Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Beginning of the End This Thursday?

News is coming out that Obama - after lots of back door meetings with various Hispanic pressure groups - is going to unleash an amnesty proposal on Thursday.

What will it look like? My guess is it'll be the same old shit - full amnesty for all illegals including criminals, an increase in immigration, and lip service to border security. Just what the country needs.

The idea is that their going to do it in a lame-duck Congress, when as this article states...

Voting on an immigration bill in a lame-duck session has some advantages in proponents’ eyes. Outgoing members of Congress would have little reason to fear backing a controversial bill. And those who won might be more likely to support it, since they wouldn’t have to face voters for another two years—when Obama is up for reelection and likely to draw progressives to the polls.

In other words, they're going to expose themselves for the chickenshit pussy cowards that they are.

But it's not like they have much of a choice. The "political reality" is that the American people don't want no mother-fucking amnesty, and the scumbags know it. Obama - despite some bleatings - is not going to attempt an "executive order" to amnesty the illegals; even he must realize that this would be a great way to get shot. They do not have the votes to pass anything while Congress is in flux. And the results of the next election may make that even less likely.

So, defeated at the polls, the last great "fuck you" to America by the liberal Democrats will be to pass a blanket amnesty for up to 30 million invaders.

Who cannot see these people for what they are now?

Friday, June 25, 2010

Thank God It Only Happens Every 4 Years!

Not that I don't like the World Cup - quite the contrary. I love it. Perhaps too much. But, as we saw with the Germans 4 years ago when they hosted, it is great to look around this City and seeing people wearing the red, white, and blue - boldly and proudly - for once.

France is out. Italy is out (and
good riddance to both of them). England was very nearly out. The USA has made two thrilling comebacks - even with horrible calls going against them. The football world has been turned on its head in this cup, and it's been quite entertaining.

The big story lines this time around are the collapse of the European powers, the no-show on the part of the African teams, and the dominance of the South (and North) Americans.

In the USA, I have been very encouraged by the turnouts and support of the people here, even in America-hating San Francisco. In previous Cups, you sometimes had to work to find a place to watch the games. Not so this time; it seems that every single bar in the City that can open at 7 am is open, and they are packed.

I was sick with a stomach flu for the England game, which put a damper on my plans to watch it on the Jumbotron at AT&T Park. Several thousand non-puking SFers did make it there and had a good time. I'll put a video up when I can.

For the Slovenia match I braved the Lower Haight's famous Mad Dog - which was a soccer bar long before it was cool to be one - to hang out with crazy American soccer fans packed in a standing room only space to watch a great comeback. The place went absolutely nuts when the USA won the game (okay... should have won the game, but the goal was disallowed by the lame-ass referee).

Evil has a name, and it is Koman Coulibaly.

Wednesday was another early day... at the bar at 6:30. This time it was Yancy's in the Inner Sunset - the huge space, lots of screens, and chairs to sit in came as a welcome contrast to the Mad Dog, though they're both good in their own way. It might have been a more sedate atmosphere, but the place still erupted when Landon Donovan finally exorcised the demons of the awful American performance of 2006 in the 91st minute.

The first match showed that sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. The Algeria match proved that - much more often - it's better to be good than lucky.

This World Cup comes at a critical point in a lot of ways for international football. Playing for ones country is still a great honor,
if you play for, say, North Korea, or some of the smaller, newer European countries, or some of the powerhouse South American teams. But more and more you see some teams (France... I'm looking at you) where the players really don't seem to care.

The way it used to be was that international football was a big step up from club football, because you would take the best members of your country's clubs, who were mostly - if not totally - made up of your fellow countrymen. Nowadays, with the pro leagues being opened up, when Manchester United and Arsenal can field a team with virtually
no English players, when Athletico Madrid or Barcelona can field a team with virtually no Spanish players, then what does an international match mean? For many players, it represents a step down from what they are used to. And they play like it.

But then, this is the theme of the great coming war, isn't it? World War III - if and when it does come - will be a war about identity. It will be a culture war - a war of preservation of culture in the face of those who would murder it - for the sake of profit or for the sake of (anti-) humanism. And this war will be international - it will be global. A war between those who value culture, who value identity, who value humanity and the differences which make it so interesting and lively, and those who don't.

I am really looking forward to the rest of the tournament. The French were terrible and they will not be missed. The Italians, too, played about 15 good minutes of football in this entire tournament, and their 15 minutes are up. Both of them deserved to go home, and it's nice for a change to see these two not given an automatic berth to the second round.

Saturday's game against Ghana will be awesome! 11:30 am PST on ABC, or in my case, at Yancy's. It's not going to be easy, but it is doable. Ghana has been the only African team out of 6 that didn't fail to get out of the group stage, and the South African crowd will be solidly behind them. We'll be the hated underdogs once again. But then we are the USA; we've played in hostile matches against some of the worst anti-American fans in the world... from Guatemala City, to Mexico City, to the most hostile place of all for American soccer - Los Angeles.

So here's my cheer for the USA (with apologies to Millwall FC...)

"No one likes us
No one likes us
No one likes us
We don't care!

We're the Yankees
Bloody Yankees
We're the Yankees
From USA!"

Friday, June 11, 2010


World Cup 2010 starts in... oh... 6 hours.

South Africa takes on lowly Mexico at 7 AM, so I'd better get some sleep.

It's gonna be a long month.

Come to AT&T Park on Saturday to see the US v England at 11:30. It's free. What else are you gonna do?

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Election ReCap: Harris Wins But Faces Possible Annihilation In The General

The election is over and we won some and lost some.

The biggest loss is that Kamala Fucking Harris is the Democratic Nominee for the Attorney General race. Not much of a surprise really, but the good news is that her victory was
far from convincing, and the results show pretty tepid support even among Democrats.

Harris won with a mere 33.1% of the total vote, with four challengers polling in double figures. When fewer than 1 in 3 voters in your own party vote for you, it says you pretty much suck. Harris
failed to get 50% of Democratic primary voters in every single county except two - San Francisco, of course, and - much to my undying shame - Marin.

Marin... I don't even
know you.

The results also showed that Harris still has not achieved much name recognition in SoCal; the only counties she carried were LA (30%) and Orange (24.7%).

Republican Nominee Steve Cooley, by contrast, was strong across the board, outpolling Harris by nearly 200,000 votes statewide.

So, all in all it looks good, and the real dirt on Harris has yet to surface. We haven't yet heard from Kamala's victims - namely the widow of slain SFPD officer Isaac Espinosa, a case is which Harris refused to seek the death penalty for a cop-killer based on her own "philosophy," and Danielle Bologna, the woman who had her husband and two sons murdered by an illegal alien gangster who had been repeatedly shielded from immigration authorities and let off easy on serious charges.

The drug lab scandal is important to some people, and, to some extent, it does show her incompetence. But that is the least of her gaffes. She will probably successfully deflect blame somewhere - namely the SFPD, whom she despises (and the feeling is quite mutual) - and anyone hoping to bring down Harris on the force of that scandal will be disappointed. And I'm certainly not taking the side of our whiney little bitch of a Public Defender, Jeff Adachi - though I am grateful to him for damaging Harris. It's a little bizarre though, since they are essentially on the same side; both of them want to punish criminals as little as possible.

If today's paper is any indication, then Cooley is playing it right - hit the bitch
hard, hit her early, and hit her often.

So we have basically a race between two District Attorneys of two giant liberal cities. From what I've seen so far of Cooley, I have to say that I'm concerned. He certainly seems to be the most liberal of the Republican candidates, and, if Los Angeles is any indication, maybe he's not doing that good of a job after all. Maybe some folks from LA can give us their views.

But make no mistake... whatever reservations I have about Cooley, I consider Kamala Harris to be a very dangerous person. Her philosophies are insane, her priorities are fucked up, and electing her will mean only one thing - a massive increase in crime, and a massive decrease in punishment. She is the darling of the lunatic left, and you can expect to see President Obama coming to California to stump for her (unless he's so unpopular that he's told to stay away).

As far as this state is concerned, defeating Harris is job#1. Well, perhaps the Governorship is more important, but I think whomever the Governor is, they are going to have a hard time reigning in Harris' "progressiveness" (read: really stupid ideas that reward criminals and punish normal people).

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

It's Time to STAND UP for Arizona

Amid the relentless wave of lies and slander from the Left media, Arizona stands strong!

Arizona's too polite to say it, so I will...

Leftist scum... fix your own damn (probably broke and crumbling) states and mind your own fucking business. If you had half the balls of the people of the Arizona you might not be living in a state on the verge of collapse. It is, of course, one of the hallmarks of petty little loser Stalinists like you that you feel you must force everyone on Earth to live how you want them to. That's what true fascists do.

If you believe in freedom - which I sincerely doubt - you can't begrudge a besieged state the right to defend itself when those entrusted to do the job willfully violate the trust given to them.

Everyone can see through you... we know you don't give a rat's ass about border security... the only thing that matters is giving amnesty to your precious brown pawns. Yes, pawns... we know they don't mean shit to you except in the sense that they can be used to get back at whitey and your parents... which - let's face it - is where the real problem lies, doesn't it?

On behalf of Arizona... Fuck off... go wreck your own city. You have no right to tell other people how to live and what to do, because you don't really have their best interests at heart do you? And yes, that is the understatement of the year. Truth is just the word "Arizona" fills you with visceral hatred, doesn't it.

Pure. Hate.

And you thought you were above that...

Monday, June 7, 2010

A Few Last Endorsements Before Bedtime...

It's late Monday nite and I'm dog tired from work (some of us still have to), so I'll just rattle off a few thoughts and endorsements before hitting the hay...

Republicans for Attorney General: To be honest, I haven't been following this much, since I've been so consumed with fear and loathing over the prospect of Kamala Harris as AG. From the brief looks I've done, I kind of like John Eastman, though I'm not sure how he'll do against the other two (Steve Cooley and Tom Harman). But I'll leave this up to you. The Republican nominee is certainly important because they'll have to be able to win against Harris - which means that they will have to be tough, fearless, and dirty, and expose the bitch for who she is. Eastman looks to be the toughest.


If you've read this blog at all, you know what I think about Harris. I'll briefly recap. She's a hard-left cultural Marxist who loves criminals, hates locking people up, and never met a criminal who didn't deserve an unlimited amount of second chances. She's as soft-on-crime as they come. Electing her would almost certainly mean the end of the death penalty in California (and the end of life-without-parole as a sentencing option), a re-working of "3 strikes" in favor of violent criminals, and a pro-illegal alien stance which would undermine any and all attempts at border security, deporting illegal alien criminals, or even co-operating with Federal Authorities in immigration matters. She will be an unprecedented fucking disaster.

But... there is some hope in the form of Chris Kelly.
Yes, he is still a Democrat, and despite the fact that he's waaay more liberal than the most liberal of Republicans, he has a few decent ideas - including identifying and eliminating diversion programs that don't work (whereas "Diversion Program" is Kamala Harris' middle name).

He's not the best choice, but he's the best choice to beat Harris in the primary, which is job #1!

Statewide Propositions:


I could explain why but I'm too tired.

Be sure to vote tomorrow!

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Election Endorsements For This Tuesday - June 8th - San Francisco Ballot Measures

There's an election this Tuesday - with all of the excitement that a June Primary election usually carries...


But for those of us who bother, here's my election tips for Tuesday:


Prop. A (school district parcel tax)


Put on the ballot by the ultra-partisan Green Party-dominated SF Board of Education - far more concerned about "teach-ins" and banning the popular JROTC program then teaching children to become good citizens with basic skills. Send a message to the Board; your job is to teach kids education courses, not convert them to Marxism.

Prop. B (Earthquake safety bond)


Daly's against it. Good enough reason to vote for it.

Prop. C (Film Commission appointments)


Another "Progressive" power-grab by the Board of Supervisors.

Prop. D (public employee pensions)


Makes modest fixes to a major problem: public-employee pension and health care costs that may drown the city in red ink. However, I find the fact that no unions are screaming bloody murder about this to be a little suspicious. It's probably a small ineffectual step, but it's a start.

Prop. E (cost of protecting dignitaries)


Another childish measure by the Board of Supervisors to appease those who hate both a) The Mayor, and b) cops. Giving comfort to the enemy - The San Francisco Way!

Prop. F (rent increase appeal)


Allows renters who lose a job or endure pay cuts to block yearly rent increases. Another solution in search of a problem, this measure undermines the hardship system SF already has in place. These rent increases are already pretty modest, and one would assume that making the increase would be small potatoes compared to the rest of the rent, unless that rent was already subsidized somehow, in which case the Supes can just vote to increase welfare. Like they need a reason.

Prop. G (Transbay Terminal)


Expresses voter sentiment for making new Transbay Terminal the local hub for high-speed rail. Or not... seems to me that the Airport would be the most logical place. But then there's that pesky 'L' word again. High-speed rail is a pipe dream that has no chance of realization; the very people demanding it will be the same people slowing it to a crawl when it becomes known that the noise is keeping endangered badgers on edge or whatever. All the more reason to ditch the whole damn thing.

Bay Guardian Endorsements We'd Like to See

It's election season again, and busy and/or lazy liberals everywhere in this town will be grasping for the inevitable election endorsements from SF Bay Guardian - San Francisco's establishment/alternative weekly. Like the urine-soaked Panhandle after the Bay to Breakers, they have become a sad fixture of the City. Many years ago, they started printing a clip-out version - sparing people the pain of actually reading their endorsements.

The SF Weekly has done a nice parody of these annoying dirges... they'd be funny if they weren't so true... aw hell, they're funny anyway..

Can't remember what the Bay Guardian endorsed for next week's election? Neither can we, so for your convenience we're reprinting an abridged version of its voter guide.


Jerry Brown

We wish we knew which Jerry Brown we're voting for: the crazy young man who used to run California, or the crazy old man who just won't go away. Either way, we're in. There's only one thing we'd rather see Jerry Brown do than be California's next governor, and that's Jerry Brown going out of his way to run for every office Gavin Newsom wants from now on. That would be putting the public first.

Lieutenant Governor
Jerry Brown

Anybody who's thinking of voting for Gavin Newsom for lieutenant governor should write in "Jerry Brown" instead. Just to see the look on Newsom's face. Oh, like you really care who ends up as lieutenant governor.

Attorney General

Kamala Harris

Let's recap. Kamala Harris has a plummeting conviction rate, a drug lab whose staff are actually on drugs, and her office has neglected to inform defense attorneys about cops who have been convicted of crimes. So why are we endorsing her? Because one of our editors is a cutter, and this was the best way he could hurt himself. God, we feel so alive!

U.S. Senate
Barbara Boxer

Many people claim Boxer has been a terrible senator, but we had a late lunch that day and missed the whole thing. We asked them to repeat what they'd said, only slower this time, but it turns out we weren't going to listen anyway. Re-elect Barbara Boxer.

Congress, Eighth District
Nancy Pelosi

We honestly can't remember the name of the person running against her. Is it Cindy Sheehan again? Because that would be different: Sheehan would have won last time if we'd only endorsed her harder.

Congress, Seventh District
George Miller

It would be an exaggeration to say we picked his name out of a hat. It was more like a helmet. But it was a very good helmet. Made by a small local business. Quality headgear.

Secretary of State
Debra Bowen

Progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive! If that's more "progressives" than you have after your name, then you are morally obligated to vote for Bowen.

That one guy

You know, the guy who's running for the office? Unopposed ... we think? It'll come to us. We know this one, we really do. Man, are we really excited to endorse him, too. He's done, like, great ... controllery ... things for the past two (or maybe four) years. Really kept stuff under control for the people of California. Dignity: the word that comes to mind when we think of our state controller.

State Senate, District 8
Leland Yee for Mayor

Popular with his district and a powerful force in Sacramento, Leland Yee for Mayor is a shoo-in to return to the state Senate, where he will start the Leland Yee for Mayor for Mayor campaign. Sources say it will really be the kickoff to his eventual run for governor.

State Assembly, District 13
Tom Ammiano

When the history of progressive politics in San Francisco is written, it will prominently feature two things: 1. Steve Jones' bicycle and 2. Tom Ammiano. Together, they led a revolution in San Francisco politics that successfully alienated a broad coalition of voters. Ammiano continues that noble tradition in Sacramento. He deserves to be re-elected for that. But honestly? He had us at "Kiss my gay ass." We couldn't have said it any better, and we tried.

State Ballot Measures
Proposition 14 (Open primaries)


Open primaries will make it easier for people to vote for the candidates they like, instead of the candidates who are best for them. Party hacks and political pamphlets will lose influence, and then what will you do? You need us! Admit it, and vote no.

Proposition 15 (Limited public financing of elections)
Yes! Yes! Maybe! Wait — yes!

Public financing in San Francisco has supported no underdog candidates, but has led to several costly lawsuits. Naturally, we want to see the same efficiency applied to every election you vote in.

Proposition 16 (Mandating a two-thirds vote on public power)
Rape, rape, rape!

Throughout all of history, there has never been an organization more oppressive than PG&E. Nazi Germany? Hah — PG&E has made twice as many Jews suffer by charging them too much for electricity. The Khmer Rouge? At least they reused every part of their victims. The Republican National Committee? It works for PG&E — at least, according to a diagram by our unpaid interns. Someday you'll see it; someday you'll thank us. History will absolve us. Vote no, or be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Proposition 17 (Auto insurance law changes)

As we understand it, this measure emerged out of a plane crash on a mysterious island inhabited by a smoke monster who kills some people and saves others 15 percent or more on their car insurance. But we might be getting it mixed up with something else that was ultimately disappointing.

San Francisco Ballot Measures

Proposition B (Earthquake safety and emergency response bonds)

This is a multimillion-dollar bond on a public project. And those always turn out so well. Just the thought of public money coursing through the system makes us shiver with delight. It doesn't matter what it's for, and it doesn't matter that the city won't really tell us. Vote yes: This measure's so bad it's good.

Proposition D (Retirement benefits)
Yes! Yes! Yes!

We've tried to explain to San Francisco's activists why Prop. D works, but they didn't like it because it doesn't mention global warming even once. So instead we'll say this: They would have voted for Prop. D in the '60s. Or, at least, the '60s as we remember them; the actual '60s got us into this pension mess in the first place. But that doesn't matter now.

Proposition E (Budget line item for police security)


Our only problem with this measure is that it doesn't go far enough. Not only do we need to know how much money was spent on Gavin Newsom's security detail — even though the police chief will tell us anyway — we also need to know who the officers assigned to it are, the names of their children, and a log of the officers' sexual activities that goes back at least five years. The citizens of San Francisco deserve to know whether their cops are sex-positive. Why? Because democracy requires access to information.

Proposition G (Transbay Transit Center)
Sure, why not?

Ending on a purely symbolic policy statement with no force of law or practical impact just feels so right. If only all our endorsements could be this good.

Leftist's Wet Dream Coming True!

This article in the SF Chronicle no doubt caused a few erections among the Lunatic Left!

Here's the article with emphasis and comments mine...

White's In State 'Below the Replacement' Level

California's white population has declined since 2000 at an unprecedented rate, hastening the day when Hispanics will be the state's largest population group, according to newly released state figures.

There were half a million fewer whites in California in 2008 than in 2000, a period when the state's overall population grew by 4 million to 38.1 million, according to a study released Thursday by the state Department of Finance (the same Dept. of Finance that predicts that the state's population will be 60 million by 2050!).

By 2008, whites made up 40 percent of Californians, down from 47 percent at the turn of the century. In 2000, Hispanics comprised 32 percent of the population; that number grew to 37 percent in 2008.

Analysts said the decline can be attributed to two main causes - a natural population decrease as Baby Boomers enter their later years and die at a faster rate than younger whites have children, and a migration from California since 2001 among whites who sought affordable housing as real estate costs soared (and sought to flee from a third-world state).

"This is the first decade to see a year-over-year consistent population decrease due to natural causes," said Mary Heim, chief of the Finance Department's demographic research unit.

The study also confirmed projections that a steadily growing Hispanic population will surpass whites as the state's largest racial demographic in 2016. Hispanics are expected to become a majority of all Californians in 2042, Heim said.

Most Bay Area counties reflected the state's shifting numbers - Alameda County, for example, dropped from 41 percent white to 36 percent - while showing spikes in Hispanic, Asian and multirace categories.

Yet, San Francisco's racial mix remained consistent. Forty-four percent of the city was white in 2008, 30 percent was Asian and 14 percent was Hispanic, just as it was in 2000. Only the city's African American population showed a slight decline, from 7 percent to 6 percent.

Below replacement level

Hans Johnson, a demographer at the Public Policy Institute of California, said white women in recent decades have tended to pursue higher-education degrees and stay in the workplace, leading them to have fewer children. The white population is now "below the replacement" level, Johnson said. "They're simply not replacing themselves."

The median age among California's whites is 44, while the median age for the Hispanic population is 28, according to the study.

Stephen Levy, director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, said the study also reflected how skyrocketing real estate prices pushed workers from California during the housing bubble from 2005 through 2007.

"This is a good look at what happens when your housing prices get way out of line with the rest of the nation," Levy said. "It will be interesting to see what happens when the market corrects itself."

Reverse of a trend

Johnson said migration into California was a national trend until the 1990s, when the number of out-of-state transplants began to decline.

Lower-paid California workers headed to cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas and Seattle, where they could make similar wages but pay less for housing.

"California is no longer attracting large numbers of people from other states," Johnson said. "And a lot of those who did come to California from other states were white, reflecting the ethnic composition of the country as a whole.

"Now," he said, "that flow has dried up."

The decline among whites and increase in other groups in California is a long-standing trend, Johnson said.

"It's just faster now."

Now, the figures may be accurate, but the analysis is bullshit. Many whites are fleeing California because the place is rapidly becoming a foreign country, where you can hardly get on the phone to a local business or agency and not expect to have a hard time understanding the person on the other end.

The other bullshit assumption is that this is "just happening," and is therefore inevitable. California's slide into third-world-dom has been planned and exploited by businesses and by the Democratic Party. It is no accident whatsoever that all of this is happening here.

This is perfectly fine for the hard left - whose alleged concern for minorities pales (no pun intended) against the real driving force - which is seething anti-white racism. Leftists don't give a fuck about minorities any more than big illegal employers do; they are simply pawns in a game - bigger profits for business, bigger political profits for leftists. Oh sure, they'll get to know their names and be friendly and all, but it's just an act - a means to the end - not to elevate minorities but to tear down whites.

I defy any of you Leftist scum to deny it.

A Rare Opportunity to Vote for Common Sense in San Francisco: Vote Non-Communists Into The DCCC

There's an election this Tuesday, June 8th, and way down the ballot is an obscure but important race that - if it goes the right way - could begin to swing this town away from the suicidal hard-left path it's been going on for the last decade.

San Francisco is a one-party state - much like Mexico under the PRI - and for the most part people here have given up on the idea that San Francisco's government is anything resembling a democracy. There is only one game in town, and that is the Democratic Party.

Only Party Members can vote in this important race, so if you are a Democrat and still have a semblance of a brain and/or a soul left after 10+ years of the Progressive Stalinism of the Board of Supervisors, then please make a vote against anarchy and for common sense.

Here's CW Nevius with the scoop...

Tuesday's election features contests with big-name politicians and national issues. In San Francisco, it also includes an obscure race for a nonpaid position few people know exists.

That's the important one - for Democratic County Central Committee.

If there are moderate San Francisco voters who support the Democratic Party but are turned off by political fringe issues like legalizing prostitution, now is the time to show up. (I will suggest some moderate candidates at the end of the column.)

Who is elected to the DCCC will have a domino effect that starts with the November election and the Board of Supervisors, influences the appointment/election of the next mayor, and - if a clever, but sneaky change to the rules passes - extends years into the future.

If you are running for supervisor in San Francisco and have the DCCC endorsement, you're in. According to 25-year DCCC member Arlo Hale Smith, since 1990 the committee has endorsed 43 candidates. Forty were elected.

"In a one-party town," said Smith, "the endorsement of the Democratic Committee is the tiebreaker - particularly in local elections where people don't pay attention."

DCCC Chair Aaron Peskin, the former president of the Board of Supervisors and a shrewd political wheeler-dealer, scoffs at that.

"My next order of business," he said, "is to call my friends and remind them that I am running. Because I'll bet two-thirds of them don't even know there's an election."

But the facts say otherwise.

"In the old days nobody spent $100 on the (DCCC) campaign, much less $1,000," said John Burton, current chair of the state Democratic Party.

Today, candidates for supervisor are exploiting a loophole that says there is no limit on individual contributions for DCCC.

For example, Rafael Mandelman, a progressive candidate for supervisor in District Eight, spent $28,102.17 on his DCCC race through May 22. His opponent, moderate Scott Wiener, spent $58,402.85 over the same period. Mandelman and Wiener can't use the money for their supervisor's race, but until the DCCC election they can use it to get out ads to promote their names.

But the real reason these races are so hotly contested is that if the Chris Daly-Peskin progressives can gain seats in the DCCC, they can control issues. And finally, there is a proposal by Daly to realign the DCCC, which now has 12 seats in both District 12 and District 13. He wants to add seats to politically progressive District 13 to give the far left an advantage for years to come.

"Personally," said Peskin, "that's not on my list of things to do."

But Wiener, who lost a bitter battle for chair in 2008, sees serious problems.

"This proposed rule change is designed to accomplish one thing . . . moving the DCCC even further to the hard left," Wiener said. "When the Democratic Party starts representing only one line of thinking . . . that will be a huge loss."

So, if you're happy with the far-left agenda, check out the Bay Guardian. (Progs with name recognition like Peskin, David Campos, David Chiu, and John Avalos are probably shoo-ins. Daly is not running.)

For those who'd like to see a swing to families, kids, and civility on the streets, here are some suggestions:

District 12: Bill Fazio, Matthew Tuchow, Mike Sullivan, Arlo Smith, John Shanley, Meagan Levitan, Alex Volberding, Mary Jung, Dan Dunnigan, Ron Dudum, Andrew Clark and Tom Hsieh.

District 13: Keith Baraka, Catherine Stefani, Stuart Smith, Scott Wiener, Calvin Louie, Joe Alioto Veronese, Owen O'Donnell, Linda Richardson, Leslie Katz, Chuck Hornbrook.

Just don't forget to vote.