That's all I could think of when I was sent this email from Garry South, the chief strategist of the Hahn for Lt. Governor campaign, who also happens to be a former advisor to the now defunct Newsom for Governor campaign. Newsom, as you may know, might actually run for LG after all, and the fact one of his former advisors is working for another candidate? Well one had to wonder if that was going to end in tears or not.

Today, the following communique was issued by Mr. South. Upon reading it, all I could think of was just how much of a knockdown dragout fight this race could be. Read on:

STATEMENT BY GARRY SOUTH

CHIEF STRATEGIST, JANICE HAHN FOR LT. GOVERNOR

FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR, GAVIN NEWSOM FOR GOVERNOR

I am surprised and perplexed that my friend and former client Mayor Gavin Newsom apparently has decided to jump into the lieutenant governor's race at the last minute - especially against an already-announced candidate who would be the first woman lieutenant governor in California history.

In every one of several conversations we had about the job while he was running for governor, the Mayor expressed nothing but disinterest in and disdain for the office of lieutenant governor. In fact, he was derisively dismissive of Gray Davis's decision to run for and serve as lieutenant governor prior to running for governor ("I'm not a Gray Davis," he said). On a couple of occasions, he directed me to repudiate publicly in the strongest terms that he had any interest in ever running for lieutenant governor.

The Mayor himself told the Chronicle in October that rumors he may run for lieutenant governor were "absurd" and "a complete lie," and angrily accused Jerry Brown of personally spreading false information to that effect. As recently as December, he himself said flatly "no" when asked directly on a San Francisco radio show whether he intended to run for lieutenant governor.

In addition, when he precipitously pulled out of the governor's race in late October - against my advice - he said he couldn't continue as a statewide candidate because he was a husband, a new father and the mayor of San Francisco. So far as I know, he's still a husband, a new father and the mayor of San Francisco. So it's pretty hard to see what's changed over the last four months that would now allow him to run for another statewide office.

If the Mayor does run, it is his responsibility to explain why he now claims to want an elected office he summarily dismissed publicly numerous times over the last several months, and which just earlier this year he called "a largely ceremonial post" … "with no real authority and no real portfolio."

I've got to wonder why Mayor Newsom would want to subject himself to a statewide race against some of his own people, who seem quite willing to take out the blowtorch and pliers and go to work on the Mayor over here. I sure as Hell wouldn't want to go through that, and I can't imagine why Newsom would either. Even if he won the primary, he'd come out of it with enough damage that it might make the LG in reach for the Republicans in November since everything's kind of up in the air now.

Bring on the pain, Democrats!

However, this year there's something new for Valentine's day that's neither pro, nor anti, but instead what the holiday really needs...a brand re-imagining!

Brand New, part of the Under Consideration constellation of websites (which you Select Readers may written recall from past posts), featured this extensive workup of the upgraded, rebranded and improved Valentine's Day. The key component is to create a unique symbol for Valentine's day (as the "heart" image is appropriated by many causes and ideas) with...this new exclusive icon (pictured at right).

Read the rest of the article for the details. It's quite entertaining, actually. For more information on unique branding and marketing, consult your local library, or just go watch this video about how a stop sign would be designed by a modern corporation.

That's not to say that the current system, implemented in 2000, didn't do the same thing. However, I'd suggest that the problem isn't with district elections as a concept (even in a smaller city like San Francisco) - instead it's been the inability of certain factions to adapt and overcome the new terrain. Put simply, if you are faced with district elections, you need to find good people that you can work with to go forth and run who are actually, well, you know, known in the neighborhoods they'll be representing.

This is basic campaign strategy 101, and yet for almost 10 years, this concept seems to have been lost on some, who seem to want to only support candidates who merely take orders, like a waiter or a waitress in a diner. There are at least two Supervisors elected in 2008 who could have been defeated, had perhaps one side used some tactics not involving the political equivalent of a sledgehammer, but didn't, and well, they lost.

However, there's one thing lost in all the discussions about "district elections" that people have generally missed as they blabber on SFGate comments about "the system"- prior to 2000 it was literally impossible to run against a single incumbent Supervisor. Yes, you read that right. If you didn't like what Supervisor John Doe was doing, and you wanted to run against him and give voters that choice, it couldn't happen. (Yes, we did have district elections for a short time, which elected Sup. Milk, among others, but it was repealed soon after the assassinations in 1979.)

That's because of the peculiar way Supervisors were elected prior to 2000. Basically you had many candidates run en masse for Supervisor for a few open spots. The top vote getters would get the seats on the Board, and everyone else would lose.

If we were using this system today, we'd have five spots for people to run for. Every single candidate from the serious to the goofball, would all be on the ballot. This, being SF, you'd have literally a bajillion names to choose from. You, the voter would pick 5, and the top vote getters would be elected, and the rest would lose. You can see how this protects incumbents, who'd have the most money available and "name ID" (which you San Francisco voters really get off on), and how difficult it would be to target a poor performing incumbent who has a lot of cash.

It's fairly stupid, and between this, and the fact that in the 1990s at one point the Mayor at the time appointed most of the Supervisors anyway, you can see why people rebelled and sent a very loud, very pointed "FU" to Mayor Willie Brown and his appointed princes and princesses.

The only problem with district elections in San Francisco, frankly, is the size of the districts. They're so small, and often so oddly drawn, they lead to some strange stuff. For example, I used to live on one side of Judah Street and was in Sup. Elsbernd's district. I moved a block away, and suddenly was in Sup. Mirkarimi's district. WTF?

There is one idea, however, that might have been worth considering, but I think back in those hyper partisan days when it was the downtown folks sticking it to everyone the way the progressives do now, no one was interested. In many cities (such as Seattle, where I lived for 7 years), they elect candidates citywide, but each position is "numbered."

This way, each council seat has its own list of candidates to choose from. If there's an incumbent people can run against them, and if there isn't, then the seat is open. It creates some accountability with incumbents, but doesn't have the limits of a district based system, which was a concern amongst some in Seattle. (Oh and in the Irony Department, it was I who first suggested district elections for Seattle based on experiences in the runoff of 2000. Ha!)

The point is simply this - we have been trying to game the system for one side or another with lots and lots of laws and rules, many of which contradict each other. We tried to punish "big time consultants" with a special tax and filing - we ended up punishing the low-paid campaign manager of the struggling citizen campaign. We passed IRV/RCV/WTF and it has been nothing but an expensive pain in the ass that hasn't delivered on its promises, or gamed the system well (ironically since IRV it is protecting incumbents and "moderate" candidates for citywide office have been unopposed!). District elections have benefits, but there's nothing suggesting that City Hall is any more responsive to the citizen on Real Issues (Muni, anyone?) than it was before.

San Francisco citizens deserve a process that allows them to choose who they want to represent them at city hall that's free of too many corrupting influences, while also being compliant with the Constitution. We do not need the government to game the system to help one faction or another, and we do not need a system so complex, only the wealthy can run.

I can't imagine how it is that a city with so many smart people has to make things slow, stupid, and difficult, and I've got to believe there's enough Smart People out there who can press the reset button and end the howler monkey nonsense that passes for political debate about issues like this. People have had it with a City That Doesn't Know How, and would like to get their money's worth when they pay for a multi billion dollar City/County system that could be doing a lot better.

However, it seems one of my predictions was right on the money. In the post, I noted that Supervisors often come up with big sounding (but do nothing) "charter amendments" so they can sound like they're a big knowitall when they run for Some Other Office. People disputed this, but as it turned out I was right about Sup. Sean Elsbernd's plans for his career.

Today the SF Weekly reported that Elsbernd is aggressively courting supporters for a run for the US House seat held by Jackie Speier, should she decide to run for Attorney General. That's interesting because a) most of the candidates running (6? or more) on the Democratic side are unknown outside their home base, b) Speier leaving the US House after just winning the special election not too long ago says a lot about the US House, and c) Speier could declare for governor and have a ton of support, since there is no declared candidate for Governor on the Democratic side, and the election is just 4 1/2 months away (!).

Does Sup. Elsbernd (or any Supervisor for that matter) deserve a promotion? Personally, I'd hold out for a better candidate, preferably someone not contaminated by the do-nothing dysfunction of Sacramento, or the culture of blame and recrimination that infects the Board Chambers or Room 200.

All of this is moot, if Rep. Speier stays put. Given how crazy the Democrats are, and how they are prone to dumping gasoline on fire and lighting the match, I figure their potential collapse just gets more and more likely the crazier these primaries get. No one votes in them anyway, so if you do vote, you're like 1000 votes instead of one. Have fun!

This is especially funny because ages ago, before "blogs" were a household term, and most of us still had dialup, in the 1990s, someone (and I can't imagine who) recorded one of her meltdowns, concerning the fact that some flowers had been moved to the side of the Senate floor.

Because no one had Internet back then, and newspapers and TV didn't know what it was, and there was no Twitter or Facebook or MySpace, this only spread to the handful of people that a) had Internet and b) gave a crap.

Now, however, times have changed, and Pam (who, like a good Republican is on the public payroll more than once), has been sent to the corner to get her act together.

You can hear her rant from 1995 (or was it 1996?) here (warning it's kinda loud).

First, mix Rammstein (yay!) and other metal bands with Jack Bauer shooting everyone, and you get this:

Now, let's take all the footage we know about what happened at the time of Oceanic 815s crash, put it all together, "24" style, and voila!:

Oh, yeah, I think there's some guy in Washington who was 2008's Apple product, complete with hype created by the crowd too, you know the one who was going to do the same things as the Apple (insert product here), and more. Isn't he speaking today too?

Me? I'm more concerned about how the final season of LOST will end. The Dharma Initiative worked in secret so they never had to contend with the endless amounts of bullshit speculation about what they were going to do, and they were dealing with all kinds of crazy stuff. So, in the end, the fictional event (the one that pushed back the President's address to the nation, and has LESS fictional speculation than the Apple event) ironically is the one I'm looking forward to the most and have absolutely no expectations for at all.

Weird.

Oh and if you don't know about LOST and don't have time to watch 5 seasons before next week...

Think about it: to get elected all you have to do is sound good, look good, and play to the press's desire to cover the horse race. If you're ahead, EVERYONE wants you to win because people like a winner in a horse race.

When you get elected, despite the fact the press focuses on deal-making, in the end, governing is a Hell of a lot more difficult, and many people really don't want you to succeed (no matter who you are).

If things were as simple as the speechmakers claim, it sure would be easier to get things done. Plus when speechwriters and spinners came up with boneheaded ideas (think the Central Subway here in SF as a local example) that have no basis in reality, wouldn't be the clusterfraks they are now.

This isn't exclusive to one party, despite what the partisans on both sides think. You all know who you are.

If you're a legal type, you should read Rick Hasen's excellent blog about election law for links and details about the legalities. There's already a lot o' hollering on the center and the left about the evilness of said ruling, and others who think it's a blow for Lady Liberty's torch. I, on the other hand, am not really sure a lot will really change.

However, several reasonable folks suggest otherwise, pointing out that most corporate money in politics is already there in some convoluted form, and that for the most part, while politicians of all stripes can do dumb things, or make decisions we don't like, the actual cases of "corporate influence" aren't as common as we might think.

News flash: some corporations give money to anti-tax, anti-regulation politicians because, well.....that would be of benefit to them. It's not like people are born believing in some one true ideology, and they ONLY believe otherwise because someone made a donation they can't spend on themselves or their family to their campaign fund. To think so is arrogant.

Plus, we've had endless jurisdictions attempt all sorts of complex regulations to try and force an outcome of the electoral process, usually to favor one side or another. And yet, you can go to F*cking Liberal San Francisco, and guess what? Despite endless gimmicks, the leftists couldn't even put up a candidate for Mayor in the alleged bastion of The Left against a "corporate sponsored Mayor" who had real problems. More to the point - when was it the job of the Constitution (or the City Charter) to ensure only one side wins?

Plus, in the end, you find it's the little campaigns, who don't have the money to hire lawyers and accountants to comply with complex laws having the screws put to them, while the big campaigns who have the support of established interests can weather whatever legalisms the hippies come up with. Ironic, eh?

Finally, if you've ever worked for a big company, you know that big companies and corporations are very bureaucratic, risk-averse to a fault, and do everything in committee. They're not really eager to have to put their name on some politician's campaign, and deal with the fallout if said person loses, or have to deal with an endless line of politicos asking for money from them, with the threat they'll get hurt if they don't.

Here's a simple solution that would adjust to the new reality, and bring back a little sanity to the process. Let's get rid of complex accounting rules for campaigns and come up with a simple system that requires them to publish online within 24 hours what they took in, what they spent it on (or who they spent it on), and make sure that's super easy for anyone to understand. No silly games, no hiding sh*t, just be honest. If people comply, they're cool. If they don't, they have to return the day's cash, no bullsh*t.

If an ad is put out by a candidate (web, TV, mail, whatever) they have to post a URL linking back to said disclosure. If an ad is produced by some group of people (any kind), they have to say who they are, and post their money and spending just like everyone else. No more games, no more silly stories about quarterly reports, no more accounting gimmicks where campaigns hold off paying staff so they can say "lookit how much cash I have on hand" (when they really don't), and if someone is actually dumb enough to take a big bag of loot and change their vote on the eve of some Big Issue, well, we'll all know and it'll be up to the voters to make that decision.

It's times like these I'm glad I no longer have to worry about all of this, and instead will watch a short term burst of cash line the pockets of the people who get paid to produce all of this stuff. Ultimately, no matter who wins on election day, the folks who print the brochures and produce the TV ads get paid anyway, so yay for them.

There are plenty of worse ways to make a living, and for those who enjoy it, at least they don't have to be producing ads for tooth deoderizer.

-Martha Coakley's campaign was spectacularly poor. She didn't campaign like she should have, once she got the Democratic nomination. If part of life is showing up, in campaigns, it is everything. By basically assuming she'd win by default, she made the classic mistake that allowed the other candidate to define the race. She also made several verbal gaffes that amplified her seeming disdain for talking to actual voters.

-Her campaign was run almost exclusively by DC based political people, and veteran campaign consultants and workers were sidelined by the Geniuses from DC. Another sign of something Really Bad. Pushing aside the people who know the state in favor of generic strategies based on abstract polling data and focus groups doesn't work well. Plus, there are a lot of rings that need to be kissed in Massachusetts politics, and you don't necessarily know which ones those are if you're relying on whiz kids from DC.

-Massachusetts is not 100% Communist Leftist Whatever. Massachusetts has elected Republicans as Governor exclusively since 1990, and it was only in 2006, when Deval Patrick won, that the cycle broke. Also, remember that Ted Kennedy himself came dangerously close to losing his re-election in 1994 against Mitt Romney (!), and it took a Herculean effort of money and resource to ensure his re-election. Had it not been for some extremely poor choices of words by Romney, and a recognition that Kennedy was in trouble in time to do something about it, he might have well lost. Remember, in 1994, the Speaker of the US House lost his bid for re-election that year.

-President Obama is an easy target. People know right now they can call him names, they can use code words for the "n-word," and they can call him a liar in front of the entire country, and nothing will happen. Obama's obsession with getting the acceptance of people who quite literally, do not think he's a legitimate holder of the office, and who will say or do anything to tear him down, is his ultimate weakness.

No one fears President Obama if they cross him, so they rip him a new one on any big or little thing (remember that bullshit crying spasm the righties had about his choice of mustard? WTF?). So of course they're going to prop up some dude in Massachusetts and make 41 the new majority number for a Senate of 100. (Wait, what?)

There's no reason why Obama and Democratic office seekers can't turn this around, but it isn't likely they will. Running around and "re thinking" and "re framing" are popular pastimes of bloggers, party insiders, and the endless amount of "staff" of officeholders, and while they're talking and bitching, the other side wants to kick their asses. Until they decide they're going to respond in kind, they will continue to get their asses kicked.

The sad part is the other side has nothing of substance to offer beyond blind rage. When we had them in charge of Everything (President, Senate, House, SCOTUS), the best they could come up with was Tom DeLay/Jack Abramhoff style corruption, a war without end, and endless trillions added to the deficit, and a bubble economy that just blew up on us. But we don't think about that anymore, right?

PS: Oh, and one other thing: despite what the folks Outside of California assume about our Golden State, California is not 1000% Communist either. Look at the history of statewide initiatives and elections starting in 1982, and see just how well "lefties" do. Barbara Boxer has always had to run a tough race, and the Democratic hold on statewide offices has NEVER been absolute, ever.

The fact the California State Democratic Party acts like it IS 1000% Democrat is well, I suppose good news for Republicans?

PPS: Jack Donaghy is one of my all time favorite characters on TV. F*ck yeah, Jack!

To which I say, "who cares?"

Watching the mainstream media lose it over this, however, has been the really obscene thing. I mean, it's not like there's so little going on, what with earthquakes (are we prepared), Muni (are we burning it to the ground) and Everything Else worth reporting - no, take those precious column inches and airtime to yak about this. Predictably, one of the few people who has a rational, sane take on this is none other than Beth Spotswood, over at the SF Appeal.

Personally, I don't care what kind of "language" he uses, and it's a bit much for the Mayor to get all pious now, after the long running disaster his mayoral reign has been. I'm much more interested in what Sup. Daly, and the Board, and the Mayor are going to do to try and repair the damage caused by Gov. Doofinator and his allies in the Democratic Legislature to the budget, so that things that actually matter to me, like a functional transit system and a safe city to live in, are addressed.

If saying "f*ck" helps that along, well that's fine with me. Just go do something productive, and no one will care. Certainly not the mainstream press!

I would add one thing to this - in the end, while we can all complain about (insert politican(s) here), voters have to take some responsibility for this state of affairs. The fact is that none of these people would have been elected without SOMEONE voting for them, more often than not based on emotions, rather than reason, based on silly issues rather than real policy. It doesn't help that voters give every single incumbent an automatic second term, no matter what. (This defeats the point of term limits)

That's why so much of this goes on. The fact that supervisors spend endless amounts of energy on non-binding resolutions over policies they have absolutely no control over is proof. They know they can peddle this "feel good" crap to the voters, who will think Something Is Being Done, when it's not. Just this week we had the pathetic spectacle of "Supervisor" John Avalos parading people to speak out on a resolution to "urge" the state to allow convicted felons the right to be home health care workers. Plenty of heartfelt testimony was broadcast live on cable TV, and everyone got to feel good about standing up for the rights of people convicted of felonies to take care of people's grandmas in their home. WTF?

Mind you, if you think that Governor Schwarzenegger and the State of California (who are in charge of said policies) gives a hoot about what San Francisco elected officials think, go talk to Tom Ammiano about that one (and he's actually important and stuff). It's politics at its most cynical, offering false hope to a few, and a false sense of accomplishment to the electorate and the politicians.

But the Other Side is no better. Mayor "Football Bat" Newsom has been excreting press-release policies since day one, all to make him sound like a great guy, but when you look at his actual record, the only thing he's managed to do is give big pay increases to government workers, and f*ck Muni up bigtime. We were told endlessly in 2003 that if we elected that "crazy" Matt Gonzalez, we'd have a government out of control and an executive who would not be able to manage a city responsibly. Well guess what? Plenty of people DID vote for Matt Gonzalez, and yet, that's exactly what we got anyway.

Over at The N Judah Chronicles whenever I've talked about the Muni budget, I always point out that people are always being asked to pay more for a system that is getting inferior by the day. I can't even count the number of days where the train system has had a total meltdown - always at rush hour time. The same goes for most functions. We're always asked to borrow money (in the form of bonds) for basics like roads and water repairs, while real money goes to pay for poorly managed services. This is like borrowing money to pay one's living expenses each month while spending one's paycheck on crazy crap, then wondering why one is broke and in debt.

Until voters demand better candidates, or step up themselves, and are willing to make their decisions based not on how many f*cking junk mailers or Facebook fan invites or ads they get, and treat this like the serious problem that it is, they will continue to be served up a failing government, and frankly, they will deserve it.

Our City is worth saving, because it's OURS and it's awesome. Or at least it could be if we actually wanted it to be so.

Image credit: SF Weekly