"The People's Election"?

To hear SF progressives tell it, they never really lose an election on the merits of an issue or a candidate, and when they do it's only because their political opponents---usually the wicked Downtown Interests---outspend them. 

On November 4 the voters of San Francisco once again rejected public power, and naturally the Bay Guardian claims that it was only because city voters were bamboozled once again by big money from PG&E. Interesting that progressives evidently think city voters are so easily manipulated. Over the years, the public power idea has been on the city's ballot eleven times and it's been rejected eleven times.

The city voted 62%-38% against Prop. H and public power; 55% voted for JROTC in our schools; and 59% voted against legalizing prostitution. The Guardian of course supported public power and the legalization of prostitution and opposed the pro-JROTC measure. On the other hand, city voters agreed with the Guardian about rehabbing SF General, Proposition 8, Newsom's Community Justice Center, the pro-tenant measure M, and the drug rehab measure. 

Why do they think the voters were able to figure out those measures and not public power and JROTC? Can they really believe that the voters of SF would have passed, for example, Proposition 8 if enough money was spent here in Progressive Land in support of the measure?

The Bay Guardian calls last Tuesday "the people's election," welcoming the election of Barack Obama, even though, fortunately, Obama is not a Guardian-type, ultra-left progressive. (Anyhow, isn't every election the people's election?) 

The Guardian is already worried about Obama's apparent intention of "escalating the war in Afghanistan." Fortunately, Obama understands that Afghanistan is where Osama Bin Laden was based and where the 9/11 terrorists were trained. The US is supposed to let the Taliban retake Afghanistan so that they can start training terrorists to attack us again?

The Guardian is crowing about how progressives "held" San Francisco, but that's a half-truth given the way the city voted on the measures above. And electing progressive supervisors in districts 1, 3, 9 and 11 is no surprise, since the new boys will be taking office on the heels of progressive supervisors who are being termed out, while moderates---and Newsom appointees---Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu won re-election easily. Hence, the political alignment on the Board of Supervisors remains the same.

The reality is that, like all elections, last Tuesday's results were a mixed bag. No political tendency got everything it wanted, there was something for everyone to feel good about. I'm happy that city voters rejected public power and the legalization of prostitution, while voting for SF General and JROTC. 

City lefties apparently need to believe that history is a steady march to a future that conforms to their ideology. Fortunately for San Francisco, that is not the case.