SF Mayor Race: Green Pulls Ahead

the last poll out on from this site had it in a "statistical deadheat" with Green Candidate at 49% and establishment Dem/Repug Gavin Newsom at 47%. Looks like Gonzalez has gained a little ground, and it's not a statistical deadheat any longer: Gonzalez 52%; Newsom 45%. Still close. Real close.

Poll: Gonzalez Ahead in Race for SF Mayor

Manuel Ramos

Supervisor Matt Gonzalez is not used to being in the lead.

"I'm pleased. I'm flattered," the candidate for mayor of San Francisco said. "The end goal is to win on Election Day, so whenever you hear news like this earlier, you're not really sure."

A CBS 5 poll shows that if the election were held Tuesday, Gonzalez would get 52% of the vote in the race for City Hall. His opponent, Supervisor Gavin Newsom, would get 45%, according to the Survey USA report.

"All the polls have been all over the place, which suggests that this race is hardly over," said Newsom. "It's very much in play."

The poll says that Gonzalez has gained among those who voted for someone else in the general election. In fact, just looking at those voters, Gonzalez went up from 59% to 64% in just a week in a half. Newsom dropped a little, from 29% to 27%.

snip

http://beta.kpix.com/news/local/2003/11/25/Poll%3A_Gonzalez_Ahead_in_Race_for_SF_Mayor.html

A vote for Newsom is a vote for Repuke infiltration.

No Dem comes up with ideas such as putting the homeless on a barge out to see so that Nordstrom shoppers won't be bothered by pan-handlers.



On edit: Damn... Totally mis-read your post and had to go edit quick!
Hope you didn't see it before the edit ;)

When I realized I agreed. I guess it is jut that I am so use to attacks against true Progressives and Greens at Du that I misread it--I am happy I could delete my post before I displayed my incorrect read of "Some Moran's" post.

Thank God for that edit! Especially the title edit we didn't have before!

Peace :)

Makes me smile :)

There were lots of decent Democrats running for mayor, and then there was one Republican in Democrat's clothing, I don't think he was ever favored by a majority of people in SF. And, of course, if the Republicans can't win in SF they're going to try to infiltrate the Democratic party. You can't expect them not to do that.

This isn't a problem with the Democratic Party. It's a problem of dealing with an inevitable strategy by RW'ers.

And Gonzalez was a Democrat for a long time in a city with so many liberals that the debate was entirely within the left, and he had to distinguish himself amongst the left by being Green. Being Green in SF isn't so much antithetical to being Democrat. It's just a way of having a debate within the left which aligns people in a way that voters have a better understanding of the choices.

The big issue in SF is making sure that voters have their radar up so that they can identify covert Republicans. The panhandling thing was a big clue. So is Newsom's biography. People seemed to pick up on those things right away, which is fortunate.

They've done it before...

I'd gladly vote for Gonzalez. I'm dissapointed that Ammiano didn't do better, but he really didn't stand out in this election the way he did in the run-off with scumbag Brown a few year ago.

While Ammiano and former Dem Mayor Art Agnos have endorsed Green Matt Gonzalez, ... Several prominent Dems supporting the Green candidate.

another candidate for Mayor, Dem Angela Alioto, came out in support of Newsom. It looked like she reluctantly did so. She stated that she was a Dem and would support the Dem. Didn't look like her heart was really in it though. Of course, Willie Brown is supporting Newsom.

It would be nice to report that Aliota, a self-professed progressive, endorsed Newsom relunctantly. But that was not the case.

She cut a backroom deal for political power, publicly announced it with candidate Newsom, then when ethical questions were raised (perhaps roared is a better word), she then lied saying that Gonzalez had been willing to accept the same deal. Which Gonzalez has quickly and soundly disproved with eye witnesses and supporting documentation.

It is an embarassment for the Democrats. It is embarassing for me as a San Franciscan. I've liked Alioto for a long time, she has a big heart, fierce love for the city, and she is a tenacious fighter. She was Newsom's harshest and most vigorous critic. It pains me to see her compromise herself to remain relevant in the political arena.

A bit of the story here and a link...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/11/25/MNGCM3A5C71.DTL

"With two weeks left until election day and a new poll showing Matt Gonzalez gaining ground, Gavin Newsom took a risk Monday when he accepted the strings-attached endorsement of longtime antagonist Angela Alioto. "

What the online version failed to report is this bit that was reported in the print version this morning...
"If Newsom wins San Francisco's Dec. 9 runoff election, the deal with his onetime opponent could make Alioto a virtual vice mayor--a title the former supervisor said she and Newsom have talked about."

Apparently she tried to cut a back-room deal with both of them but only Newsom took her up on it so she comes out looking like a political prostitute, Newsom like the scum he is, and Gonzalez as the principled ex-Dem we all know he is.

According to my friends, her staff is in an uproar because they really believed in her. What a shame for them, for us all, to have believed she was what she was presenting herself as. I'm so glad she's been exposed because that's the last thing we need more of in our Party.

I'm going to do what I can to help Gonzalez. Seems he was a strong Dem but that they pushed him out because he was too... populist. Do you know anything about that?

Peace

Hey Tinoire

According to Matt, the deciding factor for him joining the Greens was when Diane Feinstein refused to allow Medea Benjamin to participate in the debates during the 2000 Senate race.

Newsom likes to wag his finger at Matt for 'abandoning' the Dems, yet it is well-documented that Newsom made a large contribution to the GOP right before the 2000 selection and continues to take money from GOP donors.

Disgustingly enough, Al Gore will be coming to town next week to offer his endorsement for Newsom.

GO MATT!!!

Dianne Feinstein? When the H are we going to run her war-mongering a** out of office? I am going to frame the letter she sent me about why she voted to enable Bush- it's gist was that 'she' knew things we didn't (just like Powell and Condi) and basically kiss her a**.

I must say, I am really shocked and disappointed in Gore. Him coming to the rescue of Newsom is making me wish I had voted for Nader to send a strong clear message about all this pandering.

Go Matt!

Nicest fellow you could ever hope to meet btw; I met him at a Kucinich event in SF, same day I met Medea- 3 real souls in a sea of corruption!

Gore coming into SF to campaign for the DEMOCRATIC candidate! What could he be thinking?

I saw the tv video bite of the news conference with Alioto sitting next to Newsom to endorse him. She did not look real enthusiastic about it, saying that she was a Dem and had to support the Dem.

They (KPIX i think) also showed Matt Gonzalez giving a news conference where he adamantly said that Alioto wanted some deal to be sort of a "Vice-Mayor" but that he wouldn't go for it. I guess Newsom did?

What's it say about a person and about the Dem party (or any party for that matter) when the person can sell out their own principles and endorse a candidate that stands for things they oppose? Great integrity there. It would have been better if she didn't endorse anyone. I think this will stick with her. Who knows.

This seems to be getting far afield, what next Wille Brown and MJ in secret video



http://www.mattgonzalez.com/

LOL I think Gav crawled in bed with a porcupine...

from the Bay Guardian:

In a telephone interview after the endorsement announcement, Alioto told us that her dim view of Newsom hasn't changed, and that his tenure as mayor "would be a disaster" – except in the areas of homelessness, public power, and public contract reform, "because I'm in charge."

She acknowledged Newsom could still fire her at will. But she said she doesn't think he would, even though she intends to pursue an agenda that differs markedly from Newsom's, for two reasons: "his credibility, and because I've got the money to recall him if he does."

http://www.sfbg.com/38/09/news_alioto.html

did Alioto actually put all that in a e-mail?

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

:)

:hi:

Now you keep us apprised of Florida! ;)

for bob grahams senate seat.

Brown starts race-bating Gonzalez... truly pathetic.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mayor Brown tells ministers Gonzalez opposes blacks

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/26/MNG0J3AKES26.DTL

did you see the article a few days back about the Republican committe member who is a campaign district organizer for Newsom and who sent an e-mail out try to get people to come to work for Newsom because "all the Greens that don't take showers are showing up in SF by the busload." He also compared Gonzalez to cult leader Jim Jones. I posted a thread on it, but can't locate it right now. Here's the link to the article:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/templates/story.cfm?displaystory=1&storyname=112003n_green

On Tuesday, Ryan Chamberlain, District 1 field organizer of the Newsom campaign and elected Republican County Central Committee member, sent out an e-mail warning that "1000-plus Greenies are bussing in to work full-time for the last two weeks of the campaign."

"Folks, we need you in any way, shape or form, around the clock," he said.

Chamberlain's letter goes on to attack the personal hygiene of the out-of-town Gonzalez supporters, charging that the volunteers will come from "Santa Cruz to Humbolt County to Portland, from anywhere the patchouli is ripe and showers are broken." It urges Newsom supporters to "buy air freshener to protect your personal space."

The e-mail also compares Gonzalez to Jim Jones, whose cult attracted followers here from around the country. Chamberlain writes that the Jonestown mass suicide -- the anniversary of which was Tuesday -- demonstrated "the ultimate showcase of what we can accomplish if we all completely commit to an extreme, ideological, progressive leader."

"Twenty-one days until you choose which Kool-Aid to drink," it states.
______________

This was pretty pathetic, too. But, Willie Brown, as usual, takes the top prize on pathetic.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's nice to see you posting. :hi:

Thanks... I saw this thread this morning and had to jump in. :hi:

:hi:

Good to see you! Peace

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"And why, exactly, are you Green supporters posting on a Democratic website? You'd probably be more comfortable at loonyleftfringe.com or greenidiots.com."

Progressivism has boundaries beyond Democratic Party lines. This has been affirmed over and over again. Juvenile insults do not help your cause, assuming that one day it is coherently expressed.

I recommend you to San Francisco's November 2003 issue of _Street Sheet_. The feature article offers some insight into why non-elites might not support Newsom. Then there's that infamous barge comment. Surely an erudite, informed discussant like yourself knows all about that.

Since clearly you feel that Greens are idiots, I recommend that you try to answer your first question for yourself. Also don't register for any of my classes next term.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I suggest that you take up your intolerant partisanship with the moderators, since you are determined not to listen to a fellow poster who knows better, but has revealed the absence of a capital D.

Go ahead. Do it.


edited typo

have been allowed here since the site's inception. You're only the latest person to demand that they leave, certainly not the first.

hmmmm

Your juvenile ad hominem attacks aside, with "democrats" like Feinstein - who needs Republicans?

Your juvenile ad hominem attacks aside, with "democrats" like Feinstein - who needs Republicans?

Yeah, I suppose I've made a few but haven't we all? But this is just a message board and it really isn't a big deal. The Greens, on the other hand, have repeatedly disrupted Newsom's public events and shout nasty obscenities when he tries to speak. They have also made several prank calls to his home and office and have even threatened his family. Did you condemn those juvenile ad hominem attacks?

When I can substantiate your accusations, I'll address them.

Ready?

Well I guess we all know which way the foul wind blows on this one.

Substantiating the smears is unimportant to those who make them. The real agenda lies in the smear itself. We saw this in an unremitting right-wing assault upon the Clinton presidency, and we see it among certain groups with regard to the Greens. It's like the erroneous New York Times headline and story that gets corrected a week later in some obscure spot that nearly no one sees. Such is the debased political culture.

This is character assassination as a political ethos. It is an expression of the triumph of form over substance in political discourse. You see it in the painfully ironic screams of how stupid and ignorant Greens are.

Don't expect a sensible rejoinder, Scott Lee. That's the old fashioned and rational model of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Today's smart politicos on the go know that the new model is thesis-antithesis-Isaidthesisstupid!

It is too bad, but when you're dealing with discussants who define themselves as correct and virtuous by definition, then you are dirty and wrong and wholly undeserving of an answer. The best thing that you can do under these insane conditions is to just set a good example.


:shrug:

any proof of any of that from a source that isn't biased?

Consider that what you're witnessing here is the politics of denunciation. The discussant whose assertions we've challenged begins with the assumption that the "other" are all idiots, etc., and has built from there. This is what supposedly conveys moral authority on him or her, including snide comments about who has how firm a grasp of logic.

Let us assume for the sake of discussion that an unbiased source exists to confirm his assertion. The construction is still illogical, since the argument then becomes "Since A acted stupidly toward B and should therefore be condemned, I can act stupidly toward you with impunity."

That argument's logic, assuming some was there in the first place, falls apart with the first gentle breeze.

Of course, since I'm an idiot and you are an idiot sympathizer, then by definition we must be incorrect. Right?

I'm one of those people that absolutely despises Nader for his role in putting * in office, but I think it's great that the green party may win the mayoral seat in a major city like SF. I would definetely urge green participation in local office, especially in left leaning cities and towns. From what it sounds the dem candidate is more of a repug anyways, so I'd be tempted to go for the green over the dem...The only thing stopping me is the green possibly supporting the green pres. candidate in '04, possibly helping the dems not get the votes needed to carry the state...

I'm sure most of the Republican votes will go to Newsom and even if he wins, a majority of the Democrats will vote for Gonzalez. His party label doesn't matter in this race because it's a nonpartisan office. Many San Franciscans don't even know Gonzalez is a Green Party member and will vote for or against him based on the issues. Party membership was not really an issue until the last few days.

As for Alioto, her story is changing more often than the weather in SF. She was my favorite in the race up until her bizarre endorsement.

By the way, some folks were surprised that she managed to say all she's been quoted with in one fell-swoop.
Well folks --that's Angela!

The "green" candidate looks like a dem and the "dem" looks like a moderate rethug. I'd happily vote "Green" if i lived in SF.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You know Rove is cackling in glee over this. First we lose the governorship, and next we're about to lose the mayor's race for the biggest Democrat city on the left coast. This sucks sucks sucks. There's no good way to spin this.

The party's make up is such that we'll always lack discipline and focus to some limited extent. But this loss would be getting uncomfortably close to a melt down.

What are the states that we tell ourselves are the most Democratic in the union? California, New York, Minnesota, & Massachusetts. What do they all have in common? Very popular Republican governors. We're getting eaten alive here, folks.

Newsom is a Bush ally.

http://sftu.org/

Stop the Republican infiltration and vote for a true progressive.

great Democratic candidates running in the Mayoral race -- unfortunately the LEST best "Democratic" candidate won the slot, because he was part of the Brown machine and he is clean-cut and conservative enough to appeal to the west of Twin Peaks crowd.

SF politics is VERY local and isn't neccessarily about party, but about person. Give us a good Dem candidate and we will vote for them. Give us a ca-ca Dem and we will vote for the best person, even if that person is a Green or even a Republican.

Every single member of our current Board is a Democrat -- they're just various "shades" of Dem. Honestly, Newsom would be considered a liberal in just about any other town than this.

Wow.

I have to say that many issues he is about as liberal as any other national Dem -- he just loves the green way too much and let's it do the thinking for him. He's a Willie Brown Democrat -- a corporatist first and foremost.

But for San Franciso, he is simply too conservative.

How long do you give it before someone starts a recall petition??

To stop catering to big business and being weak to the Republicans and start going back to helping the little guy out. This is why Gonzalez is getting the support he has been getting.

John

when a city is so liberal it becomes a race between a democrat and a green.

This could probably help the Green Party if Gonzalez does good running SF after the election. Prove that we can handle governance!

I just noticed that KPIX has the video news report and interviews with the candidates now available online and it can be accessed at the page that is linked to in the original post of this thread.

(I don't know if this link will work:
http://beta.kpix.com/news/local/2003/11/25/Poll%3A_Gonzalez_Ahead_in_Race_for_SF_Mayor.html#

If you look at some links to the right when the video report is playing, they have the video of Willie Brown commenting to the press about his comments on Gonzalez. They also have Gonzalez' response, and it was sweet.

http://kpix.dayport.com/viewer/viewerpage.php?Art_ID=978&tf=kpixviewer_new.tpl

That would send a huge jolt particularly for both the Democrats and Republicans. Imagine a mayor of a major city that is not from either party? I know it would be a major victory for the Greens.


John

n/t


John

I've never been anywhere near San Francisco, and I know I'm being hard on someone who calls himself a Democrat, but if the best, the brightest, and the most radical among the world's progressives are unable to smell a rat, I fear for the rest of us.

You don't even know the half of it, dude. Newsom sucks. As a longtime (17 years) resident of SF, I gotta say it warms my heart to come on here and see your banner for Matt... In fact, I think I'll nick it.

How can one not like Matt Gonzalez? He ain't taking the BS. He's fighting back. Wow, a politician who actually stands up and fights. He's a throwback.

Gonzalez calls the mayor a liar
Brown denies he said candidate is a racist

John Wildermuth, Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Political Writers

An angry Matt Gonzalez called Mayor Willie Brown a liar Wednesday for suggesting in a speech that the supervisor has consistently voted against blacks seeking city jobs and appointments.

That claim of racism is a serious one, Gonzalez, a candidate for mayor, said at a hastily called news conference outside a Fillmore Street hat shop.

"If Mayor Brown wants to lie to the people of San Francisco, I don't expect anything less,'' Gonzalez said. "He's been doing it for some time.''

Gonzalez accused the mayor of desperately trying to shore up the campaign of Supervisor Gavin Newsom, who will square off against Gonzalez in the Dec. 9 runoff for mayor.

"If Newsom wants to have a good fight with me, let's do it,'' Gonzalez said. "But quit sending out Willie Brown.''

snip

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/11/27/MNGUO3BQH91.DTL

The SF Tenants Union flyer says so, but looking on opensecrets.org for contributions by Gavin Newsom reads like a list most of us should emulate.

What's the evidence that this contribution exists?

Also, there are donations to Boxer, George Miller, Bill Clinton, Charles Schumer, Tom Daschle, etc for the '96 and '98 cycles.

For 2000, there are donations to Bill Bradley, Al Gore.

I don't like Gavin Newsom much, but if the accusation of a $500 contribution to Bush is false, then we need to correct that and not smear him with it. There are enough legitimate reasons to choose Matt Gonzalez, we don't need spurious ones.

I agree that the facts should be accurate. I'm not sure about Newsom's $500 donation to Bush. That's why I never stated that. I did note that JackieO said above that it is well documented. Maybe JackieO or Some one else can enlighten us?

But, the other items listed at sftu.org are interesting:

-Newsom voted to support the US Invasion of Iraq
-Newsom walked out on the Supervisor vote against Ashcroft's "Patriot Act"

And, I did recently read this thread at sfindymedia that has QUITE A LOT OF DETAILED INFORMATION about Newsom, and his votes --- lots of interesting reading here, and much of it is easily verifiable:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/10/1655320_comment.php

Also ran across another page there talking about a few more issues showing why it's important to back Gonzalez over Newsom:

(1) Gavin Newsom wants to abolish district elections for Supervisorial Elections and restore the outmoded "winner take all" system. Newsom is supported in this effort by San Francisco's elite, including the San Francisco Chronicle. Their rationale is that "district elections result in the balkanization of city politics". ...

(2) Gavin Newsom does not support Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Gonzales supports IRV ...

(3) Gavin Newsom opposes public power. Matt Gonzales supports it. ...

snip

http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/11/1661922.php

It makes a lot of sense to do things this way in a smaller city like Cornwall, but probably isn't as good an idea in a city as larger and diverse as SF.

Newsom was running for re-election as supervisor during the 2000 season and his campaign gave $500 to the Republican party in order to produce a slate card featuring an endorsement for himself and GEORGE W. BUSH.

You wanna FIGHT, punk??? LOL

I'm so glad to see this cuz that was a bottom-of-the-barrel sleazy ass move by Brown, who race-baits at the drop of a hat and doesn't make a move without making a sleazy move. I'm glad Matt's steppin' up and not mincing words... he's so mild-mannered and dignified but this is definitely a FIGHT for the future and I'm looking forward to seeing him knock Newsom on his freakin' corporate-suckin' ass.

Cheers!

I was so close to apoplectic that I hastily put up a post in GD that was filled with naughty words -- it earned me my first locked posting. :)

There is low and then there is LOW, and this Brown/Newsom crap is L-O-W. Over the years I have seen Brown do some pretty rank things but this just takes the cake.

I called out the DU Newsom supporters (yes, there are some) to explain how they can support someone who resorts to this type of bull but I haven't heard a peep from them about this. It's indefensible in my book.

I was wondering what the hell was up with all that stuff in parenthesis, then I kind of figured it out when I read Terwilliger's reply. :)

Seriously...he does...

Matt has that laid-back, "indie rock" look... Newsome's hair looks like a Chippendale's Dancer's...

Probably safe to say Gonzalez has the indie hipster rocker vote sown up.

http://www.mattgonzalez.com/article.php?id=127

Many, many Gonzalez photos photos if you follow the link. Look for phots of Gonzalez with Joe Strummer, Jello Biafra and Jonathan Richman. Don't know how to post the photos directly here.

http://www.mattgonzalez.com/calendar.php?calid=138

MiDNiTES FOR MANiACS
Friday, November 28th 2003 11:59pm
San Francisco,

The Very First MiDNiTES FOR MANiACS Fundraiser Screening

for...

MATT GONZALEZ!

Friday NOV. 28th at 11:59pm
"1991: THE YEAR PUNK BROKE"

Filmed right on the tip of Alternative Rock's nipple, 1991: THE YEAR PUNK BROKE documented an amazing amount of footage from NiRVANA, SONiC YOUTH, MUDHONEY, DiNOSAUR JR., and THE RAMONES. The interviews are truly hilarious & poignant, while the performances give you an extremely rare look at NiRVANA & SONiC YOUTH before both "Nevermind," & "Dirty" respectively came out. The film rilly does define the early ninties in all of it's "fudge-packin, crack-smokin, devil-worshippin" glory. And with the sad news of Elliot Smith recently commiting suicide, the performances by Kurt Cobain and Joey & DeeDee Ramone are even more timely & relevant than ever before. The proceeds of the night will be donated to the MATT GONZALEZ campaign. Show up around 11:30pm for tons of music, giveaways & trailers before the film.
Admission is by Donation only. Sliding scale of $7.00 and up.
Go-Go GONZALEZ!

4-STAR Theatre
23rd Ave & Clement
415.666.3488
http://www.hkinsf.com/4star/midnites1103.html

even though Andy Garcia I have heard is a Miami Cuban-Republican (can anybody confirm this?). He also seems more charasmatic than Newsom. If I were an SF voter, I would vote for Gonzalez.

John

He's right out of Oliver Stone's Wall Street

LOL!

on a more serious note, it was pretty enlightening to read some of the stuff at indymedia on Newsom (I posted the links a little ways above). I had heard but had not really realized that he grew up being that close to the super rich. Must be nice to have such privilege because of how you are born.

me so disgusted.

Gordon Gekko. That's it.

The conservatives are trying to revive the mood of that era. Greed is good.

Loves Bush, because if Gonzalez wins, california is in play, and we're gonna have to spend more resources over there, and possibly let GWB win.

this is almost as bad as Willie Brown's comments. "If you support Gonzalez, then you support Bush."

hmmm, ... kind of reminds me of the right-wing analytical mindset.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'd kind of like to go down there again without being attacked by legions of violent, foul-smelling street people (aka Greens).

Where ever did you find such nice, white gloves to fit those trotters?

if the italicized portions were part of the original post that was deleted, it makes me wonder if this is not a right-wing republican. Seriously. There was one republican, as disclosed in that great paper, the SF Examiner, who was an elected local republican committee member in SF who was working as a district campaign organizer for Newsom. This republican operative who is working for newsom's campaign, made similar comments about Greens and not taking showers, and smelling, etc etc.

Here's a snipit from the article from the Nov 20 SF Examiner-- doesn't it remind you of this?

On Tuesday, Ryan Chamberlain, District 1 field organizer of the Newsom campaign and elected Republican County Central Committee member, sent out an e-mail warning that "1000-plus Greenies are bussing in to work full-time for the last two weeks of the campaign."

"Folks, we need you in any way, shape or form, around the clock," he said.

Chamberlain's letter goes on to attack the personal hygiene of the out-of-town Gonzalez supporters, charging that the volunteers will come from "Santa Cruz to Humbolt County to Portland, from anywhere the patchouli is ripe and showers are broken." It urges Newsom supporters to "buy air freshener to protect your personal space."

The e-mail also compares Gonzalez to Jim Jones, whose cult attracted followers here from around the country. Chamberlain writes that the Jonestown mass suicide -- the anniversary of which was Tuesday -- demonstrated "the ultimate showcase of what we can accomplish if we all completely commit to an extreme, ideological, progressive leader."

"Twenty-one days until you choose which Kool-Aid to drink," it states.


http://www.sfexaminer.com/templates/story.cfm?displaystory=1&storyname=112003n_green

it was part of the post to which I was replying.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I strongly recommend that you find some other model of political expression. Patterns of thoughtfulness and reflection will do you a world of good.

Have a bipartisan day.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I mean, really!

I'd be MORE worried about trouble for the Democrats in the presidential race.

Newsom is NOT backed by people who'd prefer a Democratic president.

Then why in the world has he been endorsed by Gore, Pelosi, and Feinstein? Are they part of the Republican conspiracy?

Because he is the guy in the race with the "D" after his name!

We have local Dems crossing lines and endorsing Gonzalez but it would NEVER happen on the State/national level. You have the "D" -- you get the nod. It's that simple.

It's not becasue he is the superior candidate -- most of the local Dems who are supporting him (except Willie) admit he isn't the best guy for the City but are obligated to back him because he is "family".

Do you live here? Do you know what the candidates platforms are? If not, I sugest that you go to their sites and find out what these men stand for.

Gonzales, as far as this San Franciscan feels, is the best "Dem" for my town.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There's already a wide gamut of responses, all of which are irrelevant because the election is one year away.

Run this same poll the day before the election and I might take some time to care about it.

Yes, I am a Green in philosophy. However, I'm not stupid enough to be led by premature polls.

Besides, I was all hyped to see a Dem landslide in 2002. Remember what happened? Anybody who'll forget that and think we'll automatically win in 2004 is very arrogant indeed.

Would it be nice to see a Green win? Hell yes. The Dems have lost a bit of their progressive ideals over the last 30 years, most notably during the last 15.

And just because I want to see a Green win doesn't make me support or love george w bush. Anyone who thinks I or others like me do... well, let's just say I could get quite voracious in a vocal response against those who'd start indiscriminately slinging that mud. And don't push us swing voters because we might just vote Green in the end if we feel insulted or betrayed. Just because we're progressive doesn't entitle any particular party our votes. We'll still believe in what we believe in the end, and we're used to losing. Having the freedom of a progressive and a semi-progressive party can be nice at times.

Let's keep an eye on this for a few days, hm?

kick!

A living wage for people over the age 18 should be a goal for at least some people living in the bigger cities if not the whole US. I don't know how even one person could live on that wage realistically. Then Arnold thinks migrant workers are the problem (when he was once himself).

These freaking politicians are the problem if you ask me. They should start thinking about the people they represent before they get into the padding of ones own nest part. I keep on thinking how could it get any worse towards inequity among people, but then I know it probably will. If all it comes unraveled, them politcians will have nobody to blame but their selves

http://www.sfbayview.com/112603/notbeholden112603.shtml
Matt Gonzalez: Not beholden to the machine

by Janak Ramachandran

PoorNewsNetwork Community Journalist

Walking into the Matt Gonzalez for Mayor campaign headquarters, I can feel the hairs on my neck tickling my shirt. I feel as though an enormous adrenaline rush is coursing through this campaign organization. With his second place upset in the Nov. 4 mayoral race, the momentum behind Gonzalez on the streets of San Francisco seems palpable.

His campaign headquarters, located at 13th and Mission where the old Fell Street off-ramp has been razed, seems to match the “down with old and in with the new” energy of the place. Excited campaign volunteers, smelling the victory that would put Matt Gonzalez in the mayor’s chair, work feverishly to compensate for the business money machine that Gavin Newsom, Gonzalez’ opponent in the Dec. 9 runoff election, has marshaled to his side.

As I prepared to meet Matt, the current president of the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, I am afforded the opportunity to tour the location. Gonzalez’ meetings are behind schedule, and so my interview with him has been delayed.

(snip)(snip)

One of the priorities that Matt Gonzalez championed in the recent election, Proposition L, now enables the minimum wage in San Francisco to be raised to $8.50 per hour. I ask Matt to expound upon living wage law and the notion of economic justice.
(snip)

I liked what he had to say about social and economic justice and standing up to the wealthier classes.

And, that Newsom is the corporate political machine candidate. He is.

GO MATT!!!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/a/2003/11/30/BAGTO3D5SA1.DTL

S.F. MAYOR'S RACE: THE STRETCH RUN
About as opposite as they can be
Newsom, Gonzalez disagree on almost every major issue

Matt Gonzalez and Gavin Newsom, the two San Francisco supervisors running to become the city's next mayor, have pushed radically different legislative agendas that provide a clear picture of the stakes in the Dec. 9 election.

From taxation to homelessness, to police oversight, to municipalization of electricity service, to the balancing of tenant and landlord rights and beyond, Gonzalez and Newsom differed.

Though there were exceptions, a Chronicle review of hundreds of City Hall votes and proposals shows Newsom generally sided with pro-growth business and labor interests, developers and property owners.

Gonzalez, for the most part, lined up with renters, the working poor and advocates for new regulations to control commercial development.

<snip>

Meanwhile, Gonzalez can take credit for giving neighborhoods more say in the direction of city development policy by spearheading a 2001 Charter change -- approved by voters -- that gave supervisors a share in appointments to the city Planning Commission and Board of Appeals.

He also has proposed legislation to restrict "big box" retail outlets and chain stores -- proposals close to the hearts of many local, independent retailers.

For his part, Newsom has given commercial developers wider rein. In 2000, he opposed a moratorium on dot.com office development in the Mission District, Potrero and other South of Market neighborhoods.

Rich DeLeon, a political science professor at San Francisco State University and a longtime observer of city politics, said there is a "progressive agenda" and Gonzalez is its standard-bearer.

Gonzalez seems more in favor of things like growth control and neighborhood control over planning, DeLeon said, and is likely "to tap the business community to provide a bigger share of city expenses."

Newsom, he said, "is more protective toward the business community and they're supporting him. The business community puts its money where its mouth and its expectations are."



San Francisco has been having a decades long battle over neighborhoods vs. downtown.

Under Brown and during the dot.com boom that battle became a battle for the soul of the City. On one side were Brown, Newsom, and Joe O'Donohue, who were willing to let development run rampant even if it meant utterly destroying established communities. This crew had no problems handing over our town to rich, white 20 somethings who were willing to buy into a building and kick out the elderly, families, and working class tenants. Our very own Mayor said at the height of the insanity that maybe folks should just find another place to live if they couldn't keep up with the skyrocketing costs of living here, instead of fighting to keep SF affordable.

And the way Newsom voted on those issues, it showed he wasn't too far in idealogy than Brown.

Brown and his lackey Newsom came damn close to destroying a great city. We need to drive a stake through the heart of this group for good.

I hope Gonzalez wins just because San Francisco needs a progressive mayor after all this cronyism.

Newsom's campaign staff sends out an e-mail urging "Greens" to protest a Newsom campaign event with Al Gore.

It's a desparate move for Newsom. As noted on a San Francisco political discusion board:

"He invites Gore and then tries to orchestrate a protest to embarrass Gore, while hoping to reap political points for it all.

This is Nixonian."

For the full story go here:

http://www.mattgonzalez.com/article.php?id=227

<snip>

“Anyone who cares about Al Gore and all of the Democratic values he stands for should be deeply disturbed by this dishonest conduct from someone who claims to be a loyal Democrat and a candidate for mayor in San Francisco,” said Art Agnos, former San Francisco mayor and assemblymember.

In a desperate and bizarre attempt to continue making party politics a wedge issue in the nonpartisan race for mayor, the Newsom campaign sent out an email – disguised as an activist advisory from the Green Party – to encourage Green Party members to protest a Tuesday Newsom event with former Vice President Al Gore. The Newsom campaign used a free Web-mail provider for anonymity, not realizing that the Web-mail provider recorded the Internet address. The address recorded – 216.100.140.9 – belongs to “GavinNewsomFor” according to the American Registry of Internet Numbers (http://www.arin.net).

What an effing TOAD!

Go Gonzalez!

when you figure the guy can't stoop any lower, he somehow manages to achieve new depths of shit-hood.

Don't trust anyone here who enocurags violent protests at NYC Republican convention. The RW uses those images to convince moderates to vote conservative. It's a trick Nixon used.

What we need in NY is a carnival. 1 million people in the streets dancing and singing and having a good time thinking about a better tomorrow with more liberal leaders. No angry faces waving angry signs saying hooray for my angry sign.

The lying Repukes would read that to their mediawhores as a sign that people love the GOP. I know it sounds inane but what so far regarding the public and mediawhores is NOT inane?

Obviously, if Newsom's having an event with Gore, there are two options. Either you don't show up, so that you're not padding a crowd that looks pro-Newsome, or you show up and use HUMOR, rather than anger.

There are probably a few amusing pro-Gonzalez signes you could wave, perhaps variations of Gore's "Earth in the Balance" book title, or his attempt to seem pro-environmen (why is he supporting the voice of developers?).

Newsom wanted people to show up angry. He wanted a scene.

It would hurt him the most if he got Gore out there and nobody showed up.

The GOP convention in NYC is a different story. I think people need to do SOMETHING. However, marching and protesting is not that thing.

I am sure the GOP picked NYC because they wanted protests. It's the dem's chance to turn that on its head.

One, I don't agree that the GOPsters are going to NY in order to get protests. In fact I suspect it's the opposite, because they want to do it on a cruise ship docked in the harbor. It's exceedingly difficult to mass protest a convention out on the water (unless you are Greenpeace).

Two, they picked NYC to play on the 9/11 attacks. Notice they want to hold it in September.

I will agree that humor, street theater et al are great tools to use in lieu of the traditional protest march. If the GOP convention were to be held in a more accessible locale I would support that tactic.

What would make Republicans look better than having a bunch of liberals showing how unpatriotic they are by protesting Republicans on hallowed ground, or whatever.

Also, I'd bet a lot of money they're not going to use the cruise ship.

pretty amazing. And, to see them get busted so easily is great.

They've probably bugged Gonzalez' campaign headquarters.

Let's get this straight. Newsom spends $2.3 million in the General Election. Gonzalez spent $150,000. In the runoff, the laws only allow for $250 donations. An exception exists that allows one to raise more than the $250 if they had a deficit in the general election. So, by Newsom being fiscally irresponsble and spending more than he collected, he then gets to benefit and raise $500 and $750 donations while Gonzalez who did not run a deficit is limited to $250 donations.

Incredible.

_____________________

Mayoral Candidates Clash Over Campaign Fundraising Tactics
Gina Baleria for KCBS-740 AM

(KCBS) - One of the two contenders in the race to become San Francisco mayor said he is unhappy that his opponent has collected so much in campaign donations.

KCBS reporter Henry Mulak says Matt Gonzalez has already been outspent by Gavin Newsom, and now, Newsom has been allowed to collect even more money.

Gonzalez had used his low spending as a badge of honor, saying he came in second in the mayor’s race by spending only $150,000, while Newsom spent three million dollars.

But now, Gonzalez is speaking out about the campaign finance system.

"You’re restricted to only raising only $250 once you get in a runoff, and that’s what we’ve been doing,” Gonzalez said. Newsom has “been raising $500 and $750 contributions. There’s only one exception that allows you to collect more than $250 that’s if you finish the first round with a deficit.”

“Here’s someone who’s spent three-million and is claiming to have a deficit, so he can continue to raise large sums of money,” said Gonzalez. “We’ve said, ‘what kind of finance reform do you support? What’s the point of outspending someone 20 to one? What about 10 to one, five to one? Is that enough for you?'”

Newsom confirmed that he is taking advantage of the campaign finance loophole.

snip

http://beta.kpix.com/news/local/2003/11/30/Mayoral_Candidates_Clash_Over_Campaign_Fundraising_Tactics.html

I posted this over in the Editorials board as well, but thought I'd post it in this thread as well, as I'm certain there are people in this thread that might want to read it.

Looks like they're scared.

_________________

Why Democrats Must Stop San Francisco's Green Parade

By Arthur Bruzzone on 11/27/03
Printer friendly version

'Progressives' are having a parade in San Francisco. In this case, it's a parade of green progressives. A young progressive Green Party candidate has beaten back a flock of traditional Democrats and earned the right to take on the leading moderate Democrat candidate on December 9. It may be a preview of things to come.

Ten years ago, San Francisco's mayoral contest preempted a major leadership change in major American cities.

In the early nineties, black mayors governed most America's major cities -- liberal mainstream African American mayors. Then in 1991, San Francisco a former Police Chief, Frank Jordan battled a blue blood liberal incumbent Mayor Art Agnos. Although without an "R" next his name, a DINO, or Democrat in Name Only, Jordan took a hard-line on homelessness, he was pro-business, and he advocated aggressive police presence in the neighborhoods. He won.

In the years following Jordan's victory, more conservative mayors assumed power in America's major cities - including Giuliani in New York, Riordan in Los Angeles, and Daly in Chicago.

Now, two thirty-somethings, Green Party candidate, Matt Gonzalez, and Gavin Newsom, will face-off in the mayoral runoff. Both are straight, both have adoring female groupies, both are members of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors, and both have active, but subdued, star quality. In other words, it's an even match and an ideal face-off. The traditional coalition power of the Democrat Party is pitted against the more glitzy, youth-oriented glamour of the Green Party. Gonzales was until recently a democrat, and he is a stand-in for presidential candidate Howard Dean.

snip

http://www.americandaily.com/item/3657

I can't help but notice that the writer refers repeatedly to the "Democrat Party" instead of the Democratic Party. This gesture is usually a petty effort at disrespect, like all of the purposeful misspellings of Nader's name around here. The writer is also a former chair of the San Francisco Republican Party, so there is every reason to presume a hostile (Republican) agenda.

Note also how the writer presumes that Democrats own Greens:
"The democrats have learned that they lose when they've can't keep their extreme left under control. In this case, it's the Green Party led by Gonzalez, and all those disruntled left leaning democrat voters linked with declined to state voters."

Never mind that Greens are not extreme left either; ask any Socialist. Surely this writer knows better than to suggest that Greens are under the control of Democrats but does so anyway, just as angry partisan posters on DU know that Greens are not Republicans but say so anyway.

So while it is interesting, it's value as analysis suffers.

About us

Welcome to American Daily. Since March 2003 we have been furthering the conservative cause by providing daily opinion columns from a variety of political commentators.

to posts I've seen from "Democrats"...

I'm wondering when they'll just start the damned Centrist Party and leave everybody else alone.

what is this guy smoking?

Why is Gonzalez a Howard Dean stand-in? Why is Gonzalez' campaign "glitzy"? Why does he refer to Newsom and the Democratic "traditional coalition power" without expecting people to have a problem with what he said?

Oh yeah, here's some great stuff:

After the demise of Democrat Governor Gray Davis, the democrats can't afford another embarrassing loss. The democrats have learned that they lose when they've can't keep their extreme left under control. In this case, it's the Green Party led by Gonzalez, and all those disruntled left leaning democrat voters linked with declined to state voters.

That's why Congressional Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein will be making robo-calls for Gavin Newsom to defeat Matt Gonzalez. Like a California wildfire, it must be stopped before it grows beyond the city limits of whacky left coast city, San Francisco.

The guy keeps referring to the Democrat party and calls San Francisco a whacky left coast city. So tell me...do you think this guy really has the interests of liberals at heart?

When I first read the article I was very confused, thinking this is someone who knows NOTHING about San Francisco politics -- the incorrect reasoning on what brought down Agnos and referring to Gonzales as the "glitzy" and "glam" candidate is the dead give away, everyone knows that is NEWSOM -- and then I read the "about the author" section.

Not only a Pubbie but he is owns a REAL ESTATE related business. Dead give away number two -- Newsom is in the pocket of the developers/real estate folks here.

Yup, the RW certainly are afraid.

On edit:

I am still laughing to myself thinking about Matt and his campaign as in any way "glam".

Good heavens, have you ever seen Matt? I'm a big fan of his, now that I've gotten over Tommy's loss, but when I watch him on the Supervisors' meetings he looks like his hair could use a good wash and a comb, his suits are off the rack and ill-fitting (my friend suggestd a "Queer Eye" make-over was in order), and he's got this cute little tummy that peeks out of a gap in his shirt from around his waistline. He rides MUNI, lives in a working class neighborhood with roomies... oh yeah, that is "glam" as hell! :)

Contrast with the Uber-Coiffed Newsom who lives in one of SF's tonier neighborhoods, owns a few of SF's toniest joints, has the deriguer wife to add even MORE to the "young JFK and Jackie" illusion they have been carefully cultivating...there's your "glam", dude.

Damn, the old Democratic party is starting to gnaw on it's own appendages and I for one am loving every minute of it.

seems awfully funny that a blogger in Texas would be so interested in what the "Democrat" party wants or needs

for progressives.

No spoiler danger here, not a Republican candidate in sight. The worst the people of San Francisco could do in this election, apparently, is the Democrat. If they really want to move the country leftward, this is the kind of election Greens should concentrate on - a secure liberal seat in danger of being taken by a fake liberal.

If only . . . oh, never mind.

SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I tell you!

you're shocked there's gambling going on in the back room! ;)

I think a green having a mayoral seat in SF would be great, but I am kinda curious how people got the idea that Newsom donated to the Bush* campaign. Having checked out opensecrets.org, I never found any donations to republicans. On the contrary, I found only donations to various democrats...

He may be the more conservative compared to the Green, but I really don't see how he's a GOP trojan.

they are even working in his campaign. I posted an article above in this thread from the SF Examiner showing a Repug as part of his campaign.

Where do you think the Repug vote went in the general election? The Repug candidate only got 3% of the vote, while in the last presidential election 15% voted Repug in SF.

Here is the story. In 2000, Newsom's campaign (not Newsom personally) paid the Republican party $500.00 to have his name included on their slate card for his bid for supervisor.

Newsom was running unopposed and, in order to have his name listed, he was required to be personally interviewed and to fill out two questionaires. And as the slate card states, the Rupublican Central Committee examined each candidate included in the mailer and “under the light of fundamental Republican principles. For that reason, your County Central Committee has taken great care in making recommendations on local candidates." It was the official Republican slate which also endorsed George Bush.

For an image of the slate card, go here:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/1662786.php

a San Francisco Examiner article on campaign finance and the mayor's race

http://www.sfexaminer.com/120203stories/finance.htm

It is inflammatory, many personal attacks have been deleted.


NYer99
DU Moderator