Little bit more on the whole Reilly v. Ma (or is it Ma v. Reilly) thing

According to the Chronicle's Matier and Ross today, this 12th District, which I apparently live in (or at least live close enough that I get the mailers and have to be subjected to the tv ads) is a pretty big fight. In one corner you have the entrenched Sacramento group, whose outgoing standard bearer wants Ma to take over. In the other corner you have the wife of the man who was the standard bearer's political foe.

What does this mean? Upwards of 2 million dollars has been spent on a sleepy district that includes a large number of dead people (the 12th includes Colma, where the cemetaries are). And this has been a nasty fight. Its included charges that one of the candidates worked for an anti-abortion govenor in South Dakota (one hell of an IRS goof). Then there has been the counter-attack which has included that, horror of horrors, one candidate dared to send her children to a catholic school!

The Chronicle just came out for Ma. However, in reading it, I almost think that they are using the Brian Sabean approach to free agents (i.e. if the player's an older veteran he must be good. And Mr. Sabean if you do read this, don't hold this against me when I put in for season tickets!).

Of course, it would have been nice to hear that candidates debate the issues instead of their choice of schools for their childern. However, one candidate seemed less than eager to do so. So that leads me to wonder why?

As I said before, I endorse neither of these people. I just find the whole thing amusing in a "will you stop putting on these awful commercials the take me out of my Doctor Who/Battlestar Galactica/Veronica Mars groove".