Guess who's unopposed for supervisor?


Here's an interesting fact to think about: There are exactly two people running unopposed for the SF Board of Supervisors, two people whose constituents support them strongly enough that nobody thinks a challenge would be effective (or necessary). And those are two supes who have consistently stuck to the progressive agenda and uncompromising progressive politics. They've done exactly what they promised to do four years ago; they haven't moved to the center, haven't tried to redefine their politics ... they are who they are. And that works.

Just worth noting.


A sad commentary on the state of progressive politics in San Francisco in 2012. The last two true believers on the Board of Supervisors.

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 4:59 pm

And Carmen Chu ran unopposed in 2010. What's your point?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 5:19 pm

>"And Carmen Chu ran unopposed in 2010. What's your point?"

Oh, come on...don't be cruel. Let Tim enjoy a big 'victory'. Of course it means nothing but let him have ONE moment at least where he can make believe that the Progressive movement isn't in complete shambles.

Posted by Troll on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 8:27 pm

Probably, folks are only waiting for them to hang themselves with their own dope.

Posted by Tom Ferriole on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 6:26 pm

It's revealed wisdom amongst Reagan republicans that if only a conservative would run he or she would always prevail. Tim takes the Phyllis Schlafly / Ann Coulter 90's complaint about Clinton to heart.

It's also interesting that rote conservative districts are brainwashed, while rote "liberal" districts are somehow more clever.

As I live in Camposes district and get a laugh at his ongoing crazy, I find this all very entertaining. Can't wait for Campos and Avalos to be the only apparatchik's to vote for Mirkarimi.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 7:00 pm

Have you tried talking to your elected officials?

Posted by oiseau on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 2:53 pm
Posted by matlock on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 3:23 pm

So you think that is telling too? I think you should think before you write some of this shit

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 8:00 pm

Another "stop the presses" story!!!!

Posted by Fly on the wall. on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 8:12 pm

This is not a Progressive v Moderate issue - but rather a demonstration of the power of incumbency in most city races. How does the city or these districts benefit from being effectively stripped of substantial debate?

Thank goodness for term limits.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 8:45 pm

Well said. As with every other issue, the Guardian's shpiel would be completely different if it were a non-"progressive" who faced no opposition.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 9:07 pm

The huge problem with term limits is that if a supe serves two terms, once he or she is re-elected for a second term, that supe is not accountable at all to the voters and can do whatever the hell he or she wants with no penalty that voters can inflict on the person. Fifty percent is a big % of time for a politician to not be accountable to the voters.

The other big prob is that with each election, the cost to run increases so that the filter that restricts those without access to big money increases. Thus the only ones who are in position to win either are either part of a powerful machine or very very rich or a whore for very very rich interests.

Term limits is idiotic. It sells well because most ppl don't do any thinking beyond the simplistic, "defeat the bastards!" or something along the lines.

With TL, the politician is more tied to being a rep of private interests than the ppl of the City. Why? The first reason is what I said above: costs a fortune to run and thus one has to sell themselves to have the assets to run a competitive race (or be very rich).

The second reason is that the politician knows he or she will soon be out of office so the politician is lining up his future (a great-paying job of some sort) almost from the time he or she gets elected. That becomes the pol's most important considerations AND NOT the future of the City.

Fact of the matter is that term limits is something thought of and pushed by rightwing, monied interests and ppl, in general, have bought into it because they haven't thought much about how it plays out.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 9:10 pm

Avalos and Campos offer up no credible political threat to neoliberal designs on San Francisco's government. There is no organized base of any strength standing behind them to give heft to any more ambitious efforts. Jane Kim and David Chiu trade off swing votes for the machine and that is the only real action on BOS politics these days. That is why downtown is not wasting resources running against John and David, because they don't have to, they've got the board and Mayor in their pockets already.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 8:47 pm

Just as Mondale got the shit kicked out of him in 1984.

There is no downtown unconspiracy here, any sane person isn't going to waste their time and energy on this, the stakes are so low that no one is going to put months of their lives into trying to unseat these two bone heads.

Posted by matlock on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 9:40 pm

Don't try to tell marcos "the machine" might not be in play in any issue. You would rob him for his reason for living.

Posted by Hortencia on Oct. 07, 2012 @ 5:00 pm

you might as well point out how easily right-wingers win the Marina district, or how a black always wins Bayview.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 9:32 pm

So? Under the old system, we had a homogenous, rubber-stamping Board. I think messy diversity better represents San Franciscans.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 10:13 pm

The supes then spend all their time fighting each other. And then downtown gets its way anyway.

Perhaps you'd love Italy where they have PR, and coalition governments that last on average about 8 months.

Sometimes it's better to have strong, single-minded leadership than ideological paralysis.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2012 @ 10:53 pm

The district elected Board of Supervisors is tame when compared to the antics of the at-large boards up until the mid 1990s. There were some knock-down drag-out fights back then that approached the melees at thee Korean parliament.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 6:20 am

District elections (DE) are a great idea. To go back to city wide elections would be the stupidest thing San Francisco could do (which is why it won't happen).

With DE, the voters of a district have much more power to remove a supe and thus the supe has to serve that district much more so than if the supe was elected city wide.

In the Richmond District, Eric Mar did the bidding of the late rightwing Republican billionaire Donald Fisher by helping Fisher get 10 acres of a grass field converted to a plastic, toxic dead turf - a field that is no longer part of the GG Park ecosystem.

If Eric Mar was a city-wide supe, the ppl of the Richmond would have no chance of removing him. Now they can because it's possible to communicate with the ppl of a district - and not possible to communicate with the whole City (unless one is extremely rich or a powerful corp).

It's fortunate that Eric Mar hasn't won his second term yet, for then he would be unaccountable - just like with city-wide elections, for he would be termed out of office and it wouldn't matter what the ppl did. He may pay a price for selling out GG Park and the Richmond District in pushing for the removal of 10 acres of the GG Park ecosystem.

The real crime in what he and the other 9 supes (only Sup. Olague went against the Fisher-Newsom-Ginsberg axis) was that they laughed at the GG Park Master Plan by approving a plan that was so much a violation of that GGP MP that it was almost worthy of a Steven Colbert piece.

Only those who want to take the power away from the ppl would be in favor of a return to city-wide elections (unless one didn't know this was the case - but it is).

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 9:24 pm

when it was turned into a park vs. a series of low, sandy dunes. It's not a game preserve - it's a park to be enjoyed by people. Long live the new soccer fields!!!

Posted by Troll II on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 9:51 pm

Yes the creation of GG Park was a change from barren, generally lifeless sand dunes - and it was a fantastic change for it added a lot more life to the whole area which is a huge reason it's loved so much by natives and tourists.

Humans can use the park - including the soccer fields - without turning it into a toxic, lifeless area like what will happen there thx to Mar and the other supes (besides Olague) and Phil Ginsberg (Rec & Park GM). What this does is essentially make that area no longer part of GG Park for it is no longer part of the park's ecosystem.

And violating the Park's master plan like this project does means the rule of law means nothing. It means if you are a politician or the head of a city agency, you can essentially do what you want because then you get to ignore those city laws you want to as long as you have fellow politicians and commissioners behind you. That "we can do what we want no matter what are on the books because we have the power" quality of this project should bother people even if one is for destroying the ecosystem there.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:25 pm

The refusal of the conservatives to run someone against Avalos and Campos frees them to vote against removing Mirkarimi and indicates that the conservatives have resigned themselves to the fact that Ross will be reinstated as Olague will probably not commit political suicide by either voting to remove Ross right before facing the voters in D5 or recusing herself.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 17, 2012 @ 7:38 am

Yes, it's wonderful. people have no real debate, no choices and the incumbents get fun money from the general fund to pump out robocalls and junk mail and OOPS ads on the Corporation's Bay Guardian.

YES to oligarchy and Government By the Wisdom of Chairman Redmond! Now if only these guys weren't such colossal fuck-ups. (Avalos lost in a landslide to Ed Lee, the paperboy for WillieRose, and Campos hates America)

Posted by Guest on Aug. 18, 2012 @ 5:57 pm

I don't understand sensationalist remarks. How does one "hate America?"

I don't think anyone living in this country hates all 307 million Americans across the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of square miles in the country.

I never understand when people complain about politics either. It's city government. It's not like it's terribly difficult to get involved. If you don't like the incumbents, either:

A.) Run yourself.


B.) Find someone to run that best represents you.

Et voila.

Posted by oiseau on Aug. 27, 2012 @ 3:02 pm

It says a lot when pro "commenter" Marcos can't respond and at best is just another prog who bellows online but never produces in real life because progs suck balls!!!

Posted by Non troller rolling on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 12:15 am

What is it - sophomore in HS? It has to be that - give or take a year - based on the juvenile languange. And stop parrotting everything you're dad says and start thinking for yourself.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 21, 2012 @ 11:32 pm

You didn't refute anything he said. Marcos is just an online bloviator. What has he done in the real world? NOTHING. Same as the progfrogs - bunch of do nothings who like to masturbate with taxpayer money to the sound of their own voices.

BTW, Mar is going down, and progs are going to lose D5 to a phony like Olague or that clown Rizzo. The fact is that Willie and his backers out play you people over and over again because you're addicted to being losers. Also, Campos is giving his seat away to Lee when he ditches the Board to lap up at the gov't trough in Sacramento. SUCK TO BE YOU PROGGIES

Posted by Guest on Aug. 22, 2012 @ 8:33 am

Like Mirakarimi these two clowns are unemployable anywhere else except SEIU.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 20, 2012 @ 2:27 pm

And perennial candidate Wilma Pang, no matter how admirable she may be, an hardly be considered opposition to David Chiu.

Posted by Guest Ann Garrison on Oct. 07, 2012 @ 4:26 pm

And I'm pretty sure gayness can't be directly correllated to anti-militarism or being a fan of Noam Chomsky. It's a mixed bag isn't it?

Posted by lillipublicans on Oct. 07, 2012 @ 5:04 pm

Both advocates of public power and public banking.

Posted by Guest Ann Garrison on Oct. 07, 2012 @ 4:59 pm

As a constituent of Campos, I can see he is the worst and least responsive supervisor we have ever had. We really need a write-in candidate.

Posted by DB on Oct. 12, 2012 @ 4:37 pm

I am the only official write-in candidate for San Francisco's Supervisorial District 9. I hope to send a message that the residents of San Francisco have a zero tolerance for domestic violence and that you will write-in my name on November 6th to do so.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 29, 2012 @ 3:24 pm