The Substantially Similar Weblog

We’re about 45 minutes in to the presidential debate now. I think the smartest thing Kerry is doing is goading Bush to feel he has to do a reply outside the structure of the debate, which gives Kerry a chance to do an additional response. The more the debate resembles a real debate with back-and-forth, the better it is for Kerry. At this point, I think Kerry’s aggressive attack strategy is working. Although Bush is “staying on message,” it feels like it’s a defensive message. I’ve been looking around the web for other “real time” commentary but no luck so far.

(update: of course, Instapundit is giving a real-time commentary, with a pretty different take on things; he’s also linking to other real-time bloggers, worth following)

Richard M. Smith· performed security audits· of the official George Bush and John Kerry websites; the results were posted· on Declan McCullagh’s Politech· list. Both sites come up short in many ways, but Kerry is the clear winner for choice of technology:

It appears that the open source vs. closed source debate has also entered the presidential campaign. The Kerry home page comes from an Apache Web server running on a Red Hat Linux box. The Bush Web site on the other hand is hosted on a more corporate Microsoft-powered IIS 5.0 server and uses ASP.NET. I did not check to see if this IIS server is up to date with Microsoft security patches.

(yet another entry that should really be filed under multiple categories; “politics->electoral” and “free software->politics.”)

I feel some obligation to perpetuate the Bush in 41.2 Seconds meme. Maybe I’m a little late. (Thanks to UG for the link).

So, our guy· lost the election. Evil triumphed and good lost.

There are all sorts of possible ways to put a positive spin on the results, including:

• The election was so close (well within any possible statistical “margin of error” for the winner) that Newsom hardly has a mandate. With quite near half the voting electorate opposing Newsom, he’s got a fair amount of opposition out there that countervailing forces on the Board of Supervisors can draw from.
• This is by the far the best a Green Party· candidate has done in a major election. The Democrats are feeling the heat—intensely. They had to call in the big guns here—Al Gore a week before the election·, and Bill Clinton himself on election eve·. The Democrats see the writing on the wall, and it’s not good.
• Matt remains president of the Board of Supervisors—not an insignificant position, and clearly his clout should be boosted by the strong support he got in this election.

There’s lots of speculation as to what particular factors lead to Gonzalez’s loss. With such a small margin of defeat, it could really be anything. Certainly, the Democrats’ heavy-handed tactics at the 11th hour could have made a difference. The San Francisco Chronicle’s endorsement may have also influenced a handful of voters. (On the other hand, the fact that Howard Dean did not endorse Newsom· moderately increases my respect for Dean).

I’d like to offer a somewhat heretical alternative explanation: Campaign Finance Reform. Despite rules limiting individual contributions to mayoral candidates to $250 each, Newsom outspent Gonzalez 8 to 1. I met many activists who contributed the statutory limit to the Gonzalez campaign, and may well have contributed more if there had been no contribution cap. Gonzalez was strapped for funds for television ads, which might have reached an audience that otherwise hadn’t heard from the candidate.

In the absence of any contribution cap, would Newsom have gotten more money? Probably. Would it have helped him all that much? I don’t think so. Or at least the relative effect on the additional money to both campaigns would have favored Gonzalez. It’s Econ 101—the marginal utility of cash decreases the more you have.

Once you’re outspending the other candidate by an order of magnitude, a few extra hundreds of thousands of dollars may not do a lot for you, but for someone like Gonzalez who struggled to reach a critical threshold and have some opportunity to publicly respond to unfair accusations levied against him, the additional funds could have made all the difference.

This is ultimately the peril of a system which limits contributions but not expenditures. And I can’t conceive of any system that could survive First Amendment scrutiny and still limit expenditures in a meaningful way. This election should give rise to questions for those of us on the left who think that campaign finance reform is the way to fix politics: in some cases, the only way an insurgent can challenge the status quo may actually be limited by contribution caps.

It may be, then, that contributions are not actually an incremental step towards the final goal, but a step in the wrong direction. I can see public funding for elections and mandates for free media time fixing a lot of the problem, but I don’t see how contribution caps make those sorts of reforms even remotely more likely. In fact, they may instead create the impression that the problem is being fixed, and reduce pressure to effect these other reforms that will actually make for a more level playing field.

Although I’m back on the East Coast for now, I’m still quite hopeful that Matt Gonzalez· will win the election for Mayor of San Francisco. As an official registered Blogger for Matt·, I’m duty bound to ask any of you reading this blog to donate to the campaign· as there is only one week left and Matt needs to raise money to buy TV time to respond to Newsom attack ads.

The San Francisco Bay Guardian· has a good election page· with more information about the upcoming election, and newsdesk.org· is running a good interview with Matt· that will be broadcast on the radio this Sunday.

Doonesbury has been having a field day with the Schwarzenegger election. This one was particularly funny.

If you’re reading this, and you live in San Francisco, I’m betting you’re more likely than not a Matt Gonzalez· supporter. While I’m usually not too excited about electoral politics, this is a unique case. This matters.

The December 9 mayoral election will be won or lost on registration and turn-out. A lot of people are repeating this message, but let me add my voice to the choir.

Register· before the end of Monday, November 24. You can even do it online·. Then vote either absentee or on election day, December 9.

I attended a Matt Gonzalez for Mayor· party tonight, one of 100 such parties happening in 30 days·. Although Matt wasn’t there, I was struck by the energy and enthusiasm of the volunteers and attendees. Several independent artists and publishers spoke, and some who had little income and had never given money to any candidate said they were giving the maximum amount permitted under law this time. The Indymedia· founder spoke about Matt’s commitment to the public interest in media and communications issues, including the upcoming renewal of the cable franchise for San Francisco.

I was impressed with Gonzalez when I saw him riding on the Critical Mass ride here a couple of weeks ago. I also recently noticed he has a profile in Friendster· (account required), with lots of friends. I was wondering if the Friendster profile was for real, so I googled for “Matt Gonzalez” Friendster and to my surprise got my own weblog back as the top hit.

In any case, it appears the Friendster profile is for real, at least according to Bloggers for Matt·.

So Matt gets my vote. It’s been a long time since a major American city had a truly progressive mayor. This may be our best shot yet. Sign me for Bloggers for Matt.

Update: see also the counter-propaganda brigade· for some clever Newsom counter-ads.

Presidential Candidate John Edwards· has been a guest blogger this week on Larry Lessig’s weblog·. I hadn’t given him much consideration before, but I was actually impressed by his understanding of some important intellectual property issues (particularly the problems with the pharmaceutical patent regime·. In his final entry·, he squarely addressed the importance of open source licensing:

When a government official stepped forward and opposed an international forum on open source, that was a mistake—just as it would be a mistake to oppose a discussion of proprietary licensing. As I said, the role of government is to establish a level playing field, not pick a winner.

It probably helps that he represents the home state of Red Hat·, but so far he’s the only candidate who seems to know anything about the Free Software movement.

Howard Dean was also a guest blogger back in July·, and Dennis Kucinich in August·. Both Dean· and Kucinich have “personal” blogs as well. Although it’s all a little gimmicky, much of the blog writing has a slightly more sophisticated flavour than what you see in the debates, campaign speeches, and TV ads. This can only be a good thing.

The Morning News has a great interview behind the scenes on the Dean presidential campaign. In general, I think The Morning News may be giving The Onion a run for its money.

Strategist #1: Yeah… it could be a mixture, a couple of things that are conservative, like vanilla, and a couple of things that are a little more radical, like, I dont know, broccoli. You know, something for everyone.

(apparently it’s true that Howard Dean’s middle name is Brush).