A Republican winning would depend on how much crime the city current is experience. That is what would make it either the normal no-chance or the alternative, maybe-on-a-special-day. You have to keep people like Feinstein, Alioto, and Moscone in mind, not only Milk.
Brainster
· 1 year ago
Generally agree with your points and it's probably a mistake in the original post at NextRight, but voting No on 8 was the "pro-gay marriage" position.
Zzzzz
· 1 year ago
I’d like to know what planet or alternative universe are these folks living in.
The alternative universe where things like gay marraige are all about 'political correctness'. I honestly think it never occurs to some conservatives that legal gay marraige effects the ability of gay families to take care of each other. It is abstract politics or theology to them, not bread and butter.
mikkel
· 1 year ago
I still can't get over that Cao is a civil rights attorney and community organizer. That's just too rich.
The comments on that thread are interesting, pointing to a real life San Fran Republican and the comment "However, this article does illustrate well the big problem with today's GOP. What makes Mr. Wong (sigh) so appealing to Republicans? He's resentful. That's it! That's the whole appeal." People are also giving the author a hard time for the whole Wong thing.
But they have a good point, the Republicans that are doing well in major cities and amongst minorities are those that have an optimistic vision and actively are involved in community projects instead of just griping about the government.
roro80
· 1 year ago
Yeah, the author's total lack of understanding of SF in general is belied by his giving a Korean the last name "Wong" and saying that he was against gay marriage and therefore voted no on prop 8. Yeah, good luck with that one, buddy. SF'ers really really don't like Republicans. They cannot win there. Even the "conservative" people who win office in SF are merely conservative in the sense that they don't think we should be doing things like voting on whether or not we think the president should be impeached. They might have a more conservative way of dealing with the homeless (like arresting them instead of paying for their housing). You can't win without the gay community; you can't win if you advertise being pro-life; you can't win if you think you're going to shut down the expensive programs we have in place to help poor people and homeless people.
We like public transportation and free health clinics and lots of safe sex and gay youth outreach and biodeisel and volunteering and poetry slams and drag shows and feminist porn and universal healthcare. We are willing to be taxed to keep the things we like up and running. We don't like ab-only sex ed or saggy-pants bans or guns or corporate welfare or McDonalds or buildings made from unrecyclable materials or agribusiness or God as taught in your basic evanelical church. What would a Republican do here?
Brainster
· 1 year ago
Having read the whole post it appears that the writer thinks biography is everything. If the guy was a gay Korean Medal of Honor winner he would have no chance of winning Pelosi's seat because of the (R) after his name.
This is an attempt to say that Republicans can compete anywhere without sacrificing core conservative positions (i.e., without being a dreaded RINO). It's absurd.
DLS
· 1 year ago
"If the guy was a gay Korean Medal of Honor winner he would have no chance of winning Pelosi's seat because of the (R) after his name."
Well, not only in Blue states, but in hard-core Blue Nation pockets like San Francisco, the best-known parts of Marin County, across in Berkeley and in Oakland, or to the south in places like Santa Monica or Hollywood, that Medal of Honor would be a liability, too.
(I grew up in the Bay Area and have lived in the Southland as well, and know the state well.)
StockBoySF
· 1 year ago
The correct way to vote on Prop 8 was "No". A vote for Prop 8 meant taking away marriage rights gay people already had.
All Comments
The alternative universe where things like gay marraige are all about 'political correctness'. I honestly think it never occurs to some conservatives that legal gay marraige effects the ability of gay families to take care of each other. It is abstract politics or theology to them, not bread and butter.
The comments on that thread are interesting, pointing to a real life San Fran Republican and the comment "However, this article does illustrate well the big problem with today's GOP. What makes Mr. Wong (sigh) so appealing to Republicans? He's resentful. That's it! That's the whole appeal." People are also giving the author a hard time for the whole Wong thing.
But they have a good point, the Republicans that are doing well in major cities and amongst minorities are those that have an optimistic vision and actively are involved in community projects instead of just griping about the government.
We like public transportation and free health clinics and lots of safe sex and gay youth outreach and biodeisel and volunteering and poetry slams and drag shows and feminist porn and universal healthcare. We are willing to be taxed to keep the things we like up and running. We don't like ab-only sex ed or saggy-pants bans or guns or corporate welfare or McDonalds or buildings made from unrecyclable materials or agribusiness or God as taught in your basic evanelical church. What would a Republican do here?
This is an attempt to say that Republicans can compete anywhere without sacrificing core conservative positions (i.e., without being a dreaded RINO). It's absurd.
Well, not only in Blue states, but in hard-core Blue Nation pockets like San Francisco, the best-known parts of Marin County, across in Berkeley and in Oakland, or to the south in places like Santa Monica or Hollywood,
that Medal of Honor would be a liability, too.
(I grew up in the Bay Area and have lived in the Southland as well, and know the state well.)