Gore Jinx Beat

|

In a fit of pessimism yesterday, I predicted Al Gore's endorsement of San Francisco mayoral candidate Gavin Newsom would guarantee a win for the far-more-evil of the two evils—Green Party firebrand Matt Gonzalez. As it turns out, my prediction of doom was mercifully overstated; Gonzalez is right now giving his (not very gentlemanly) concession speech. While Newsom is a ridiculously blowdried, mock-Kennedyesque schmo, Gonzalez's campaign boast that he'd "read The Communist Manifesto and liked it," his vision of forcing cars out of San Francisco, his wacky ideas about striking a balance "between tenant and property owner rights," his housing is healthcare solution to homelessness, and an obnoxious personal style I observed at length during his rise through the board of supes all made even his comedy value as a mayor questionable. In this case, I'm glad to see the Gore jinx may have ended. Howard Dean, the race is yours to lose!

NEXT: Swap, Burn — and Die?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A Gonzalez win would have a) shown how stupid his ideology is, perhaps teaching a lesson few would forget, and b) driven down housing prices and provided opportunities for redevelopment. I hope he runs again.

  2. “Actually, I was hoping that calling Gonzalez a shoo-in would cause him to lose, on the principle that whatever I choose is the exact opposite of what I should choose.”

    “Howard Dean, the race is yours to lose!”

    How are we to take this?

  3. Stay away from the horse track, man, you’ll get killed every time with your handicapping instincts.

  4. Actually, I was hoping that calling Gonzalez a shoo-in would cause him to lose, on the principle that whatever I choose is the exact opposite of what I should choose. I’m like George Costanza that way.

  5. JB,
    Figures you would like the Paris of America. Actually, I just moved from there 6 months ago. Loved the city, but ironically, living there made my political views shift right. And yes, the pyramid is still there.

    Why the shift back from the Merovingnian?

  6. Letting a spouse move into an apartment when the renter gets married is a wacky idea?

  7. Reading news on San Francisco politics reminds me of a quote by Frank Lloyd Wright when he was asked what he thought of that city’s newest buildings many years ago: “Only a city as beautiful as yours could survive what you’re doing to it.”

  8. I think San Francisco is one the coolest cities in the world; is the Transamerica building still there? 🙂

  9. joe – yes.
    It’s a generally accepted practice for landlords to bar or limit subleasing or to exceed a set number of tenants without express consent. I suppose if you landlord was an ass that would include spouses, domestic partners or even children. One would find it justifiable to prohibit a couple from raising a dozen children in a single apartment room without some sort of authorization. Remember, mean is not the same as unethical is not the same as illegal.

  10. EMAIL: master-x@canada.com
    IP: 82.146.43.155
    URL: http://www.americanpaydayloans.net
    DATE: 02/28/2004 02:51:46
    It is dangerous to confuse children with angels.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.