REVISION: SF Mayor endorsements (post heartbreak)

October 31, 2011 § 3 Comments

A week ago I posted a lengthy opinion-filled post about the candidates running for Mayor of San Francisco, mentioning all of the candidates on the ballot (plus one NOT on the ballot) and commenting on most of them.

Since then, a few things have changed.

In that post I said “I wouldn’t know Ascarrunz, Currier, Lawrence or Pang if I woke up next to them.” That is no loner true. I sat behind Emil Lawrence at an Urban League debate last week and now there is NO DOUBT in my mind that if I woke up next to him one morning I would absolutely know it. No doubt whatsoever.

I would remember sleeping with him

Also – my selection of #1 candidate for the ballot – Mat Honan – isn’t eligible to be a write-in candidate after all. His campaign lasted exactly 7 days. I was caught up in the excitement of a candidate untethered to political machination and scheming and posturing and thrilled by the prospect of this young, intelligent, man pushing his way into a crowded elevator and farting really loud.

But the rules of engagement got in the way and he was TWO SIGNATURES shy of eligibility for the ballot.

Honan wrote a brief summary of his experience that week and explained his motivation to run that is required reading to anyone living in San Francisco that is frustrated by stagnant political constipation.

In the post, Honan says “There’s a reason #votemat exploded on Twitter: Nobody’s happy with our choices for Mayor. I tend to think that’s because all of the candidates have been playing it too safe, hoping to slide in thanks to the uncertainties of ranked choice voting. And it means the race is Ed Lee’s to lose.”

That is the disappointing truth.

Following my endorsement post I caught some shit (from a small percentage of the handful of people that read the damn thing) for abusing ranked choice voting by selecting as my #1 choice a “joke” candidate and as my #2 choice a “fringe” candidate (Terry Joan Baum) while my #3 choice was more or less ignored (John Avalos).

To be clear: I want and hope and believe that John Avalos can be the next Mayor of San Francisco. He has been my choice since he entered the race.

During the debate season I met and listened to and was inspired by and grew to admire Terry Joan Baum. She is not a fringe candidate. She is not a joke. She is not an invalid choice. Our democracy needs candidates like Ms. Baum (and Tony Hal) because representatives from the two asshole parties that hog the spotlight have fucked everything up in the city, state and country.

Truth tellers

If we keep playing the same game by the same rules with the same asshole candidates that wear a different toupee or pantsuit every four years, the same bullshit avalanche will continue to bury us. I will never apologize for my support of a candidate that has the freedom to address elephants in the room ignored by the representatives of the two parties that brought the elephant to us – one sent out the invitation while the other holds the door open for it to enter.

Now that Mat is out – who is my new addition? What is my new ranking?

I want my vote for Terry Joan Baum to be counted. I realize and anticipate that at some point she will be eliminated from contention because she hasn’t sucked up and spent cash like a drunken sailor at Willie Brown’s “Pay to Play” lounge.

She gets #1.

John Avalos is #2. He is climbing in the polls because he has made great decisions lately and is a viable candidate that is supported overwhelmingly by many progressive organizations in this unabashedly progressive (which apparently can be defined any way you want) town.

He can win, he must win and he deserves to win.

His ranking at #2 means – based on the polling information I’ve seen – that this where my ballot will end. He is not likely to be eliminated in round after round of vote counting as candidates with lesser success are dropped and their votes are redistributed. My placement of him as #2 is a strategic as well as supportive decision. I want Ms. Baum to collect votes and I want Mr. Avalos to continue to collect votes as the eliminations of candidates progress.

Shall I choose a number #3 anyway, just for shits and grins?

Well, I’ve been lobbied (more than anyone else) to put Dennis Herrera on my list. I was offered a pair of Joanna Rees shoes to add her name. Leland Yee mentioned that he hopes to earn my support. I don’t think Bevan Dufty cares what I do. I’d ask my mom what she thinks, but she’s dead.

I asked Matt Gonzalez to run three months ago when I saw him on the bus and he looked like he was going to start to cry (thus cementing my effect on men…it’s shocking I ever landed a boyfriend let alone managed to get married a few times).

Listen – if you want Dennis Herrera to win – write him in as #3. If you want me to get a pair of Joanna Rees’ shoes (which is swaying me, I have to admit) – give her #3. Leland Yee seems awfully nice – and the ED LEE biography his campaign just released is brilliant (but I still don’t understand why he is so mad at sharks) so put him down as #3.

Put my mother down as #3. Her votes won’t be counted because she didn’t obey the rules but she’s dead anyway so you have nothing to lose.

Confused?

Bottom line:  Do what you want with #3 just make sure you put down any name other than Ed Lee. We’ve had four terms of Willie Brown in San Francisco City Hall. It’s time to try something new.

No fifth term for Willie Brown!!

 

 

 

§ 3 Responses to REVISION: SF Mayor endorsements (post heartbreak)

  • Al Gore says:

    To be clear, I “ignored” your endorsement of Avalos because I respect that choice. Many of my friends, neighbors, and coworkers are putting Avalos as their #1 choice, and I never begrudge them that. I prefer Herrera for his experience and record of accomplishment, but Avalos seems like a great guy. I like John Avalos. My question is, why don’t you like him?

    You wanted to give your vote to someone who said “Nobody’s happy with our choices for Mayor… all of the candidates have been playing it too safe.” That’s a huge slap in the face to both Avalos AND Terry Baum, not to mention everyone else in the race. Can you honestly say that Terry Baum has been “playing it too safe”? Are you really saying that you’re not happy with John Avalos, when a few sentences later you say you “want and hope and believe that John Avalos can be the next Mayor of San Francisco”?

    I think it’s also hard to accuse Herrera and Yee of “playing it safe,” since both candidates have been relentlessly going after Ed Lee for ethics and campaign finance violations, voter fraud, cronyism, and being a puppet of Willie Brown/Gavin Newsom/Rose Pak.

    So let’s get to the nitty-gritty. Yes, your ballot may end with John Avalos. The latest poll I have seen shows Ed Lee passing the 50% with Herrera and Avalos both still standing. If that’s how things play out, then yes, your ballot will end with John Avalos, and Ed Lee will win a full term. We have to hope that things do NOT play out that way, which means either Avalos or Herrera will be eliminated. That’s why Avalos is getting my #2 vote, and that’s why I hope Herrera gets your #3.

    • uppityfag says:

      Oh AL!

      You Herrera-ites drive a hard bargain.

      I did support an almost write-in that said that stuff about the candidates playing it safe. And I do think Avalos is the man for SF. I also think he is being cautious….maybe it’s his style….maybe it’s his strategy….I have no idea.

      Yes, Herrera and Yee especially have gone after Lee – and I’ve loved every minute of it. I’m not an advocate for a false sense of civility in place of an honest debate about what is at stake.

      Maybe I would feel better about the attacks on Lee if they were more about why SF needs a change in direction away from the past 16 years – not just beating up Ed for being a stooge (which he is) because that sounds mean and pointless if that’s all there is and then Ed can cry and play the victim card.

      But I don’t want to split hairs.

      Terry Baum hasn’t played anything safe. That’s why I want my vote for her to count. That’s why I am not putting her behind Avalos. Maybe that’s risky…but I enjoy a bit of chaos.

      An Avalos win would be a strong change of direction. I’m not sure I could say the same about a Herrera win. Believe me – I’d take Herrera over Lee any day. Maybe I’ll put him in at #3 to play safe.

      I hate safe.

  • Junior says:

    Well, I think your choices are fine. Leland is an excellent choice and has the best chance of winning out of your entire bunch. Bottom line, Ed Lee needs to go, and Dennis Herrera is a left over (backup plan of the Brown/Newsom machine) SO a vote for Dennis is just as good as a vote for Ed Lee.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading REVISION: SF Mayor endorsements (post heartbreak) at uppityfag.

meta

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers

%d bloggers like this: