The redistricting furor

|
(55)

I opposed the measure that created California's new Redistricting Commission. As we noted in our endorsements at the time:

The commission is hardly a fair body — it has the same number of Republicans as Democrats in a state where there are far more Democrats than Republicans. And most states still draw lines the old-fashioned way, so Prop. 20 could give the GOP an advantage in a Democratic state. States like Texas and Florida, notorious for pro-Republican gerrymandering, aren't planning to change how they do their districts.

But Prop. 20 passed anyway, and control of the critically important task of drawing lines for state Legislature and Congressional districts fell to an unbalanced group of people with no political experience. They commission held hearings up and down the state, took reams of testimony -- and wound up with a map that will probably add six or seven Democratic seats to the Congressional delegation.

That's not a big surprise: Democratic Party registration is stable in a very blue state, and Republican registration is declining. Any fair redistricting would likely lead to more Democratic seats. And it's clear that the likes of Phil Burton were not involved: In Los Angeles, two powerful veteran members of the House, Brad Sherman and Howard Berman, wound up in the same district. No matter what happens, the Democratic Party will lose one of its heaviest hitters.

But ProPublica, the national (and generally very solid) investigative reporting group, took on the process and concluded that the Democratic Party managed to wire the deal:

As part of a national look at redistricting, ProPublica reconstructed the Democrats’ stealth success in California, drawing on internal memos, emails, interviews with participants and map analysis. What emerges is a portrait of skilled political professionals armed with modern mapping software and detailed voter information who managed to replicate the results of the smoked-filled rooms of old.

(Memo to the folks at PP: There haven't been "smoked filled rooms" in this state in quite a while. By the time the 1990 census was done, most of the state (including most public facilities) had strict limits on indoor smoking, and in 2000, nobody smoked in any rooms controlled by any governmental agency. But we get the point.)

The story has set off a furor. Robert Cruikshank, one of my favorite political bloggers, did a fairly brutal takedown on the report:

Of course, the core assumption that California Republicans deserved any new seats is challenged by their collapse in the November 2010 elections. While Republicans across the country were having a banner night, California Republicans lost every single statewide election (including losing the governor's race by 13 points despite outspending the Democrats nearly 10 to 1). They also failed to pick up a single seat in either the legislature or Congress, losing one Assembly seat. California voters made explicitly clear in November 2010 that they do not like Republicans. That doesn't appear to have actually influenced the commission's deliberations, but it does mean the claim that Republicans had any reasonable expectation of gains is ridiculous.

Then Jerry Roberts and Phil Trounstine, two poltical reporters with at least 50 years of experience between them, did their own examination at CalBuzz, and asked PP's Jeff Larson to explain himself. The result is scathing:

  Plainly put, their piece is the worst kind of ersatz “investigative” reporting: lots of heavy breathing and over-reaching conclusions drawn from selectively using, twisting or ignoring facts, relying on innuendo and suggestion, and mischaracterizing crucial elements of the story to inferentially allege an impropriety where none exists. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more. Moreover, ProPublica never even called the commission for a comment on its much-ballyhooed “findings.”

In failing the smell test, this clunker promises plenty, but simply doesn’t deliver the goods.

Wow. Harsh.

But the Roberts/Trounstine takedown holds up pretty well. The point they make is that everyone -- the GOP, the Dems, city and state officials, groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and more -- tried to influence the process. In Northern California, the Dems were apparently a little better at it (and managed to create at least one fake front group to promote the interests of Rep. Jerry McNerney); in the southland, the big Democratic operation of Howard Berman and his brother, Michael, which, as CalBuzz points out, have played a key role in past redistricing efforts (those "smoke-filled rooms"), got totally fucked and Howard may lose his seat after 28 years.

I will say that PP dug up some new info and exposed how the Dems managed to create "communities of interest," some of them bogus, to try to influence the final lines. But I've been watching this stuff for a long time, and I can tell you: Reapportionment is political. Always has been, always will be. There are better lines and worse lines, there are scandalous cases of gerrymandering and political payback and there are (relatively) honest attempts to create districts that are fairly compact and also comply with federal law and don't dilute minority representation. But there's no such thing as "clean" reapportionment -- and if the Dems and Republicans weren't trying their best to influence the outcome, they'd be guilty of partisan misconduct.

The CalBuz conclu:

The plain fact is that while Democratic registration has been essentially flat in recent years, Republican registration has fallen into the toilet, and the GOP now represents less than one-third of state voters.

This means that Democrats represent an increasing proportion of the electorate; add to that the fact that decline-to-state independents, the fastest growing bloc of registered voters, also tend to vote Democratic, as we've shown previously.

This makes Johnson’s claim that Republicans are entitled to at least their current number of seats, which is the money quote of the Pierce-Larson opus, not only laughable but also intellectually dishonest. Sort of like the whole piece.

 

Comments

But isn't a progressive entitled to be appointed to Ross Mirkirimi's seat? Isn't a progressive entitled to be appointed to the mayors office even though a moderate was elected twice? This is an outrage!!!!

Every situation is a moment unto itself when always trying to get over, I suppose.

Let us recall the reason for the redistricting plan which, Tim vacuums out of his bloggyblogblog. The two parties were scheming it up between each other to keep safe districts, something that our elected democrats were utterly happy with. With the prop it was purposely taken out of the hands of the elected reps, it passed partially because the voters saw the grid lock as a product of the scheming between the parties. We can hope that the new system encourages more moderate democrats, instead of the true believer shills that the progressives prefer. With top two, also passed by the hated voters, this may be the case.

If redistricting and top two work as designed then the extremist democrats and republicans will term out and hopefully be replaces by moderates. Something that the progressives and their SEIU masters rightly fear.

It cracks me up to read a progressive complain that changing election laws to get over is bad.

How our progressives look at time

"the year is one"

at 1.10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aN9oplvaE

Posted by matlock on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 3:02 pm

Pretty much sums up the m.o. of the California Republican Party.

I voted against this turkey. I thought it was poorly crafted and constituted in an unrepresentative manner. I also told anyone who would listen that the Republicans should be careful what they wish for, because just about ANY result of messing with the districts would almost certainly result in fewer Reeps.

It's about simple math, which the Republicans apparently are very bad at. Dems outnumber Reeps 1.5 to 1 in California. Let's make it simple and say that independents break down about the same way, which is roughly true.

So let's say your goal is to guarantee maximal incumbency protection. What will your legislature look like? 60-40 split in favor of Democrats. Ideally you'd achieve that with districts of 60 districts of 100% Dems and 40 districts of 100% Repubs. In reality, you can't do that, but if you try you can make nearly every district safe. Well guess what? The legislature splits roughly 60-40! Why? Because when the legislature draws the districts, incumbency protection is exactly the goal!

Now let's say your goal is to create districts as competitive as humanly possible given the party breakdown you have to work with. What will your legislature look like? Answer: overwhelmingly Democratic, trending towards Democrats winning 100% of the seats!

Think about it. Split all the registered voters as equally as they're split in the state, and Democrats are suddenly favored in every seat! In fact, we actually have this situation -a dozen statewide elected offices. And who won every single one of them? Democrats.

Anything in between, and you get something in between those two extremes. Well, the commission was certainly packed with its share of Republicans. I'm sure they did their best to help their team. But they were faced with an impossible task. They needed to satisfy all sorts of requirements, and without the goal of incumbency protection, they were certain to generally take some "excess" Democrats from safe Democratic districts and put them into Republican-held districts. Same perhaps on the other side, but Dems had more "excess" voters to spare. Dems can afford for their districts to become less "safe" and still generally win them. Not in all cases, but on average, the end result should be veto-proof Democratic majorities forever.

Like I said, I still voted no. To me, it's about the fairness of the democratic process, not necessarily winning and losing. But when it passed, I said right from the get-go that I'm going to have a lot of fun watching the CA Republican party completely implode in 2012.

Congratulations Republicans! You guys made your bed, now have fun lying in it!

Posted by Greg on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 3:31 pm

will surely hate to see what happens when they do well!

Of course, CA is a special case and it's striking that the USA ex-California is a very solidly right-wing country. While the GOP have won the twice the number of Presidential elections even despite the "California Effect".

I think it's perfectly fair that the GOP and Dem's had equal representation on this committee, since the alternative is to turn the State into a one-party Dictatorship. The 2/3 rule ensures that we still have bi-partisan government in this State and that is of crucial importance.

I wouldn't write off the State of Nixon, Reagan and Arnie just yet. 40% of the population cannot be ignored, whatever system we use to determine districts. And most Californians want an effective opposition who can materially affect policies.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 3:59 pm

You're talking about 2010. I'm talking about the first post-redistricting election. You may want to think before you hit "send." Just like the Reeps should have thought before they pulled the trigger on redistricting pseudo-reform.

Now that you mention it, however, 2010 was a great case in point. Even when the moon and stars aligned nationally for Republicans, they didn't gain a single seat in California. In fact they lost one in the legislature, plus they lost every single statewide office. And this was in a GOOD year for them, and BEFORE they redistricted themselves into irrelevancy in this state.

I fail to see how it's fair to give Dems and Repubs equal representation on the commission when the voters of California don't choose to give them equal representation in their registration. If Democratic majorities = "one party dictatorship" to you, you're entitled to that opinion (though I'm guessing you've never actually lived in one like I have). But the fact remains that voters are choosing that majority out of their own free will. Why should a minority party like the Republicans be entitled to equal representation when they clearly have smaller registration numbers? Why are the Republicans entitled to it, and not, say the Greens, or the Natural Law Party? Seems to me that it would make more sense to give them representation proportionate to their numbers in the population.

The demographics that you speak of are long gone, and getting worse for the Republicans with every passing year. Arnie was a fluke, an exception due to his Hollywood status. An "ordinary" Republican can no longer win statewide, even against a terrible candidate (witness the Democrats running someone like Kamala Harris for AG, and still pulling out a win).

The 2/3 rule is no longer in effect for the budget, and for what it's worth Democrats WILL have 2/3 of the legislature after the 2012 elections. And the best part is, it's all due to the Republicans' meddling in the redistricting process! Ain't the Law of Unintended Consequences great?

Posted by Greg on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 5:32 pm
Har

Why are progressives entitled to anything in SF?

As they meander off the stage in SF, progressive get more and more like state republicans in their sense of entitlement.

This whole issue is comical in it's progressive denial of the real world as they complain about republicans doing same.

If the republicans started to plot a more center course they would start gaining membership.

You remove all context from the issue, with top two and redistricting, the extreme left, may no longer win democrat nominations in many districts, and thus an end to the far left stranglehold.

Californians may not be far right republicans, but they are not brain damaged progressives, even in SF where Lee pummeled you boy.

And again, progressive bitching about a change in the election process is bad. High comedy.

More democrats doesn't mean more far left loonery. That takes progressive shills for SEIU. Many moderate democrats are not SEIU servile Avalos types.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 6:46 pm

Progressives ba-a-a-a-ad. Baa-aa-aad. Whatever.

And I wouldn't hold your breath about Top 2 electing candidates that you agree with. True enough, Top 2 is worse than redistricting. But I don't think it'll matter much in the end. Some voters will use the opportunity to make mischief in the other party's primary (I know I will!). But most aren't that devious. Democrats will generally vote for Democrats and Republicans for Republicans. And indies will do the same as they always do in primaries- mostly stay home. Those that don't... well they can do the same thing they already have the right to do by requesting a party ballot.

I predict that the outcome will change few races, and when it does it will do so in unpredictable ways. Where they use the jungle primary (in Louisiana), it has led to a few very interesting (and thoroughly undemocratic) results, in those cases where one party's vote is much more split than the other's. You occasionally get liberal Democrats representing conservative Republican districts, conservative Republicans representing majority black Democratic districts, and the occasional neo-Nazi loon getting elected. What has definitely NOT happened, is the election of more moderates. And when you really think about how top 2 works in reality (as opposed to pie-in-the-sky theory dreamed up by half-wits like Arnie and St. Abel), that's not really surprising.

But electing "moderates" (whatever that means) isn't really what you want, is it? I watched you long enough to understand that you're not moderate, you're not progressive, you're not conservative... you're just an all purpose sarcastic troll who's more interested in trying to play rhetorical gotcha games than in any kind of intelligent discourse. Given your total lack of consistency, one might be tempted at first glance to say that "it's always year zero" with you, but that assumes that you actually believe what you say at the moment you say it. But I've watched you long enough to understand that what you practice is not necessarily hypocrisy per se, because a hypocrite actually believes different, inconsistent, things in different situations (but believes them nonetheless). In your case, I actually don't think you even believe what you say. With you, it's not about advancing any kind of opinion, however inconsistent. It's about scoring some kind of rhetorical point, or posting some sarcastic comment... about something, anything. It's just the way you amuse yourself. It's just the way you relate to other people. Like I said, whatever. Different strokes for different folks.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 7:15 pm
Posted by matlock on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 9:08 pm

is decline to state.

That would be people not inclined towards either party, those are the people who will be voting in primaries for moderates.

People not owned by the religious right nuts or property of the SEIU.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 9:11 pm
Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 10:10 pm

as the actual number of seats each party gets will vary. We can't keep changing it at every election due to passing whims. As long as we're essentially a two party State then it's reasonable not to let one party run away with everything. Redistricting is not itself a party political process - it stands outside it as it must in order to govern it.

The results this time do not show that the GOP "shot itself in the foot". As Tim noted, any method would have given the Dem's more seats in the current situation. But the current situation may not last. You're assuming Dem's will always win but they've lost in the past and could lose again in the future.

In fact, if you strip out the ridiculously left-wing Bay Area, the State is probably 50/50 - much closer to the nation as a whole.

While if the Repub's are really "getting worse" then why did they walk the 2010 election and look well placed to take the Senate next year, and maybe even the Presidency (altho personally I think Obama will squeeze a lame duck second term)?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 8:37 am

parts of Georgia, you too get a state much closer to 50-50.

Actually to get a "50-50" California you'd need to strip out all of the counties of the Bay Area, most of Los Angeles county, wine country and big parts of the Central Valley. THEN you'd get to "50-50."

CA is a blue state. And until either the state splits and/or secession occurs it will continue to be blue. Republicans have next to no credibility here and every year they make it worse and worse for themselves.

And FYI - most of those "decline to state" voters are liberals.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 1:50 pm

doing a good job of frustrating every attempt by the CA Dem's to raise taxes, borrowing and spending.

The reality is that urban area's are left-wing because they contain the most poor, unemployed and homeless - people who will always vote to confiscate wealth because they have none.

While by land area, the State and the Nation is probably 90% Republican.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 2:05 pm

As are the Republican-dominated counties in WA state. Most red states are also welfare states - sucking money from those allegedly "poor, unemployed and homeless"-filled states like California.

And if the CA Republican party were doing such a bang-up job then why does its membership keep shrinking and why does not a single Republican hold any state-wide offices?

People like you are a gift to Democrats. Just keep bleating that "up is down" while Dems win more and more elections. You're doing Democrats an enormous favor by burying your head in the sand.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 3:21 pm

Nobody whines about defeat more than a diehard leftie.

While it's hardly news that the poor support the GOP more, while only the rich can afford to vote Dem.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 4:26 pm

better than I could have :-)

Posted by Guest on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 5:03 pm

Likely no.

The following is why progressives like Tim are bitter about the democrats not being able to set their own districts.

===

Politically, according to the Times/USC poll, the nonpartisans occupy the ideological ground you'd expect, midway between the Democratic and Republican folds. They tend to be fiscally conservative and socially moderate.

Demographically, they look like the future of California, meaning that their sway should only increase. They are more white than the Democratic Party and more Latino than the Republican Party. They are more Asian than either party and between the two when it comes to African Americans.

Fully 55% are college graduates, compared with fewer than half of Democrats or Republicans. A quarter of them are aged 18 to 29, the same as Democrats and Republicans combined. Six in 10 are under age 50, compared with less than half among Democrats and even fewer among Republicans.

As much as on those characteristics, however, their distance from the parties rests also on cultural measures.

Much of the Democratic Party's success has been based on its alliance with organized labor. But the nonpartisans, working in newer industries, are far less apt to be union members than Democrats.

Much of the Republican Party's heft has come from its alliance with churches. But the nonpartisans appear to disdain organized religion as much as they do organized political parties.

Thirty-six percent said they never attended services, compared with 22% for Republicans. More than one in five said they did not have a religion, four times the number of Republicans.

Some of that may change as they age, but their general loosened-from-the-moorings approach to politics explains why they have sided with different parties when it comes to the two biggest races in California this year.

In the race for senator, they were with Democrat Barbara Boxer, a political figure whom many of them grew up with and who shares their social profile.

In the race for governor, they were inclined toward Republican Meg Whitman, whose ads -- which do not mention her party and are big on efficiency and shaking up the status quo -- appeal to their secular political views. The Democrat in the race, Jerry Brown, will turn 72 this week and left office before many of the nonpartisans were either born or living here. Thirty-nine percent couldn't identify him, far more than Democrats or Republicans.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 4:48 pm

I found the article you didn't link to, and I tracked down the poll. Both are complete horseshit.

But even among the complete horseshit, you chose not to provide a link so that you could cherrypick what supported your opinion-o-the-hour. The lead paragraph in that same article clearly stated that it's Republicans who have a particularly hard time connecting with those elusive independent voters.

The basis for all the punditry of the article, however, was a poll that proved to be completely wrong. The poll gave Meg Whitman a 3 point lead, when in fact Brown won in a crushing landslide. The poll also had the "moderate" Tom Campbell leading in the senate race. Tom who? Well if you start with the thesis that voters who have no values whatsoever are the key to any election, having someone like Tom Campbell in the lead makes perfect sense. Except for one small problem -reality. In reality, Tom Campbell was thoroughly annihilated. No tweak of the electoral system could have salvaged his candidacy given the margin he lost by, a mere two months after that poll was taken.

So basically, you dig up a poll that turned out to be 100% wrong, and based on the findings of that faulty poll, you cherry-pick certain passages from a pundit who took the results as gospel, and make all sorts of conclusions about the California electorate.

FAIL

Posted by Greg on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 5:17 pm

Decline to state are not "liberal" as all sorts of data shows.

You also think that progressive speak for the people, thus the beating that Avalos got by the people.

You crack me up.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 25, 2011 @ 11:12 am

Yes, it's true that if you strip out half the Democrats, what's left is pretty close to 50-50. On the other hand, if you strip out the ridiculously right-wing Orange County and a few other Republican hot-spots, what's left is pretty close to 80-20. There are geographical concentrations for both major parties. (And if you leave out Silicon Valley and San Diego, there aren't as many Libertarians, and if you leave out the Bay Area, there are a lot fewer Greens, and either way there are more pot smokers than registered Republicans so the Marijuana Party ought to be in second place.)

California's Republicans tried to gerrymander the system by getting more representation on the redistricting committee than they deserved, and unlike in Texas, they weren't competent enough to finish the game and get more districts. (And yes, the Democrats also cheated.)

I'm a Libertarian, and while you'd expect me to oppose the fiscally incompetent irresponsible Democrats in the state legislature, I think California's Republicans have been worse - radically increasing the size and cost of our prison system, using Prop 8 to try to get more Republicans to the polls, and trying to sweep fiscal problems under the rug instead of fixing them when they had the Governor's seat.

And until the national Republican Party cleans up the corruption of the right-wing Rove/Norquist/Cheney/Koch/FoxNews mob, it's not safe to elect Republicans to _anything_, because state legislators become Congressmembers, town council members become state legislators, and school boards and dog catchers become town council members. So I'm glad the Republicans failed in their attempted gerrymander, and since I'm in a solidly Democrat district in a solidly Democrat state, I'll be safe voting for the Libertarians or the Greens or independents if I get a choice.

Posted by Bill Stewart on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 11:31 am

So if the democrats get representation equal to their registration then whats the point? They will just gerrymander to their advantage.

As long as districts are made up so that things are carved up around the general political beliefs of an area, we are going to be stuck with true believers on the left and right.

Read the other articles here and look at the history of the progressives in this city, Tim is just spouting a red herring, he's not upset about the number of republicans on the committee, he's upset that democrats can't scheme it all to their advantage. These Guardianaughts are the same folk who complained that they got out connived out of the mayors office.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 12:57 pm

It seemed to me that Tim wasn't particularly upset about anything in the final product. Sounds like he thought the map was pretty balanced given the state's demographics, and the only thing he was upset about was that a usually decent journalistic outfit was carrying water for the Republican sour grapes crowd, without much justification.

Posted by Greg on Dec. 28, 2011 @ 3:45 pm

Oh Mattie, STFU, you're sooo boring.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 9:18 pm

On how downtown needs to pay for transit through a new tax?

Posted by matlock on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 9:31 pm

Check Sue Bierman's Prop O.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 23, 2011 @ 10:11 pm

Maybe you could recap? again, for the 1,000,000 time.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 4:58 am

Check Sue Bierman's Prop O.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 8:30 am

SF voters may be gullible and near-sighted but they're not completely stupid.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 9:39 am

Depends what you mean by 'big'. As one contemporary report stated, "...it was defeated by a massive disinformation campaign financed by the Shorenstein Company - the largest building owner in downtown - and the Building Owners and Managers Assosciation...". If you are truly interested, and not just blowing smoke, you may want to check this link, it is the official election pamphlet for that election cycle, hope it works, be patient as it takes a while to load and you then have to scroll through.
http://sfpl4.sfpl.org/pdf/main/gic/elections/November8_1994short.pdf
It is 'interesting' to note the list of 'notables' and organisations who supported this measure, and the 'u$ual s$uspect$' opposing. The more recent contest between Lennar's Prop G and the peoples Prop F shows that it's just the SOS and that we do not have a government of, by and for the people, the control of the corporate oligarchy just gets more powerful and oppressive. Also worth noting is that one of Supervisor Kim's 'campaign promises' was to at least explore and revisit this proposal as a possible solution to a sustainable public transit system. I have personally 'discussed' this with her and a few other 'notable electeds', so far the silence is deafening.
Oh yeah, to answer your question, Prop O was defeated, rounded out numbers.
YES: 91,000.
NO: 110,000.
Considering the massive amounts of money poured into 'defeating' both Props O & F; the gullibility of the electorate; the historical, corrupted, business as usual practices down at the City Hall of Smoke and Mirrors, I don't consider the defeat of either measure to be by 'large margins', just an indication that there are still significant numbers of informed citizens who will not just lay back and swallow bullshit of the Pac Heights Mafia and 'La Familia'.
Ho-ho-ho, and an 'interesting' New Year.
No retreat-No surrender.
"We" will keep on fighting for the rights of Elves and the rest of us 'little people'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWMTF5fLA6o
WARNING. If you're a typical humorless T-bag troll you may be offended by the little ditty above (assuming the link works), bite me, but not where it shows.
GO NINERS.

H

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 2:32 pm

Despite informing everyone, to universal enormous delight, that his days on this site were numbered as of Nov 4th, 2011 so he could work on his much-anticipated "autobiography" and perfect his stand-up comedy act (and neither of those is a joke either).

Listen H - if you're going to post under someone's name other than your own then don't end your comment with an "H."

You are absolutely witless.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 3:26 pm

Although claiming victory for a lost election could be any number of people here.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 4:25 pm

Except H and Patrick Monk are good friends going back a long way.

Shortly after the election I noticed that Monk's posts were changing in tenor and they sounded like vintage h. Brown. I knew that H, a self-declared member of the "progressive intelligentsia," wouldn't be able to stay away for long despite the long, self-pitying "farewell" he posted to this site on November 3rd. What's sad is that he's either so dumb or drunk (or both) that he didn't realize that he posted his own initial at the end of that last reply.

H - we've all known that you're a scummy liar and a self-important windbag for a long time now. Thanks for proving that you're not only those but also a sad, lonely sockpuppet who can't keep a promise longer than he can hold an erection.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 5:02 pm

You are probably the same ignorant bigoted 'guest' I just eviscerated on another stream. I'm flattered that you might confuse my post with that of someone like 'h', who has a depth of knowledge of SF's political history over the last few decades that is superior to most; I think even his most acerbic critics would not dispute that, even if they reject all the positions and pronouncements he takes and makes.
If 'h' has something to say he will say it, not whine and cower in a dark corner like you.
You are a pathetic, uninformed, imbecile. Gotta dig out my 'hagfish' links in case I decide to respond to any more of your tripe.
GO NINERS.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 5:12 pm

I know I always sign my posts with someone else's signature - I mean, doesn't everyone?

You're both pathetic. Knowingly allowing someone else to use your real name to post should be a bannable offense here.

Posted by Guest on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 5:17 pm

I really don't care that much either way, just surprised at how bizarre this is. Once again, H - you're signed your name to one of these posts... lol.

Did you already forget you did that or something, lol? Weird.

Oh well, happy holidays.

Posted by Longtime Lurker on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 11:45 pm

NO, 'everyone' doesn't, usually it's only irrelevant deceitful malicious arseholes like you.
Despite the unholy amoral morass you and your ilk have created and dumped us all in, there are still some 'pathetic', patriotic, principled righteous folks who are committed to speaking their truth in their own names; if anyone wants to steal and 'use my name', feel free, at least I have a real one that can be stolen.
What other offenses would you like to make 'bannable'.
I could suggest that at some time in the future, when we can predict what kind of human being a foetus might develop into, those like you who demonstrate traits of devolution, might be banned from the right to birth. In a future incarnation, as opposed to helping those who are dying, I might find myself preventing the birth of someone who would only bring more hate, ignorance and misery into the world. What's that sound!! - oh yeah, it's my forceps crushing your pointy little pin head.
Now that should give you dickheads some opportunities to attack me, if you have the wit and cojones, I may respond, it's all grist for the mill, but I may not, that's a gentle man's prerogative.
Happy Hogmanay y'all.
Keep on fighting for all 'the little people'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWMTF5fLA6o.
Yo 'h', gimme a call or whatever.
GO NINERS.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 7:30 pm

The previous is definitely a Monk comment - full of ad-hominems and veering dangerously towards the unhinged. Interestingly enough it doesn't address why Monk was signing his comments "H." But he doesn't need to - because we all know H is too much of a coward to admit he's posting under Monk's name, that Monk is complicit in this deception and that h. Brown, desperate for attention and lacking other outlets for his fevered "intellectual" fervor, REALLY has absolutely no life to speak of.

Two sad old men - building a fantasy world for themselves as the dawning realization of their irrelevance creeps closer and closer in their old age.

"It's beginning to smell a lot like sockpuppets"

Posted by Guest on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 8:17 pm

Hey there silly 'guest', your powers of perception are as pathetic as your 'politics'.
This might help clarify things for you.
**Every post that is 'signed' by me, may be by me, but it may or may not be. It may be by 'h' - or your momma - or some one else, but then again it may or may not be by any of them or any one else, or it may be by an anony-mouse guest, or not, depending on when it was posted.
Every post that is not 'signed' by me may be by me, or 'h', or your momma or some one else, or not; maybe depending on the phase of the moon or a simple twist of fate, or not, it may be from me or some one else, or not, perhaps.**
I tried to edit the text above between the asterisks, (they're the funny little thingies that look like this *) and avoid using polysyllabic (long) words out of respect for your 'difficulties', please don't feel bad, there is no reason to be ashamed and there are still a few remedial classes offered at CCSF that you could probably benefit from.
Happy Hogmanay 'H', and the rest of the alphabet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtZR3lJobjw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqax3RnfnE
PS. For those 'friends and foes' higher up on the evolutionary ladder, in all the many years I have been posting here and elsewhere it has always been under my real name. Why the hell would anyone else want to use 'my name'.
Much like Angela my linen has been hanging on the line and blowing in the wind for a long time. Nowhere to run-Nowhere to hide

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 10:09 pm
Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 24, 2011 @ 11:07 pm

I hope 'h' is getting as much of a chuckle out of this as I am. Like Lurker, frankly my dear I don't give a damn, but I was curious as to what lit a fire under the gormless guest's butt, and on reading an earlier post I noticed that a solitary H appeared between the post and my signature, it was an inadvertent typo but boy did it ever get stupid's knickers in a twist!!
FYI, witless wanker, 'h' always signs using lower case, I'm surprised that with your amazing powers of observation and deduction that fact, like so many others, escaped you, oh well, none so blind as those that can't see.
Time to put the roast in the oven.
Thanks for the entertainment.
HO - HO - HO.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 25, 2011 @ 10:49 am

PG&E incentive system blamed for leak oversights:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/25/MNCJ1M9AVC.D...

With the audit records being requested by The Chronicle nonetheless!! So "Guest", does The Chronicle--which I imagine is much more a reputable and objective newspaper to you-- have some bias against PG&E now?

Happy spinning!

Posted by Michael W. on Dec. 25, 2011 @ 12:00 pm

You've gotten such a "chuckle" that you've been posting furiously, insulting every other poster with unintelligible screeds and then, realizing you weren't refuting the original allegation, saying the capital H was a "typo."

It's OK Monk - I always make typos, two return bars down from my original paragraph. And I know when I do they're usually capitalized :-)

Posted by Guest on Dec. 25, 2011 @ 2:19 pm

The only poster I see Patrick doing it to is you, "Guest". Oh, that's right, you represent the "silent majority" that everyone here apparently tries to ignore. So yes, I guess you are every other contributor here.

Btw: did it ever occur to you that people can tell the difference between Patrick's writing and h. brown's?

Posted by Michael W. on Dec. 25, 2011 @ 7:49 pm

Another case of conservatives demanding special rights in the political process to guarantee greater than equal outcomes.

Posted by marcos on Dec. 25, 2011 @ 11:11 am

screed a few weeks ago where he bemoaned older whites, like himself, voting.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 25, 2011 @ 11:15 am

Excellent point Mattie. Once someone reaches, oh maybe 65, let's just euthanize them, generally they; have served their function as 'productive societal units'; place a burden on the health care system; expect Social Security, Pensions etc; block the streets and sidewalks by walking or driving to slow; know where the skeletons are buried; have little left to lose or gain; have to much free time and can turn into curmudgeonly activists; demand green space and golf courses, etc.
Let's come up with a Final Solution to rid the world of useless geriactrics.
Ho - Ho - Ho.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 25, 2011 @ 2:39 pm

Is Monk typing now or has he allowed H a turn at the driver's seat?

Posted by Guest on Dec. 25, 2011 @ 3:14 pm

I don't think he favors any of these things.

You should know that better than me.

Posted by matlock on Dec. 26, 2011 @ 12:20 pm

C'mon Mattie, where's your sense of humor, I was being ironic!!
I think there are two 'matlocks' posting here. Over the years the original has frequently made intelligent contributions to discussions which, though I may vehemently disagree with them, definitely articulate a valid point of view. The other is just another driveling idiot like many of the intellectually challenged 'guests' who post here. "It is better to say nothing and have people think your are stupid, than open your mouth and remove all doubt".
I am not 'h'.
GO NINERS.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 26, 2011 @ 12:43 pm

Not h. and Patrick Monk RN swapping monikers. Nope - those two have nothing to do with it.

It's all Matlock's fault!!! Focus on Matlock!! Not on Patrick Monk RN or h. Brown. It was all the result of a "typo" everyone!!!

Posted by Guest on Dec. 26, 2011 @ 6:03 pm

Finally,you get it.
OK, Greg, basta, but it's sometimes such fun tweaking the trolls and exposing their outlandish opinions (Happy New Year to Paul T).
Nothing on redistricting except I'm sure it won't be good for anyone other than the political powers that be.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Dec. 27, 2011 @ 10:23 am