Neither seems susceptible to a quick fix, and the time, energy and cost expended has made us skeptical that anything of lasting value was really accomplished.

The bridge is reopened (for now), but work already has taken nearly eight years at an estimated cost of $7.2 billion and the engineers still could not get it right. A crack in of one of the span's 200 so-called eyebars - the same problem which closed it on Labor Day weekend - was the apparent culprit.

We are told that the reconstruction design specs did not take high winds and continuous vibrations into consideration. That's a little like saying we need not consider weather conditions when we build airplanes.

Monitoring devices able to detect excessive structural movements and routinely deployed on bridges were apparently not covered under the price tag. The disregard for such simple safety measures could have posed unacceptable loss of lives.

California's repeated failure to bring in on-time budgets also results from misplaced confidence over the years in the state's vaunted ability to take action when faced with cataclysmic events.

But a fiscal crisis endangers millions and the flimsy budget repairs made this year are already being undone by the realization that, barring a magical recovery in the state's financial, real estate and job markets, the picture could worsen before it improves.

Unfortunately, the government does not have the luxury of reviewing various design options when plotting our future. Weighty economic decisions must be made on the run, often without sufficient information by legislators who are barely into mastering the intricacies of their diverse subject areas when they are termed out.

We heap scorn on politicians for anything that goes wrong, fairly or not. In truth, this stems from irreconcilable differences between what the public expects and what lawmakers are able to deliver under the rules we the people have created.

Proposition 13 has essentially robbed us of the ability to raise revenues indispensable to the complex fabric of health, educational, safety and social services we demand. A two-thirds supermajority favored by the voters is needed to raise taxes - arguably creating a dictatorship of the minority.

Our famous initiative process, originally conceived to free us from domination by money barons and which proponents like to call "direct democracy," is now controlled by other special interests with different names.

All this has left the courts straining to untangle the contradictory mandates and prohibitions adopted by the voters with the powers ceded them by a frustrated legislature.

It should not require a constitutional convention to fix these problems, but some, such as Assemblyman Jared Huffman see the appeal. If it occurs, Huffman favors a comprehensive package of reforms rather than doing this piecemeal.  

If convened, one must ask how and by whom will the delegates be chosen and what issues could be taken off the table?  

Bridges are eventually repaired. Fixing a government could be more challenging.

The conventioneers might want to open the proceedings with Pogo's admonition "We have met the enemy and he is us."

It enacted reforms, which while not perfect, calls for fuller disclosure of independent expenditures - the principal source of funding behind negative campaign ads and mailers. But the law only applies to county races, a small fraction of the total.

This makes it arguably tougher for big money donors to hide, but if wealthy contributors offer full disclosure they are apparently still immune from legal prosecution for what are now commonly referred to as hit pieces.

In those nine cities in Marin (Novato being the exception) which have yet to adopt campaign reform ordinances, the opportunity for mischief remains. San Rafael, currently engaged in a heated council election campaign, is once again center stage for controversy with self-styled activist, Jonathan Frieman, who doesn't live in the city, once more playing the leading role.

Frieman has spent a large amount of his own money to derail candidate Gary Ford, whose political views presumably run counter to Frieman's.

His principal argument seems to be that, until public financing of campaigns is adopted - something which no serious political observer believes will happen soon - people such as him must do whatever necessary to equalize the playing field against the unscrupulous special interests that influence election outcomes.

His mailer was authored and printed by some group called "Citizens for Responsible Government." In other words he sees himself as the self-appointed defender of the public interest. The problem is that Frieman's vision of what is best for the general populace may not be universally shared.

Yet, under the present scheme, he can bankroll these negative attacks with near impunity and pay a measly $10 fine if he chose to disregard filing regulations.

Parking meter violations cost much more.

It did not help that several weeks ago the San Rafael City Council could not even muster a majority to sign "a fair campaign pledge" on the grounds that the word "negative" requires further definition lest its members were to run afoul of First Amendment rights.

Thus, while we are searching for its true meaning, which is something the courts may ultimately need to decide, Frieman can continue to push his iconoclastic notions of campaign reform, even if names and reputations are damaged in the process.

There is a legitimate distinction to be made between advertising and campaign fliers that use facts to challenge one's qualifications for public office and those which casually manipulate or distort the facts to generate voter disgust.

In the universe in which Frieman and his co-funders operate that line is easily crossed.

While IECs cannot be completely outlawed, nor is there much political will to do so in Washington, Sacramento or anywhere, San Rafael and all cities should follow Novato's and the county's lead and impose prohibitive fines and stiff criminal penalties on offenders.

This will not stop self-styled activists who seem to relish the greater celebrity and are willing to run the gauntlet of public criticism to have their way with the voters. But it would send a message even to them that elective offices are not just for sale to the highest bidder.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Hollywood heavy with no prior political credentials but with several Hummers filled with reformist notions, convinced the voters he could get the job done.

After his predecessor Gray Davis' surrender to the unions, an electricity crisis and a demeanor (sorry for the pun) grayer than a smoggy L.A. day, Arnold seemed like just the magic tonic for a disillusioned populace. Sporting surpluses on its balance sheet with little idea of the Armageddon just ahead, California giddily spent its way into the recession like a drunk on a binge with no one interested in closing the bar as long as everyone was still having a good time.

Schwarzenegger got stuck with the bill.

After squandering most of his political capital as well, he searched around for a handful of fellow Republicans to help bail him out. Not one could be found. But unlike his predecessor who did himself in, Schwarzenegger will not have to test his sinking popularity much longer as he is ushered out by term limits.

In 2010, a new lineup of contestants for what may be the nation's most thankless job enters the ring hoping to run a government that may be impossible to tame in a state drowning in red ink.

Preparing to be led to the slaughter on the Democratic side we have Gavin Newsom, the wonkish, hard-charging mayor of San Francisco which has only twice sent its leaders to

Soon to launch his campaign is the septuagenarian, Jerry Brown - the current attorney general and the same fellow who delighted us with his war on the med- flies and who, three decades ago, earned the nickname "Governor Moonbeam" for his experimental ideas and quixotic assault on the conventional rules of governance.

Apparently exercising more common sense is Dianne Feinstein - the state's redoubtable senior U.S. senator who has, it seems, decided to remain in Washington, where she enjoys great seniority and at least full control of a powerful committee.

And in the GOP corner, we have the title holder in the woman's billionaire division - Meg Whitman, ex-eBay CEO - whose sudden aspiration for public service is being questioned since she has rarely voted in any elections.

In the men's light-heavyweight division, there is Steve Poizner, the millionaire insurance commissioner with slender executive credentials, who in the early going can match Whitman dollar for dollar.

Trailing the pack is former representative and frequent professor, Tom Campbell, who probably would have beaten the other U.S. senator, Barbara Boxer, in 1992, had the GOP not chosen as its nominee, conservative TV commentator and strip-joint customer, Bruce Herschensohn.

The endorsement game has begun with Bill Clinton coming out for Newsom, who could be peaking too early. Look for Sarah Palin to offer her benediction to one of the GOP rivals, posing a difficult decision.

A rejuvenated California economy would give President Barack Obama, who will not be running for anything next year, the opportunity to extend the most-coveted endorsement.

The 6th District seat has been occupied for the past 18 years by Woolsey, the veteran Democratic legislator from Petaluma who has proven to be very durable despite rumblings in some quarters about her uncompromising liberalism.

When Barbara Boxer surrendered the seat in 1992 to run for the U.S. Senate, the former welfare mom put her hat in the ring and bested eight opponents - all but one male and all but one from Marin - getting 26 percent of the vote. Woolsey went on to beat Marin's Republican Assemblyman Bill Filante, who even before his diagnosis with a brain tumor, was in for an uphill battle in this overwhelmingly Democratic district.

Since then, she has faced mostly token opposition, with the only real challenge coming from within her own party when then-Assemblyman Joe Nation tried to oust her in 2006. He was soundly beaten.

Now the vice chair of the House Progressive Caucus and one of only 133 members to oppose the Iraq invasion, Woolsey seems to fit the desires of her constituency like a glove and has more than once shown an inner mettle, including her arrest in April with four other representatives protesting the blocking of aid to victims of the Darfur atrocities.

Open congressional seats are a rarity, usually attracting numerous contenders.

While there is no heir-apparent several names immediately pop up.

The most obvious is Jared Huffman, the second-term Assemblyman from San Rafael, who would be established as an early frontrunner unless he opted to remain in the Assembly until 2012 when he could run for the State Senate.

But state Sen. Mark Leno, whose district overlaps with Huffman's, could decide to run for re-election or have jumped into what will be a crowded race for mayor of San Francisco after Gavin Newsom's departure. Leno has not yet signaled his intentions.

Huffman's strongest opposition could come from Sonoma County where Petaluma Mayor Pam Torliatt came within 3,000 votes of beating him in the 2006 Democratic primary for the Assembly.

But these numbers must be measured against the fact that, as the sole Sonoma entry, she only carried it by 52 percent, with Huffman, then an unfamiliar face north of Marin, scoring an impressive second-place finish there and besting his four Marin opponents by more than their combined vote total.

Sonoma, with its 2-to-1 registered-voter advantage and growing population, will play a decisive role and an endorsement by Woolsey, who enjoys widespread popularity notwithstanding some criticism that she has not been effective enough, would have to be considered a coveted prize.

Other candidates could emerge from the Marin Board of Supervisors where Susan Adams is known to have ambitions. Supervisor Charles McGlashan also might be interested.

It is almost certainly a Democratic seat.

But after Boxer and Woolsey, is it a "woman's" seat? Place your bets now.

Fiorina has her work cut out for her. In 2004, Boxer collected nearly 7 million popular votes - still the record in California for a statewide contested election.

Boxer, a former Greenbrae resident and former Marin supervisor, served five terms in the House of Representatives before she won the senate seat. Her tussles with the Pentagon as a member of the House Armed Services Committee over runaway defense spending are legendary.

Boxer charts in at 4-foot-11, making her, along with Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, one of the senate's two shortest members. But her diminutive stature belies her formidable political skills.

A fierce competitive spirit and strong liberal convictions, from which she rarely wavers, have enabled her to build a loyal constituency that has befuddled every opponent the Republicans have thrown at her.

Her senior colleague from California, Dianne Feinstein, attracts a more moderate following and has parted with Boxer on some key issues. Feinstein often serves as a go-between with GOP members - a posture the take-no-prisoners Boxer tends to shun.

Despite some critical differences (Boxer voted against the Iraq invasion and Feinstein supported it), and while not close friends, both women have worked effectively together and have given California significant clout while carving out their separate political turfs.

Boxer has styled herself as an unabashed feminist willing to take on Washington's male establishment when she sees fit. Who can forget her storming the Senate Judiciary hearings in 1991 as she led a group of embattled House members into its chambers to protest the dismissive treatment of Anita Hill by the all-white, all-male committee after Hill had accused Supreme Court nominee and now justice Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment?

As chair of the powerful Environment and Public Works Committee, and now arguably the top environmentalist in the senate, Boxer has taken on the most challenging task of her career - guiding a controversial energy- reform bill to final passage.

Her handling of this measure, the centerpiece of the Obama Administration's anti-global warming initiatives, is already ruffling feathers among the climate-change skeptics and within large segments of the business community, which sees it as just another big-government giveaway that will raise taxes and kill jobs.

If the administration fails to get a version of health reform legislation through acceptable to the millions who voted for the president, it will embolden opponents to weaken the energy bill as well and even try to derail it completely. That's a prospect which Boxer has probably considered and one which Fiorina's minions would be sure to exploit.

Boxer, a 69-year-old former journalist and mother of two, moved to Oakland with husband, Stewart, a labor lawyer in 2006. Their son, Doug, also an attorney, is on the Oakland Planning Commission appointed by then-mayor, and all-but-certain gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Brown.

In each race since her first senate victory, which Boxer won by a razor-thin 4.9 percentage points, she has faced Republican men. She has shattered early projections that she is "unreelectable."

This time she could face a woman with millions of her own to spend.

But if Boxer is worried she is not yet showing it.

After hours these fierce adversaries would repair to the Carroll Arms, the Monocle and other popular watering holes for dinner and friendly conversation.

They included the likes of Everett Dirksen, the Republican minority leader from Illinois known for his bombastic speeches which earned him the label by his critics, the "Wizard of Ooze." A JFK supporter and Vietnam War hawk, he helped lead the 1964 Civil Rights bill to passage.

There was Richard Russell, the crusty conservative Georgian, who chaired the powerful Armed Services Committee with an iron hand for 14 years. Both Russell and Dirksen have Senate office buildings named after them. They are joined by their colleague, the deeply respected Philip Hart of Michigan, the "Conscience of the Senate" who died in 1976, just days after a third building received his name.

Another looming presence was the genial Sam Ervin of North Carolina, a constitutional scholar with genteel Southern breeding who first denounced the watershed Brown v. Board of education ruling outlawing segregation and later reversed himself. He liked to say he was "just a small-town lawyer," but his deft conduct of the Watergate hearings is largely credited with ending Richard Nixon's presidency.

Alongside these giants was Hubert Humphrey, the "happy warrior" and fiery speaker from Minnesota, who might have become president himself but for the cross he bore from having supported the increasingly unpopular Vietnam War waged by his boss, President Lyndon Johnson.

These were among the august assemblage that greeted Ted Kennedy when he took his seat as the junior senator from Massachusetts.

I first met him when I went to work just out of graduate school as a legislative aide to John Tunney, the California Democrat, who was one of Kennedy's closest friends and roommate at Virginia law school.

I can recall a contentious floor debate in 1973 over a bill Tunney co-sponsored for funds for anti-riot equipment, tanks and other hardware to curb street violence. Kennedy gave Tunney his vote with little enthusiasm.

Next up was a bill sponsored by Kennedy that was of marginal benefit to Californians. Not aware, Tunney was exiting the floor as Kennedy leaned over to me and said, "I just backed his dog. I assume he will be backing mine!"

Tunney quickly complied.

Such good-natured bargaining was commonplace then. Arguably more vital legislation was adopted in the 25-year span from 1965 to 1990, much of it bearing Ted Kennedy's stamp, than at any time since or prior.

That era of cooperation has given way to one of confrontation and plain nastiness as the ideological divide is widening.

Kennedy was the last and perhaps most talented soldier among this noble band of patriots and his passing casts a long shadow. Kennedy's endorsement of President Barack Obama enshrouds him in a legacy that no other American political family can match.

The vote was unanimous, but not without last-minute maneuvering by one wavering board member, Cynthia Kohler, to remove the item from the agenda on the grounds that action should not be taken until a fifth vacancy on the panel was filled.

Many in the overflow crowd sporting "conservation not desalination" buttons applauded the move. But it was brushed aside by veteran member, Jack Gibson, who argued they had full legal authority and the necessary representation to press forward.

Even ardent conservation proponent, Larry Russell, acknowledged it might take months for a new member to get up to speed.

Desalination is only one of a menu of supply-balancing and cost-conscious recommendations MMWD is pushing to compensate for a chronic water shortage that practically guarantees the adoption of water rationing, rate hikes and other unpopular emergency measures used in previous droughts.

As the county enters its third year of below-average rainfall defined as a drought, and with no supply options remaining other than to extract an extra 1,000 acre feet from Kent Lake, which would bring the district to the legal watershed usage limit under federal law, the public protection argument has taken on new urgency.

This did not prevent the desalination foes, who comprised the overwhelming majority in the audience, from pulling out every ploy in their arsenal to thwart the process. Opponents rehashed dire warnings, ranging from fecal content from a nearby sewer treatment plant would contaminate the drinking water, the imminent extinction of the brine shrimp population, saddling our children with a heavy debt and a parfait of fiscal and environmental objections.

Granted these are not matters to be taken lightly, particularly the need to control costs, energy consumption, and the impacts of greater water availability on potential growth. Many have been addressed in the completed environmental report, but require more study, as the district has promised.

Examination of alternative energy sources demands special attention since it could hold the key to holding down the greatest costs associated with operating a desalination plant after the capital investment calculated to be around $105 million.

Supervisor Hal Brown spoke for many who have become disheartened and impatient with years of procrastination when he declared, "the price of a reliable supply of water is minimal compared to the price of a drought."

The Marin Conservation League - no advocates of desalination - urged that the board to look at other options but agreed that MMWD had conducted an eminently fair public process.

Others who do not believe the process has gone far enough demanded that the board put desalination to a public vote. In response, one board member made it clear that a vote would be perceived as a blatant abdication of leadership. Several free speech advocates holding up "No Desal" posters suggested the entire board resign, presumably sparing us from further useless dialogue.

There were no takers.

Animals usually get along well enough to avoid attacking one another (even verbally) generally out of fear that the bite they receive in return could be worse. They do not consciously exercise self-restraint - something rational beings are automatically expected to do.

But civil discourse seems to be in short supply these days and aggressive canines may not be the only ones needing behavior management.

The state Bar thought this serious enough to create a Civility Task Force which just released a report admonishing overzealous attorneys who use offensive courtroom language and display inappropriate conduct in pleading their clients' cases even after stern warnings from the bench.

Rancorous exchanges both among elected officials and with members of the public at many governmental forums are growing more commonplace as conventional etiquette and reasoned arguments are swept aside in favor of scoring debating points that inevitably draw media coverage.

This was the case at the recent San Rafael City Council meeting where self-styled campaign-reform crusader, Jonathan Frieman, engaged in verbal fisticuffs with Mayor Al Boro.

Frieman is a wealthy man whose basic contention seems to be that his openly acknowledged funding of highly negative mailers launched at candidates he disfavors exonerates him of all blame for lowering the levels of political discourse.

Kudos for such disclosure. However, if greater transparency and denunciation of false and inflammatory communications are laudatory goals, it is difficult to find justification for attacking a reform ordinance as he did which county supervisors and the League of Women Voters of Marin have worked hard at crafting that moves Marin closer to adopting countywide fair-campaign practices.

Even more puzzling is the reluctance of San Rafael Council members Damon Connolly and Greg Brockbank to sign something as benign as a "fair campaign pledge," repudiating shoddy campaign tactics until given a clearer definition of what negative means.

They might want to recall Justice Potter Stewart's simple explanation for the term pornography, "I know it when I see it."

Even in a body as august and proper as the U.S. Senate, where the observance of senatorial courtesies is a hallowed tradition, the intense heat generated by certain issues sometimes brings members perilously close to ad hominem attacks. Just the threat of such verbal bashing can squelch all meaningful dialogue.

In the super-charged atmosphere of the Sotomayor Supreme Court confirmation hearings, while her character was not maligned, the mere fact of her Latina heritage and several of her impolitic out-of- court pronouncements was enough-despite a long record of carefully measured rulings as a federal judge - to persuade some senators she held deeply ingrained prejudices.

Knowing in advance of her vulnerability to such charges and to effectively disarm her opponents, she was counseled to offer only the barest insights about her views.

The result was pure Kabuki theatre that unfortunately told neither her questioners nor the public very much at all.

When we lose our ability to talk and act civilly to one another we are descending into conduct more typically associated with a lesser species.

While Sacramento might have put a temporary halt to the bleeding, it was accomplished on the backs of cities and counties throughout Marin and California. Many are threatening to sue the state to recover billions of dollars in lost revenues.

This was shaping up as a bad deal for K-12 schools and community colleges, health and social services organizations and municipal governments that were enacting layoffs even before the first IOUs went out.

The so-called safety net that protects the most vulnerable may have been preserved, but there are signs it is becoming badly frayed with Republicans adamantly opposed to any new revenues and even with Democrats holding out as long as possible against spending cuts.

We already have gotten a preview of what's to come with summer school closings, deferment of bridge and road repairs.

Some of the older hands see it as just more business as usual. Meanwhile we have a state with non-stop growth, a congenitally fractious government, increasing ethnic and cultural disparities, a collapsing infrastructure, mounting unemployment and steadily declining revenues.

To these battle-scarred veterans there is only a crisis if you want to call it such.

A $26 billion deficit is just a bigger one than the previous and will get solved in much the same way - through a disorderly process among players whose names keep changing yet continue operating under the same discredited rules.

The state's badly depleted coffers are one source of the problems. More so, this is symptomatic of deeper fault lines that have been spreading for a long time. Careless governing cannot produce good budgets.

California with its badly tarnished image has gone, in just a few decades, from one of the world's leading incubators of new ideas with an educational structure, public highway systems and water and power facilities that were second to none to second-class status.

We have a handful of dedicated elected officials who take the long view and are raising their voices to urge true reforms. But they are in short supply and hampered by arcane laws, misguided initiatives, impossible voting requirements, special interests, over-reaching unions, unnecessary government employees, unscrupulous political consultants, crafty lobbyists and partisan mud-slinging which, taken together, could topple any state.

Marin has many talented public servants who are leading the charge to make changes. One is Marin Schools Superintendent, Mary Jane Burke, who sees the state's educational roller coaster careening ever downward.

She and others, including this writer, are advocating a Constitutional Convention to take a hard look at this ongoing and systemic government dysfunction.

Assemblyman Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) also makes a case for it. He took a recent poll where the vast majority of the 1,100 who responded favor sweeping budget reforms.

The patient may have just swallowed a bitter pill, but major surgery is still required.

While the memories of that unpopular conflict continues to weigh on American foreign policy 40 years later come back into painful view with the death of its chief architect, we should perhaps be excused for taking time to celebrate the life of another extraordinary individual who brought joy to the multitudes.

Even the current budget crises in both Sacramento and Washington, which together are having a global effect and show few signs of abatement, was briefly ignored as Jackson's extraordinary memorial was viewed by an estimated 1 billion people from Marin to Manchuria.

History has been usually defined by planet-changing events such as the dismantlement of the Soviet empire or the beginning and end of titanic conflicts, such as those that shattered the globe three times in the 20th century - all arguably transformative.

But given the focus and adulation bestowed on Jackson, an iconic figure whose fame spanned several generations and could indeed be the greatest entertainer of all time, for future decades we may be adding a new bracket - the pre- and post-Jackson Eras.

In recent years, only Obama's inauguration drew higher TV ratings, but even that historic event did not generate the global fascination that the King of Pop was able to conjure.

What do we learn from this?

Government ineptitude, global warming and Supreme Court nominations - and on a more local level - housing policies, transportation planning and providing for our future water supply are all highly divisive topics which generate fierce debate and few universally acceptable solutions. It requires taking sides, and our perspectives about these weighty issues are framed by our personal backgrounds, our cultural mores and our innate biases.

But Jackson's consummate talents - writ larger than even those of Elvis, the original "king", transcended, if briefly our every day concerns.

Looking at the collection of powerful figures from every walk of life who took the stage at Los Angeles's Staples Center this week, we saw once again how music has a uniquely restorative and binding quality that surpasses perhaps all other remedies.

Perhaps they should set aside 30 minutes each day at the Board of Supervisors and in the California Assembly to pipe in Mozart, the Beatles or Michael Jackson. Given the usual speed with which laws are made, the distraction would probably go unnoticed and - who knows - the feeling of good will that might spill over the chambers could carry over long enough to have a very salutary effect.

The world has not entirely changed with Jackson's passing, but for a little while - like the Peter Pan character of every child's imagination that he revered - it gave us time to pause and revel in the interconnectedness of our planet.

Newsom, 41, spent 17 of his formative years in Marin, graduating from Redwood High School, where he attracted notice mainly for his baseball and basketball skills.

His family's move to Marin from San Francisco was prompted by economic necessity - the family could not afford private schools - and cramped space. His parents having divorced, Newsom was raised primarily by his mom who, to make ends meet, rented out their home for a time to a foster family. Newsom was diagnosed in early childhood with dyslexia, a learning disability that afflicts 15 percent of Americans and which he appears to have conquered.

While Newsom claims to have had little interest at first in politics "or even local issues," he remembers with a wry grin that his high school classmates dubbed him "El Presidente."

But when he entered Santa Clara University, political science studies replaced sports and he grew attentive to the burgeoning career of his uncle, former San Francisco Supervisor Ron Pelosi, brother-in-law of the House speaker. "Dinner conversations were about politics," says Newsom.

He attributes his decision to enter the public arena to two people: Willie L. Brown Jr., the wily, indestructible former mayor of San Francisco, and John Burton, the former powerhouse senator and now state Democratic Party chairman. "When Willie first ran for mayor in 1995, I knew the spark had ignited," Newsom said. He campaigned hard for Brown.

Interestingly, the seemingly ageless ex-speaker of the Assembly (Brown celebrated his 75th birthday in March) has aimed some sharp criticisms in recent years at his prot g , whom he plucked out of obscurity to fill a vacancy on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2002.

Since it was Burton who persuaded Brown to appoint Newsom, both could rightly claim to have godfathered the aspiring gubernatorial candidate whose hopes of getting to Sacramento have been realized by only two former San Francisco mayors - "Sunny" Jim Rolph in 1931, and Washington Montgomery Bartlett in 1887.

Is there a geographic bias at work that favors Southern California candidates, where most of the voters reside, and could this make the Hispanic mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, a rising star at 56, the one man he must beat?

"No," Newsom said emphatically. "The rules have changed dramatically. We have new demographics in California. Young voters will make the difference." He invokes the words of Robert Kennedy as a mantra: "The answer is to rely upon youth - not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity."

But what about the emerging Hispanic vote? "I will put my record in that area up against anyone," Newsom said, proudly citing municipal identification legislation he signed that offers protection to illegal immigrants wanting to report crimes and which companies holding public contracts must accept.

The ultimate test of democracy is whether the citizenry can believe what its leaders are saying. Politicians regularly rank at the bottom of all polls for trustworthiness. Firefighters, nurses and teachers are at the top.

Since our legislators have lost most of their credibility - a scant 21 percent of voters give them a favorable rating - they are calling on their surrogates to do the heavy lifting.

No wonder that firefighters and teachers are being trotted out by the yes advocates. The major sports organizations also have signed on, fearing their tickets might otherwise be taxed.

On the one hand, we are told there is a ballooning deficit lurching out of control brought on by dwindling revenues, which will force the state to borrow as much as $23 billion that neither the banks nor the federal government may be willing to lend it if these ballot measures are rejected. Or, we can choose to gamble on returns from future lottery profits and strip money from other vitally needed services, hoping the budget will right itself in future years and avert even more drastic cuts.

The last time the voters were sold on the virtues of a quick budget fix was in 2004 when Arnold Schwarzenegger, as the popular newly-elected governor, was able to erase what was then an almost identical $15 billion deficit by getting Proposition 58 passed.

This year's ballot enthusiasts are making the same claims.

The governor said then, "This is the first time that our politicians' credit cards have been torn up and thrown away so they never, ever can spend more money than the state takes in." The measure sailed through with 71 percent of the vote.

The following year Proposition 76 provided what was deemed the missing link - a spending curb - but it failed lacking bipartisan support. Proposition 1A renews the spending cap but this time with the blessing of Democrats who accepted it as part of the price for supporting an otherwise unappetizing budget deal.

Marin Assemblyman Jared Huffman says, "These were not the solutions I would have chosen and I reluctantly accepted the compromise because of the urgency of the crisis and the 100-day standoff that had already resulted in 25,000 teachers getting 'pink slips,' closures of health clinics and childcare centers, and more than $2 billion in infrastructure projects stopped in their tracks."

Liberal Democrats oppose permanent spending caps. Republicans worry that the tax increases will be extended.

Huffman, who might be characterized as a member of the Realist school, urges a "yes" vote, saying these ballot measures are "the glue that holds a good portion of that compromise together."

The options are: Take something terrible now or something even worse later. The bigger issue is not that the government is broke, but the system.

Just the week before, Republicans did them one better, snubbing all six measures.

John Burton, the former State Senate leader and Marin representative, in his first speech as newly elected Democratic Party chief, appealed for solidarity, but had little sway. He even withheld his own support for these measures which, with the exception of Proposition 1F that bars salary raises for government officials in deficit years, appear headed for defeat.

Marin's Board of Supervisors is officially neutral on Propositions 1A, 1B and 1C, but opposed to the funding shifts called for in Propositions 1D and 1E.

Many see the budget agreement, crafted in frantic last- minute maneuvers by legislators to avoid an outright declaration of bankruptcy, as a sell-out to the Republicans who were able to extract promises to impose spending curbs in exchange for their votes.

Republicans and many older voters put little faith in the "rainy day" fund, while Democrats view this as stripping dollars from vital programs such as pre-school education, In-Home Support Services for the elderly and the disabled, public transit and much more.

But the rifts among the Democrats over the best methods for solving the debacle were on full display at the state convention. Many demanded that the budget be sent back to the governor for an overhaul.

It is unclear whether even an intensive public relations campaign in the final weeks led by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic leaders can turn the tide with less than 40 percent voter turnout anticipated and little enthusiasm for new spending as California and the nation grapple with the greatest financial crisis since the Depression.

What none of these measures address is the core issue of finding broad-based consensus on exactly how this giant nation-state should manage its long-term financial strategies.

On one end of the spectrum stand the prophets of doom who see no hope for a government that will be swimming in red ink for years to come and is too dysfunctional to want to reform itself.

At the opposite end are those more concerned about the loss of critical services than the mountains of debt. They would keep issuing blank checks using whatever revenue sources are available including higher taxes.

Sorely lacking is a centrist bi-partisan coalition that could win majority support for a radical restructuring of the way the state does business and able to offer sound recommendations that address our long term investments and priorities for a growing and increasingly diverse population.

The Legislature mainly has itself to blame for cobbling together a budget deal that most voters view as merely the latest example of lawmaker abdication.

Selling it as the best deal possible does not make it more palatable and voters seem poised to say so on May 19.

Public cynicism will remain unabated until sweeping reforms rather than stopgap substitutes are adopted-a task for which few in Sacramento appear to have much appetite.

This election could be a sobering wake-up call. But will it be heeded?