How would you vote in SF Mayor's race: Green or Democratic?

[AP]

Here is a fascinating race, sure to set the DU wires ablaze.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3350930,00.html

The top two vote getters last night in the SF mayor's race were Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, with 40% of the vote, and Gonzalez, a Green with 20% of the vote.

The Democrat is a young, rich millionaire developer who lives in a house I believe the Hearsts bought for him in a really expensive part of the city. He wants to criminalize panhandling. All the CA hierarchy (Feinstein et al) are behind him (probably because of his access to big money).

Matt Gonzalez is a straight-up liberal progressive.

The Republicans got something like 3% of the vote, so we can discount conservatives as being a big influence, and, furthermore, since these are the only two in the runoff, you can't argue that Greens are splitting the left of the spectrum and handing races to Republicans.

One of the reasons so many progressives were in this race is probably because they were afraid of Newsom. There's a real possibility that Newsom tapped out his natural support (add the Republicans and he might get 45-50% of the vote.

Gonzalez could, conceivably get half to 3/4s of the 40% of the vote that didn' vote for him or Newsom.

Both have a real chance to win.

So who would you vote for for SF Mayor?

[RichM]

1. Gonzalez, all the way.

The idea is to empower the best set of ideas. Party labels are for the cerebrally disadvantaged.

[pnorman]

5. I notice that someone had voted Democratic,

at about the same time I voted Green (effectively "pairing" me). I suspect it was for a similar reason ... we BOTH attributed considerable potency to symbols (aka: "party labels"'). He no doubt felt it was necessary to rally around the (Democratic) banner at all costs. I feel the NECESSITY of rallying around something to build a future Movement around. "If not now, WHEN"?

What the right-wing ideologues co-opted from the Left in 1964 was this: "If you don't have the courage to risk defeat, you'll NEVER get a meaningful win. "Anyone but Bush" ... but there's a long time before we have to make serious compromises. If a clear alternative to what BushCo-PNAC represents doesn't start taking shape NOW, future generations will judge this one pretty harshly.

[Cheswick2.0]

60. so how are you enjoying that Bush residency?

?

[Terwilliger]

2. I have not heard a lot of praise for Newsome

in fact, I've seen and heard much derision

[confusionisnext]

20. The Greens in this town are really good at derision

When I hear them debate, Greens always issue shrill, ad hominem attacks. It's such a turn off for me, and it always detracts from their positions, which I can agree with sometimes.

[AP]

29. Right.

Don't have much experience with this, but my honest opinion of Camejo in the recall debates was that he was the most sensible person up there. Two problems though.

"Bust-a-movay" was out front on a couple of issues that Camejo argued for (criticizing regressivity of car tax and Prop 13) and I wished Camejo had given credit where credit was due.

Also, I heard him in a wrap-up and he refused to admit that the media was so on Arnold's side. He wanted to blame Democrats completely, so he couldn't state the obvious truth about the media whoreishness. That doesn't help anyone.

However, all things considered, I thought Camejo was great, and if I thought he could have won, I would have voted for him with pleasure and confidence that he would take the state in the right direction.

[Ardee]

45. set the record straight

I heard Camejo say, with perfect diction, that the only newspaper in the state that continually covered his campaign was the San Jose Mercury News. Camejo doesnt lambast anyone, whether media or democrat, he stays on message and that message rings with truth.

[AP]

47. He was on a KPFA panel discussion

the day after the election. A very reasonable woman with an Indian accent (if I remember correctly) ran through a litany of things the Republicans did with the media. She talked about those Arnold weightlifting magazines that appeared in supermarkets the week before the elections, in addition to MANY other things.

When she was done Camejo jumped all over her. He said that Democrats were just making excuses for losing because they weren't appealing to their base.

This wasn't about who was covering him. He was treating a very well-reasoned, and detailed and logical argument like it was sour grapes. This poor woman didn't even have an opportunity to rehabilitate her argument, which was unfortunate, because I happen to think it is a very important argument (did Camejo think that he wouldn't have been treated even worse if he had been the front-running liberal?).

But, listen, when I say that this and not giving Busta his dues on progressive taxation were the only things I didn't like about his campaign , I mean these were the ONLY things I didn't like. I loved everything else.

[Ardee]

71. I heard him on KQED

right after the election and he was, as he ALWAYS is, reasonable, nonconfrontational and direct. I have voted for him twice now, and simply do not recognise him from your characterisation, sorry.

By the way, I HAVE heard him speak to the abysmal efforts of the democrats and he is absolutely correct!

[AP]

72. You're missreading what I'm saying.

He's great. I love him. Just two problems. The first one's subjective. That KPFA is more obvective. You know how he crticizes Dems. Well he did that after he heard what was, to me an irrefutable argument about media whoring for the Republicans. He didn't think it was at all relevant. That's what he said. But he's still a great guy.

Why so quick to dismiss something that you didn't even hear? Read the rest of my posts. Do I not have credibility?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

38. I'm a Democrat...

and most of the "derision" I hear regarding Newsom is from fellow Democrats who see Newsom for what he is -- a guy who couldn't get elected in this town if he had a "R" after his name.

[confusionisnext]

54. What is "R" about Newsom?

Care Not Cash aside, is it his support of raising the minimum wage? Is it his support of gay rights? Are you saying that Dems aren't allowed to be rich? Yeah, he has business interests, but Dems aren't allowed to?

[AP]

55. It looks like he's underwritten by developers. If you think favoring...

...developers over other businesses is the way to take SF into the future, he's your candidate.

[Renew Deal]

3. This is push polling.

[AP]

4. No wagering please. This is totally unscientific.

And, by the way, I'm not pushing very much. I just restate the opinion one might have of the situation if they were mildly attuned to the campaing. I've recreated the CW on the candidates in a way that approximates the public perception, I think.

[Blitz]

6. I voted for Newsom yesterday

and I'll vote for him again in the run-off. I think that he'll be very good for San Francisco. As for how the race will turn out, the numbers don't look good at all for Gonzalez. Newsom can expect to get most of the votes that went to Leal & Ribera and Gonzalez can expect most of Ammiano's votes and most of Alioto's support. However, I'd say that 20-40% of Alioto voters will vote for Newsom. He'll probably win with about 55% of the vote.

http://www.sfgate.com/election/races/2003/11/04/CA/San_Francisco/G200311044.shtml

[Hell Hath No Fury]

13. Please tell me how...

he will be good for San Francisco.

I'm curious.

[Blitz]

23. He will make a serious effort

to address the homeless and homelessness problem in San Francisco. It's a very serious problem that requires realistic solutions. Care not Cash and programs like it are an important first step. I can go through his positions point by point but this is a very big one with me.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

39. It is a serious problem...

that has been tackled by better men then him. I don't think criminalization si the way to start addressing such an issue.

As a life-long San Franciscan, I feel Newsom too often fights against many of the things that helps preserve this town for the average, working class person, and which helps keep San Francisco "San Francisco".

He comes from the most privileged of San Francisco backgrounds and it shows. (He smells like St. Ignatius, to me.)

His personal ambition scares the crap out of me -- I have never felt that he is in engaged in the process because his number one priority is the City (like Angela or Tommy) -- I feel his number one priority is Gavin Newsom.

[confusionisnext]

19. I voted for Newsom too

and I will vote for him in the runoff. I am sick and tired of smelling our piss soaked streets everyday as I walk to school. I might agree with Gonzalez on some issues, but I don't think that he'll even try to make headway on homelessness.

[AP]

30. There's a homeless guy who's always out front of a place I go frequently.

I always buy his paper, read it, and give it back when I'm done so he can sell it again.

Sometimes we talk. We say good night at the end of the day.

I spend a lot of my free time wondering what I could do to make his life better.

I never thing, gosh, we need to criminalize people like him. That "solution" never crosses my mind.

[Ardee]

46. narrow focus should not a political opinion make

Rather than be so annoyed at the smell of urine perhaps you might take a moment from your obviously obsessive life to ponder the reasons that this poor soul must urinate and defecate in the streets. Newsomes absurdly posited Care Not Cash has been roundly criticised as unworkable and under funded by every thinking politico in SF. Homelessness is not a crime, if we make it so what will we criminalise next?

[confusionisnext]

52. I never said that homelessness is crime.

I just don't believe in giving out free money. Why should we just hand out $300 cash to some people but force others to work hard to earn that money? Care Not Cash in itself might be unworkable, but the premise can be worked so that the city is not some ATM machine.

[AP]

53. Partly because we have a society that is so wealthy that it is sinful

to make miserable the life of ANYONE on this planet whith whom you share it for the brief period that we are all alive.

It sickens me that people would prefer to see people miserable just to save a dollar.

Raise Bill Gates's and friends' taxes .001% and you could pay for a San Francisco which had plenty of good jobs for everyone.

[confusionisnext]

56. Helping people is fine

Yes, provide mental health services. Raise taxes or bonds or whatever to help them. Saving a dollar is not my issue here. It's the handing out of free cash. We don't need them to be spending this money on alcohol.

[AP]

58. Who are you to tell anyone how to spend their money. Do I tell you how to

live your life? Does anyone? Can you have a drink when you want one? If you don't want people being alcoholics, give them a world which offers a little more hope.

And progressive taxation can pay for it.

[confusionisnext]

59. You are reading too much into what I am saying.

Of course you can drink if you want. You can even have a drink if you are homeless. But if a person has a problem with alcoholism, should we enable them?

On edit: Ok, maybe I wasn't completely clear about what I was trying to say in my previous post.

[AP]

62. If they have a problem with misery, shouldn't we alleviate their misery?

Especially in a society as wealthy as ours.

If you can explain to me how tough love and criminalizing poverty will reduce misery, I'll listen.

[DUreader]

7. If your analysis is correct, I'd vote for the Green,

Newsom sounds like a jerk

[Character Assassin]

8. As unbelievable as it sounds, I'd vote for the Green.

The Dem candidate is Willie Brown's hand-picked successor.

Willie Brown is as corrupt and venal a politician as California has ever known, and that's saying something. The man is filth, and what he touches will be equally so.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

14. Bingo...

eom

[AP]

9. Does it bother anyone that big business supports this guy because

they know they'd never get a Republican elected in SF?

Don't people feel like they'd like to tilt the balance in favor of the little guy, especially at a time when we could be entering a great depression?

[DUreader]

10. my take exactly

[eablair3]

15. Exactly right -- Newsom spent something like $2 million

Newsom spent something like $2 million on the Mayor's race. The Repugs big business and big corps know that a Republican will get no where in SF, so they have all supported Newsom. In the last Presidential race the Republicans got 15 percent of the vote in SF. Now, the Repug candidate for Mayor got only 2-3 percent. Where did the other 12-13 percent of the Repug vote go? It went to Newsom.

Big business, big corporations, the corporate hotels, and the developers are supporting Newsom. Heck, he might as well be a "Republican."

to the one poster that broke down the voting, ... I haven't heard that the supporters of Leal will mostly go for Newsom. I heard the opposite. Newsom seems to be in the drivers seat with the 40 percent, but I have heard that many of the candidates were really opposign the machine of Willie Brown/Gavin Newsom, and that most of the supporters of Alioto, Ammiano and Leal will take a good hard look and probably vote for the current President of the Board of Supes, Matt Gonzalez.

will be interesting to see if Gonzalez can actually make a run at it.

btw, there was a thread I posted last night on this with a link to the election results-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=651710

[Hell Hath No Fury]

16. Some of Leal's supporters....

might go for Matt, but I'm not sure most of them will. Her GLBT supporters might switch to Matt, though her more conservative voters will go with Newsom.

I think more of Angela's will go for Matt possibly.

[jsw_81]

22. You need to get over your hatred of "big business"

What you call "big business" creates millions of jobs and helps keep America as the world's only economic superpower. Some companies are undoubtedly corrupt (Enron etc.) but that doesn't mean we should paint them all as evil.

The Greens, on the other hand, don't do anything but whine and ensure that Republicans win elections.

[nolabels]

26. This country was founded on overthrowing any ruling class that's unworthy

The orignal state papers that founded it are some of the best. I bet some of the originators of them didn't even realize the ramiifications of them. But at least they were made official before they did.

http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-overclass.html
The Origins of the Overclass

By Steve Kangas

The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.

The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. This is not to say the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface — and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.) But what we do know already indicts the CIA strongly enough. Its principle creators were Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family, and more. Almost all the machine's creators had CIA backgrounds.

During the 1970s, these men would take the propaganda and operational techniques they had learned in the Cold War and apply them to the Class War. Therefore it is no surprise that the American version of the machine bears an uncanny resemblance to the foreign versions designed to fight communism. The CIA's expert and comprehensive organization of the business class would succeed beyond their wildest dreams. In 1975, the richest 1 percent owned 22 percent of America’s wealth. By 1992, they would nearly double that, to 42 percent — the highest level of inequality in the 20th century.

How did this alliance start? The CIA has always recruited the nation’s elite: millionaire businessmen, Wall Street brokers, members of the national news media, and Ivy League scholars. During World War II, General "Wild Bill" Donovan became chief of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA. Donovan recruited so exclusively from the nation’s rich and powerful that members eventually came to joke that "OSS" stood for "Oh, so social!"
(snip)

[AP]

31. I'm so pro-business, it isn't funny. I want to save them from themselves.

We're going to have bigger and better business if there's a level playing field and if governments aren't in the pockets of some of them, who are only trying to figure out ways to work less and make more money.

[Cascadian]

33. If you support big-business then....

what can big business do to help the little guy? Don't you think they are screwing the poor and working poor? Profits before people is all I am seeing.


And don't tell me they have to pull themselves by their bootstraps either!


John

[AP]

35. I said I was pro-business. It it's big it better not be a monopoly, and it

better be paying progressive tax.

Businesses are better when they're creating wealth and spreading it among the people who help create it.

I saw an MIT study a few years ago which compared union and non-union employers. It turned out that the non-union employers were significantly more productive.

The study concluded that in union shops, people were less afrain of getting fired so, when they say something that wasn't working (regardless of whate it was -- a lazy incompetent manager, or a production method which could use improvement) they were were more likely to take it to management.

In non-union shops, people just kept their mouths shut, afraid that any slight suggestion would be perceived as rocking the boat.

This is an experience to which everyone here should be able to relate, right? Who knows best how the shop works besides the people actually doing the work. They're valuable components in the process. You spend money keeping up the machines. It's crazy not to spend money keeping up the people and benefitting from their knowledge and experience and observational skills.

The interests of management and labor totally overlap. I like businesses which recognize that. And many do. Not enough. But man do. Unfortunately, they have a hard time competing in a marketplace in which having friends in government might play a bigger role in success than actually producing useful products that the public wants to buy.

[eablair3]

74. You need to educate yourself

This country was not founded so that a few could own and be in control of huge corporations that can rule over the government, the country and the people.

I'd suggest that you read some books about this and about the effect of "big business" on the country and democracy. Some recent ones are "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann and "Gangs of America" by Ted Nace. Some others that have been out longer are "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy" by Alex Carey (i think), which describes how business banded together in the 1910s throughout the present to plan an elaborate campaign to get us to today. Another good one is "Selling Free Enterprise" by Elizabeth Foner (again I think), which describes how business and corporations used different methods in the 40s and 50s to indoctrinate workers and turn them against unions. There are many others.

I agree with you that big business has provided jobs in the past, but big business just keeps getting bigger and bigger. You have huge companies like say Home Depot that comes into a town and puts all the small independent hardware owned by locals out of business. The number of employers decreases and the large employers can exploit the workers even more. Think Walmart.

That's not the America that the founders fought and died for with the American Revolution. They rebelled against big business. Think the Boston Tea Party where American heros attacked a huge big business, the East India Company. Nobody wanted a few people controlling the vast majority through economics. The ibgger the business, the more and more influence they exercise over the country, over the government and over politicians. You have to know all the big money that big business contributes and pays people off with to get legislation, tax breaks, and lucrative government contracts and giveaways.

So, you might want to check some of those materials out. I'm sure there are other materials as well, and many on here will know of more.

[Hand]

11. Well, not sure, but...

This is the kind of electoral choice I'd love to have!!!!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. I will be voting for Matt...

As a San Franciscan, I can tell you that Newson is nothing but another Willie Brown -- a "Dem" in a corporate suit, who is all about the money.

He would NOT be good for San Francisco.

I saw him at my neighborhood's candidate meeting and that man is slick as owl shit -- he gives ol' Willie a serious run in that department. He appeals to the more conservative (West of Twin Peaks) and monied SFers (Union Street) -- has zero connection to the working/ethnic/GLBT folks here.

Matt is gonna have to work like a dog to beat this guy. In looking at the percentages the other candidates got, I can see Tommy's folks would go with Matt, Angela's and Susan's might go his way, though some of the older Angels supporters might go for Newsom.

All in all, it is going to be a squeaker -- voter turnout will be the key.

[g_philli]

17. Exactly

If you were running for mayor in a liberal place like SF and you have conservative views, the only way you’re going to win is with the ‘Democratic’ label. You’ll get the votes from people that just vote party lines no matter what their beliefs.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi g_philli!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[g_philli]

25. Thank you

It's good being here.

[Cascadian]

34. From all I have been hearing....

Newsom sounds like Republican Lite to me. I would urge all of you in SF to vote for his opponent Gonzalez.


John

[jsw_81]

21. I don't live in SF

But if I did I'd definitely vote for Newsom. If he wins he could take Feinstein's Senate seat when she retires and would definitely be a rising star on the national scene.

[AP]

32. The only national democrats with resumes like Newsoms are the ones...

...who are class traitors, or go very far left. You can't be a popular democrat who is so friendly to big business, with a rich-guy's biography, who doesn't have a resume of caring for the oppressed.

It might work in SF mayoral race (where your'e scapegoting the homeless (yuck)). But it wouldn't work nationally.

[Cascadian]

24. Could you imagine if Gonzales wins?

It would be a major victory for the Green Party. Not just in SF or California, but in the country. A Green Party candidate becomes mayor of a major city.


Let's not forget that in the 1979 election, Jello Biafra came in fourth out of 10 candidates in the election and was the fringe candidate. It forced Dianne Feinstein and Quinten Kopp to a run-off.


John

[goobergunch]

27. kick

:kick:

[reachout]

28. Kick

Kickety, Kick

[Pdtz]

36. Newsom is NOT a democrat

Newsom is a cog in the San Francisco political machine.

I suppose what disgusts me more then anything about this man is how he has based his entire election on the vilification of the most vulnerable population in San Francisco.

Yes, the homeless problem needs to be seriously addressed, but Newsom is NOT the candidate who will address it. Cash not Care was a terribly written proposition, and one that will probably exacerbate the homeless problem in San Francisco. Because of its lack of funding it will almost certainly deprive all homeless who are not on CAAP from beds in shelters, including emergency shelters.

I also find it quite hypocritical that Newsom's doing all he can to make sure that San Francisco's neediest can't ask you for a dollar to buy dinner, while he "aggressively solicits" thousands of dollars for his campaign war-chest.

I only wish I wasn't stuck down here in the suburban wasteland that is the Peninsula so I could move back to (and vote in) the city I love.

[Tinoire]

37. Green. Newsom is too vile for me. n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

40. Endorsements?

Has Angela, Tom or Susan endorsed anyone yet? I know it's early, but any word on who they are going to support in the runoff?

My guess is that Angela and Tom will go with Gonzo. Susan, I'm not sure of.

[AP]

41. Would a Dem endorse a Green? Is that suicide?

I'd bet they'd keep quiet before they'd endorse Matt G.

However, if they did endorse him, it might seal the deal for Matt G. He's almost definitely going to fill his administration with a buch of Dems. It might be a smart move.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. I think it's totally doable...

here in San Francisco. There was the infamous race where we elected the most progressisve board our town has ever seen -- if I remember correclty, not one of the candidates endorsed by the state Democratic Party won -- they were all outsider Dems and Matt (who was a Dem until after the run-off), who were endorsed by our local Dems.

[ronnykmarshall]

44. Fund raisers

I read before the election that the other progressive candidates (Angela, Tom, Susan & Gonzo) were going to support whoever got the second place slot. Including helping that person to raise money.

Angela is not in office right now and I can't see her being harmed in anyway by backing Gonzo. She backed him when he ran for Supervisor.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

42. Gavin Newsom is human excrement

I'd vote Green in this case.

[doppledang]

48. Why the hatred for Gavin?

Why the hatred for Gavin? :wow:

[Blitz]

49. You think he's hated now?

Wait 'til he's Mayor Newsom.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

51. A rich man getting elected by demonizing the poorest people

What else would you call him? He's little more than a classist version of Trent Lott.

[AP]

50. Info on volunteering for and donating to Matt Gonzalez:

http://www.mattgonzalez.com/

[cyr330]

57. for the first time, I voted Green

Gavin Newsom is a rich kid with a chip on his shoulder. I voted Green all the way this time. . . .

[ShaneGR]

61. The Dem, of course

Never, ever, vote Green. Ever. Fugging George Bush lovers, can't stand em.

[GreenArrow]

68. I promise you

The average Green dislikes GWB a LOT more than the average Dem.

[Iverson]

75. correction

"Fugging George Bush lovers, can't stand em."

Perhaps such people exist in your imagination, but the truth of the matter is quite opposite. You may have noticed that Greens take political positions that are strongly dissimilar from Republicans instead of, say, trumpeting their bipartisanship or working hand in hand with Republicans to exclude other parties from this or that.

Perhaps you knew this and were just being ugly on purpose. Still, in the event that it was an honest error of fact, you now stand corrected.

[FuriousMNDem]

63. The last thing we need is a Green winning office.

Can't the Green Party unite with the Democrats every now and then?

You can't say that the Democrat is Bush-lite, either.

[AP]

66. Think of it as win-win. Either you get a Democrat or a super progressive

The ONLY people running are the Green and the Dem. You can't lose.

But, now that you have the choice, who in their right mind wouldn't chose the most liberal person running.

This is what I'm always focused on. Getting the most liberal person possible elected. Sometimes, you have to compromise for electability. But here you don't.

Straight-up. You can vote for the Green candidate and get a really liberal mayor. He'd prove that you can be liberal and make money, which, I'm sure, everyone''s afraid of. But isn't it time we give progress a chance?

[UrbScotty]

64. (sigh) More stereotyping of young people.

The Democrat is a young, rich millionaire developer who lives in a house I believe the Hearsts bought for him in a really expensive part of the city.

If I were in SF, I'd vote for Newsom because of that alone.

[AP]

67. Gonzalez might be younger (both are late 30s) so vote for Gonzalez

if that's your issue. I guarantee you Gonzalez is more in touch with your average young person.

:)

[Deja Q]

65. Green here, no question- go ahead and tell me to punch myself in the balls

Criminalize panhandling?

Once again, our sleazy society prefers to annihilate symptoms of its own problems rather than resolving the problems.

And I will not vote for a Dem if he/she acts like a repuke. There sure as hell is no difference between the two at that point, and I want problems resolved - not more people thrown into prisons.

[mot78]

69. If I lived in SF, Newsom

If the Greens are allowed to win an election this big, then there's no way we can stop them from running another candidate for President, one that could snatch votes away, anyway.

[AP]

70. That's a big jump. If you throw them a bone in SF, they might not see the

need to run a Presidential candidate.

A big reason Nader ran in the first place was because all the other people running needed a figurehead.

They might not need one if Gonzalez runs.

So vote for Gonzalez.

[Iverson]

76. "allowed to win"

Such arrogance.

[The White Rose]

73. Watch Newsom. He's going places.

Not sure I approve of him, but I've thought this for a long time. I'm predicting that Newsom will win on his way to national prominence. He might just be the Anti-Christ ;-)