach to a public concern. I’m glad T. Boone’s on the alternative energy wagon for whatever reason, but this is going to fry us in a few years.

Yes on 11. The districts in this state are fucking absurd. Nobody’s going to change them without intervention, and if they can tidy up that nonsense about “not having voted in the last three elections,” I think I’d even apply.

Yes on 12. Vets bonds are state tax-neutral and a good economic stimulus. Also, veterans are a public concern to my mind.

I applaud your decision to vote for Nancy Pelosi. Yeah, she’s been a wimp in areas she shouldn’t have, but far better the experienced politician and savvy Speaker than a whiny, lying grandstander.

If I were in SF, I’d vote much the way you are, including supporting the restoration of Junior ROTC to the schools. I find the protests against its existence to be as short-sighted as the claims we all just need to meditate and sing Kumbaya to bring about world peace.


Sorry, Cindy. I like having Madame Speaker as my rep.

Also, Cindy Sheehan is a suburbanite carpetbagger. What self-respecting San Franciscan would want a representative from Vacaville?


If only H really were a municipal utility district proposition, then I might be able to support it. Being an engineer by trade, I am highly underimpressed by verbiage about any kind of big transition to clean, renewable energy that doesn’t acknowledge the painful realities about Energy Return on Energy Invested.

Also, when the city finally municipalizes its utility district, we won’t be just sticking the knife in PG&E— we’ll be stabbing AT&T and Comcast too. I really don’t think we’re going to be able take those fuckers down without a full-frontal assault. As much as I want to have that fight, proposition H isn’t going to be the opening round.



Of course, the reverse isn’t true – there’s no practical way to achieve a LA-PHX or SF-LV high-speed linkup

I so have to disagree with you here. Have you looked at the terrain north of Redding, or driven I-5 to Portland? There is no way in hell you’re going to get HSR through there. Getting from L.A. to either Vegas or Phoenix is child’s play in comparison. Big, open, relatively flat desert is way easier to put rails on than craggy new mountains.

Turbine Yukon Palin

Personal note to all of you Californians voting (FUCK) NO ON 8:
Thank you.

This isn’t something I thought would happen in my lifetime. And now that it has, and now, much to my surprise and delight (and disbelief), that I’ve met someone I would consider making that kind of a vow to, the notion that it could be taken away, stirred up by small-minded, fearful little forces, is . . . painful to say the least. Especially at a time where bigotry is losing its grip on the electorate and we may well have ourselves a non-white president for the first time in our history.

So . . . thanks.


The sewage needs to be named after Bush. There are efforts afoot to fllush the memory of his disasterous administration down the memory hole. Attention must be paid!


Why you should vote YES ON J

I offer a little background on the issue for my friends for whom preservation rarely enters the consciousness, but I urge you to read the links in this post and do your own research for more expanded information. Basically, Proposition J would create an independent Historic Preservation Commission to regulate the treatment of San Francisco’s landmarks and historic buildings. The way it works now, there is a mayor-appointed board that is part of and subordinate to the Planning Commission (called the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board), which has no real power other than to make “recommendations” to the Planning Commission which only sometimes (at the whim of the planner assigned to the project and other more subjective factors) have a real impact on the final decision about what happens to a building or an old neighborhood. This has proven itself to be problematic; a breeding ground for political struggle. Since the post-war era of misguided “urban renewal,” it has been made clear that most people care about the old houses and historic buildings that compose their neighborhoods, and the old neighborhoods that make up their cities, and they’re willing to get all up in your business about it. In San Francisco, we have learned the lesson about wanton disregard for historic neighborhoods. Please see: the Western Addition.

…more here…


@ ice weasel:

Don’t look to one election to be The One That Clears House. This is one of those instances where we really do have to think in increments.

The Right understood that the important thing is to keep things constantly moving in the right direction, no matter how slowly, because that’s how change sticks. It’s long past time we learned that, too.


Actually, s9, H is a feasibility study. I t doesn’t require a takeover; it requires studying a takeover. Vote Yes on H and get the ball rolling. Incremental change, remember?


And high school ROTC is just evil. Come on, it’s the worst kind of cannon-fodder farming. Big NO on Q. (When I see JROTC at St. Ignatius or Riordan [rich private high schools, for those from elsewhere], I might entertain some argument about its desirability.)


Robo-Hugh Hewitt just called me urging me to vote yes on H8. The message was bilingual. Hugh did not deliver the Spanish portion.

I think I have been targeted based upon the traditional values of those who share my last name.


Thanks for putting this up DA. I agree except for Cindy. Fuck leader Nance, she has done nothing but cave to the bushies. In this small of an election a protest vote is actually going to have an impact.

BTW: tentative barbarian drinkfest Weds in the east bay.


Unfortunately, considering the level of damage that Democratic enabling has done to the country, I could give a shit about what Nancy Pelosi does for your district. What she’s done to the country is pretty much unforgivable regardless of who was giving her her marching orders.

This could possibly be the strongest message that quisling Democrats could be sent in a safely liberal progressive district. Cindy didn’t really leave the party, the party left her as they were willing to use her for their own ends but didn’t want to rock the boat as far as addressing issues like the war, or impeachment, or FISA, or the bailout, or torture, or Constitution violations, or vote fraud, or the Lobby – Cindy Sheehan’s the only politician with some national recognition that I can think of that is courageous enough to even mention the Israel Lobby – make no mistake, Iran WILL be attacked and soon.

Re: Prop 7: I heard the cowboy hat guy from “Who Killed the Electric Car? ” (S. David Freeman – make a darn good case for it on NPR and I trust him.

Vote YES on 7 – No on 10.



I’m a San Franciscan myself and rather conservative for SF (yet far left in any other context).

And you are slightly rightward of me!



The saddest thing about Prop 8 is that it will rear its ugly, hateful head again even if it were to be rejected this year.

When it comes to bigotry, out-of-state nutjobs will spare no expense.


Andrew B – props are for no! No no no no no no …

But seriously, I’ve changed my mind (as indicated by the updates above) on some things, thanks to this comment thread.

So, thanks everybody.


BTW – I’ve been thinking about this a bit, and I guess I am more conservative at the local level than the national level. Or to put it more to my liking, I get exponentially more progressive outward.

This, I think, is not a terrible thing. Things I hope for my nation to do, I would not dream of my immediate family doing, for economy-of-scale and collective buying power reasons.

We can afford to take certain risks and invest certain amounts of wealth at the mega-level of national politics, because the collective safety net is so much broader, orders-of-magnitude broader in fact, that would be ridiculous to contemplate at the family level, because there’s no enormous fall-back position that rates mathematically in our immediate surroundings.

This, for me, seems to extend at each next-level social arrangement. Hence, more conservative in the family than in City politics, but more conservative in City politics than in state politics, etc., etc.

If that makes any sense. Also, I’m kind of hammered. Surprise, surprise.


woo california! i’m in between two major exams (graduate school i <3 you) and i have the attention span of a gnat and i have to go to bed and omg ELECTION TIME but here are my california proposition choices and i promise i will come back and read all the comments before mine because it seems rude not to:

1A: yes! trains!
2: yes! bigger boxes for the chickens!
3: no. it’s money for construction only, and only a few children’s hospitals will benefit (the same ones who paid to put it on the ballot…waitaminute!)
4: hell no. not all girls can talk to their families; restricting abortion for minors will lead to more girls harming themselves while trying to end their pregnancies without doctors.
5: yes. rehab for nonviolent drug offenders instead of expensive, unhelpful jail.
6: no. we don’t need more prisons.
7: no. good general idea, bad specific execution (bought onto the ballot by a rich dude whose own business interests will benefit. no thank you.
8: HELL NO. don’t add discrimination to california’s constitution. love is love. discrimination is wrong. mormon church out of california politics.
9: no. costs a lot of moneys, doesn’t improve things.
10: no. another good general idea bought onto the ballot by a rich dude whose own business interests will benefit. sheesh.
11. no. redistricting is a good idea but i’m freaked out at the total randomness of the system 11 proposes.
12. yeah, i think so.


On 2: No, I don’t see how the morally superior answer is the answer that puts more morally-unsound food on store shelves. This law doesn’t affect imports: 50% of CA eggs are imported. Nearly all of those violate this law. Less than 20% of in-state eggs violate this law. It’ll just mean more imports.

On 11: No, why the hell do Republicans get more seats than all the third-parties combined, when they’re outnumbered in this state by Independents?

On 12: Yes, we have no reason to say no, this isn’t paid for by the state, it’s not like other bonds.

I’m Yes on 1A, 5, 12; No on 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.


*please* vote no on R…. it’s amusing, yes, but just makes the city look a little silly and helps people dismiss us as west coast liberal whack jobs.



Rugged in Montana,
George W. Bush is all that ever needs to be said. Liberals get a 25 year pass by invoking his name. Talk to you again in 2033. Until then: George W. Bush.

Exactly. Thing is, we can’t stop involing that name, because these nitwits will stop at nothing to rewrite history.

WTF? I thought Rugged In Montana was a parody troll. Is there a real one who has been waiting all this time to annoy us on Election Day? Where are the flocks of marauding carnivorous pelicans when we need them?


woo! obama!

thanks for offering your endorsements, everyone. also, i would like to endorse drinkingly sadlyly in the san francisco bay area. particularly in the oakland/berkeley area of the bay area.


Damn you SF, your turnout sucked!
Less than 50%, about 100K less than 2004. What happened.

I’m looking at you, Bayview / Hunter’s point
Registered: 17692
Voted: 6975
Turnout: 39.42%

That was pathetic. The best district was Bernal Heights, a meager 54.99% turnout.


Alrighty then! Pelosi has already come out with a “we will govern from the center” (screw you libs, nyah nyah nyah!), and will seek to work in a “strong bipartisan” manner!


THAT’S why we jettisoned Republicans in mass in 2006 & 2008, so AIPAC’s Nance could work WITH them!!!

And, she wants to shovel MORE billions and billions to the banksters of Wall Street. Priority ONE with her.

Hear anything from your “Madame Speaker” about shoveling a measly billion or so into SECURING SOCIAL SECURITY for us ALL? As in repaying what her and her thieving cronies have BORROWED from us???

Like I said, go shoot yourself if you voted for this detestable piece of shit.

Oh sorry, I forgot, this blog is just to point out idiots on the Right……..


I so have to disagree with you here. Have you looked at the terrain north of Redding, or driven I-5 to Portland? There is no way in hell you’re going to get HSR through there. Getting from L.A. to either Vegas or Phoenix is child’s play in comparison. Big, open, relatively flat desert is way easier to put rails on than craggy new mountains.

Yup – we’ve gone that way every time we wind up going to Oregon to visit my grandparents. It’s peanuts compared to even the Tehachapi Pass.

If it was just the Mojave we had to worry about in building rail links around the Southwest, we’d be dandy; the problem is that we’re sitting on one of the biggest, craggiest accretion belt zones on Earth. It occasionally leads to nice stuff like massive deposits of gold, but it sucks to travel over.


I appreciated Alec’s support. Unfortunately, most voters didn’t take the time to educate themselves in my race.

Apparently, they are satisfied with the status quo.

A bitter pill to swallow after receiving the endorsements of both LV newspapers and both the left and the right, along with busting my tail for the past 9 mos.


(comments are closed)