Gavin Newsom's Channel 5 interview last week revealed a Mayor defensive about his recent behavior, and it suggested he will lash out against critics by making vindictive budget moves. It's only November, but Newsom has already ordered every Department Head to propose 30% in cuts - alarming those who rely on City contracts to provide front-line services to the poor. At the same time, the Mayor and his spokesman both said they will avoid touching the Police and Fire Departments - neither of whom got cut this year, while Health and Human Services were slashed. Rather than react to another round of cuts, now is the time for progressives to step up and offer their solutions to a very real budget crisis. With Newsom not running for Governor, why does he still need five press secretaries - or his "pet projects"? And if the Mayor is really thinking about quitting politics (as the Wall Street Journal implied), why is he still sucking up to the Police and Firefighters Union - or the real estate lobby by pushing a dangerous proposal that will lead to mass evictions?
In today's Willie Brown column, Willie praises Gavin Newsom for "having the courage" to drop out of the race, he speaks that which the Chronicle's news section, as well as the LA Times, refuses to admit is a possibility: there just might be another candidate on the Democratic side.
But it is absolutely necessary for a politician to have that type of courage if he wants a long career. And make no mistake, Newsom still has a future. He is still a tremendous communicator.
Although Attorney General Jerry Brown comes out the early winner in Newsom's withdrawal, I have to believe there are many Democrats out there who still say, "Can't we find someone with a newer paint job?"
Two names have already popped up: Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County), and Maria Shriver. (SF Chronicle 11/1/09)
For a few weeks these rumors have been going about. There a number of reasons for this, the big one being that there is money sitting out of this race. This is more than just your normal money sitting out of the race for economic reasons, but some typical players that didn't take a side. That could have been that they were leaning away from Brown and weren't sure about how long Newsom could survive. Or that Newsom wasn't able to extract money and just tried for the second best and asked people to hold off on giving money to Brown.
Jerry Brown has a lot of inherent advantages in the race, yet he's certainly not unbeatable. Brown coould yet lose to a well-funded candidate, especially if that well-funded candidate was a minority, a woman, or a combination of the two. Harman carries baggage with the base, and the word on the street is that she may not be able to self-finance her campaigns going forward. Shriver carries some baggage of her own, prinicipally from being married to a rather poor governor.
But those two names are not the only two taking a look at the calculus of the 2010 governor's race. If I were to be putting odds on somebody else getting into the race, I think I'd peg it at slightly better than even money, maybe 60%.
It is with great regret I announce today that I am withdrawing from the race for governor of California. With a young family and responsibilities at city hall, I have found it impossible to commit the time required to complete this effort the way it needs to and should be done.
This is not an easy decision. But it is one made with the best intentions for my wife, my daughter, the residents of the city and county of San Francisco, and California Democrats.
When I embarked on this campaign in April, my goal was to engage thousands and thousands of Californians dedicated to reforming our broken system and bringing change to Sacramento.
I would like to thank those supporters, volunteers, and donors who have worked so hard on my behalf. I have been humbled by their support and am indebted to their efforts. They represent the spirit of change and determination essential to putting California back on the right track.
I will continue to fight for change and the causes and issues for which I care deeply - universal health care, a cleaner environment, and a green economy for our families, better education for our children, and, of course, equal rights under the law for all citizens.
My quick take: Someone else has to jump in the race. There's no reason to believe anyone else will, or that Dianne Feinstein will. But neither California Democrats, the people of this state, or even Jerry Brown will be served well by an uncontested primary. There are a lot of issues that need to be discussed in this race, and a competitive primary can only produce a stronger candidate (well, as long as it doesn't turn into a ridiculous mudfest like 2006).
Although Newsom had been effectively running for more than a year, his campaign never gained much traction. Even in his hometown, which Newsom touted as a model of cutting-edge policies, his candidacy was widely derided among civic insiders.
Perhaps most telling was the absence of support from the major San Francisco donors who helped underwrite Newsom's successful campaigns in the city. He also drew relatively few endorsements from the ranks of his fellow elected officials.
Newsom had repeatedly told those close to him that he did not want to embarrass himself in the governor's race.
In the Democratic primary, there's really not much conversation to speak of. Basically, you have Gavin Newsom running around trying to increase name ID by conducting town halls and the like. Jerry Brown is just patiently waiting back for the spring, or so it seems.
But that is hardly the case on the Republican side. The three candidates have been lobbing hand grenades at each other for several months now. Two of them, Poizner and Whitman, are former CEOs who have given money to, gasp, Democrats. The other, Tom Campbell, is a self-described champion of bipartisanship.
But how do you show the right-wingers of the party, ie the party base, that you are the Real Republican. Well, if you're Tom Campbell, you don't try, and just call yourself bipartisan. I know that might work to pull in 20% in early polls, but that strategy seems like quite the longshot in a Republican primary that tends to skew hard right.
Meanwhile, as Poizner and Whitman go for the "conservative" mantle, they have to deal with their Democratic skeletons in the closet:
Whitman gave $4,000 to Boxer in November 2003 and an additional $4,000 to Boxer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that same month, according to the Federal Election Commission.
Whitman also endorsed Boxer in 2003 as a member of the group Technology Leaders for Boxer. In a joint letter publicized by the Boxer campaign, Whitman wrote, "Barbara Boxer is a courageous leader and friend of California's technology industry."
*** *** ***
Poizner has faced similar questions about his contributions to Gore and the Gore/Lieberman Recount Committee, which funded the Democratic candidate's unsuccessful legal efforts in the aftermath of the 2000 election. (SacBee 10/26/09)
Of course, that they each have these issues takes out much of the teeth out of this fight. Unless Tom McClintock is somehow lured into this race, Whitman and Poizner are only judged on a curve defined by the other. If a longtime Republican conservative enters the race, the complexion changes markedly. However, at this point the field seems to have solidified. McClintock is really the only name conservative that would be able to have a major impact on the race.
So, press releases are tossed back and forth on who is the Real Republican, and still the phrase has no meaning and no value to the bulk of California voters.
I'm getting ready to go on with Gavin Newsom in our online town hall. If you would like to ask a question, you have a multitude of options. You can ask on the Ustream page, which just takes a couple of seconds to log on to. Also, you can send a tweet with the hash tag #GavinNewsomLive.
Today the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in a resounding vote with only two nays restored due process to immigrant youth. Facing a full audience of over 100 immigrant right supporters, clergy, community members and high school children, only Supervisor's Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu voted no. Despite their lack of support, it looks as if the board will have a veto proof majority when it reaches Mayor Gavin Newsom's desk.
Back in July 2008 Mayor Newsom instructed the Juvenile Probation Department to immediately begin reporting youth to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation at the moment of their arrest for a felony allegation. Under this new policy, juveniles would receive no hearings, no trial and no due process. Anyone taking a Civics 101 class could see how draconian and dangerous this new policy was for any juvenile regardless of their citizenship. Under this policy youth who were merely suspected of being undocumented are immediately taken from their families and sent to detention centers across the country while deportation proceedings are initiated. Since July, over 160 children have been referred by San Francisco to ICE.
Through the leadership of Supervisor David Campos, a total of eight Supervisors introduced a balanced resolution to restore due process rights to the children. The proposed legislation which was approved by the City Attorney's Office, many prominent law professors and civil rights organizations, amends the current policy to ensure that juveniles are not reported to immigration authorities until after they receive a fair trial and due process.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom isn't new to controversy, and the decision to publicly endorse a constitutional convention is just that. It's a big move, but speaks to the underlying need for change in Sacramento. Whether it's the right move for California is still open to interpretation.
On Wednesday at 5 PM, Calitics will be co-hosting an online town hall with Mayor Newsom. I'll be moderating, asking questions, and generally requiring lots of answers about his vision for the state of California, what sort of change he'll bring, and how he'll work with the existing structure to bring about needed reform.
So, I'm looking for questions. What do you want to know from Mayor Newsom? Want to know whether he thinks water issues should be in the constitutional convention? Or Prop 13? Or social issues? How would he work with Republican legislators to approach reform?
We'll have the Ustream available on Calitics Wednesday at 5 PM; you can also catch it at Ustream.com/GavinLive. Full details and RSVP information over the flip.
P.S. If any other statewide candidates are reading this, and would like to do an audio or video live stream with myself or another Calitics editor, let me know. I'm very interested in bringing the candidates to the progressive netroots.
In my previous entry I called for Democratic candidates to seize the moment created by the public's rejection of Arnold Schwarzenegger and offer a vision of change to fix California's problems.
Almost as if on cue, Gavin Newsom's campaign released an online ad this morning emphasizing those points. One of the things I find so interesting is that it mentions not once, but twice, both the Constitutional Convention and eliminating the 2/3rds rule. Newsom is positioning himself as the candidate of not just "change" but of structural reform:
On Monday, Mayor Sam reported some rumors that were floating around the political world, that Garry South had told Gavin to raise $5 million by the end of the year or drop out.
"This is complete, utter bullshit, and I categorically deny it. "Mayor Sam" never talked to me to pass any of these hearsay assertions by me, and he is just picking up and disseminating intentional disinformation from the Brown camp - including Brown himself, who's too busy "doing his job as AG" to debate, but has time to hang on the phone in his Oakland loft starting and spreading rumors about Newsom. I don't give my candidates ultimatums of any sort." (CalBuzz 10/07/09)
The thrust of our piece Monday was that Newsom has had such major trouble collecting any real campaign jack the San Francisco Mayor had to throw a hail mary pass and roll out a way earlier than usual endorsement of a former POTUS - Bill "BJ" Clinton in an LA photo opp at a green college building earlier this week. (Mayor Sam 10/07/09)
In the end, I sort of believe South on this one. It just doesn't seem like South to tell a paying client to drop out of a race. And, as he pointed out, he did stay with some rather big underdogs in the form of Gray Davis and Steve Westly when they were polling quite low. That being said, Davis was a pretty good fundraiser and Westly could self-fund.
I would be very surprised to see Newsom drop out of the race early, nor do I think it would be good for the state. A vigorous exchange of ideas (not mud) is critical to ensure that the Democratic nominee supports, or at least understands, the goals of the progressive grassroots.
We were astonished to learn from The San Bernardino Sun and Calitics.com that Attorney General Jerry Brown last week was the guest of honor at a fundraiser for San Bernardino District Attorney Mike Ramos, a right-wing Republican, that raised almost $100,000 for the DA's re-election campaign.
In a real irony, this was the same week that Mayor Gavin Newsom headlined a fundraising event in Dallas for the Human Rights Campaign.
In his introductory remarks for Ramos, Brown called the Republican incumbent, "a real fighter." But exactly whom has Ramos been fighting for?
Ramos has a "colorful" record, including an ongoing investigation of his office "assistance of investigation" into other officeholders who accuse Ramos of bias by, um, the Attorney General. (This is the point that the SB Sun address.)It will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out with the Democratic primary electorate and the press.
Gavin Newsom is the Mayor of San Francisco, and a big fan of new media. He twittered his daughter's birth, and writes frequently at Huffington Post, ARSTechnica, Daily Kos, and even Calitics on occasion.
But, perhaps I got that wrong, because, you know, blogs are often wrong:
"That's just factually incorrect," Newsom said Friday following an unrelated press conference in City Hall. "Though blogs often are." (SF Examiner 10/4/09)
The knock on Gavin Newsom has always been that he doesn't take criticism very well. And that is exactly what this was about. StreetsBlog had published a story saying that Newsom was putting his finger on the scale of whether to increase parking meter hours. In response to a question at a press conference, we got the above answer.
As something of an epilogue, Matier and Ross published a very similar story on Monday. I wonder what the response to a question concerning that article will be. Something about the environmental impact of killing all those trees to print the Chronicle I suppose.
Anyway, his events for Newsom were this afternoon at LACC and at a private location for a fundraiser. UPDATE: Here's the video of the LACC event with Sen. Alex Padilla, the President, and Mayor Newsom.
The 42nd President will also appear with Lt. Governor John Garamendi in support of his CA-10 campaign. Unfortunately for Garamendi, the event is actually in Jackie Speier's district. It seems that Clinton's time in the Bay Area is short, so the event is being held near SFO.
I actually just got a robocall from Garamendi touting this as a health-care rally, so expect that to be a focus. Details over the flip.
Gavin Newsom did what people commonly expect someone behind in the polls in a campaign to do - challenge the front-runner to a series of debates. From his press release:
"Our state is in need of real reform-we have a broken system that must be fixed," said Newsom. "And now that there are two candidates for governor, we owe the Democratic voters of California an opportunity to compare our visions and platforms side-by-side."
Mayor Newsom faxed a letter to the Brown campaign with a list of suggested ground rules. The memo suggests 11 debates in total-one in each media market in California. Ten debates would focus on one specific issue each, while the final debate would be open to all relevant issues. Newsom for California also made the following format suggestions:
• 90 minutes in length
• Opening and closing statements
• Moderated, town hall-style debates with direct audience participation
• Segments with moderator questions, public questions, and candidate-to-candidate questions
• An opportunity for candidates to respond directly to any assertions made about their record
I'm sure the hard-bitten cynics in the dwindling press corps will see this as a transparent ploy for attention from a trailing candidate. Nevertheless, my immediate reaction was: "A series of debates. Wouldn't that be nice?"
Phil Angelides and Steve Westly held a series of joint appearances and debates in the 2006 primary, and while that primary was in no way a model, it did help to clarify the positions of the candidates on various issues. The same for the nearly endless series of debates around the 2008 Presidential primary. I wouldn't call them all helpful, depending on the peccadilloes of the moderators and the laziness of the questioning. But in a large state predicated on TV ads and soundbites, 90-minute forums can at least offer a glimpse into the thinking of Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown.
By contrast, our recent statewide gubernatorial elections have been characterized by almost no debates between the major candidates. In 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Phil Angelides held only one debate. During the recall, Arnold deigned to attend one debate during the recall, despite the other candidates holding several, and he neglected to debate Gray Davis, who asked for debates in the final weeks. One could hardly sympathize with Davis, as he only held one debate with Bill Simon during their general election in 2002. As California's political media has shrunk, so have the opportunities for gubernatorial candidates to offer an unfiltered perspective on their plans for the state.
So while there are political reasons behind this, why not? I know I have some curiosity about how Brown and Newsom see their roles and what kind of leadership they can offer, and so should everyone. Fortunately, Brown has responded favorably if enigmatically to this request: "If Attorney General Brown decides to declare his candidacy for Governor, I'm sure he would support the notion of holding debates under terms to be mutually agreed upon by the candidates."
California political junkies are buzzing about the new Rasmussen poll which shows former Governor and current Attorney General Jerry Brown handily leading all the major Republican gubernatorial contenders (Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner and Tom Campbell) while Brown's rival for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination trailing the same three possible Republicans. Here's the data:
This is definitely NOT very good news for the Governor Gavin movement. That's too bad, because MadProfesah has been leaning towards Newsom, especially since Gerry Brown hasn't announced whether he wants the job (again) yet, and acting as attorney general, Brown was responsible for the devastatingly incompetent presentation by an Assistant Attorney General during the Proposition 8 California Supreme Court oral argument.
UPDATE by Dave: I would say that this poll is fairly meaningless. I'm guessing Rasmussen pushed leaners hard to get any kind of opinion. I don't think anyone has really engaged on this race, and anyone thinking it will remain static isn't being honest. This is more of a reflection of name ID, for good and ill, than anything else.
Desperate to win over the wingnut base of the California Republican Party, and likely herself a true believer in the "let's destroy government" cause, Meg Whitman has joined Steve Poizner and taken the Grover Norquist "no new taxes" pledge:
"By signing the Pledge, Whitman makes clear that if elected she will stand up for taxpayers and not the tenured bureaucrats, coercive utopians, and union bosses that currently run Sacramento," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "In a state with one of the highest tax burdens in the country, a dismal business tax climate, rampant overspending, and a government that is so costly that Californians had to work 235 days this year, well over half the year, just to pay for it, higher taxes should be a non-starter for all elected officials and candidates. In signing the Pledge, Whitman has made clear that she recognizes this."...
"Californians are fortunate to have two high quality candidates who have made this important commitment to defend the overburdened Golden State taxpayers," added Norquist. "I strongly encourage, and challenge, Tom Campbell, Gavin Newsome [sic] and every candidate for governor to sign the Pledge."
Presumably this means Whitman and Poizner oppose making the wealthy pay more to help keep teachers in the classrooms, that they enjoy seeing classes with a whopping 42 students in them, and that they are happy to prolong the recession in order to carry out their shock doctrine of California's once-great prosperity.
Interestingly, you'll note that of the other candidates Norquist challenged to sign the pledge, Jerry Brown was not among them. He hasn't officially signed that pledge, but as Brian mentioned last week, he might as well have:
Brown said he would not raise taxes if he became governor, noting that the public is opposed. "We're not in the revenue raising business," he said.
Of course, the polls tell a different story. Californians are quite willing to raise certain taxes to restore and preserve vital public services. How exactly Brown would balance the state's budget without embracing the kinds of cuts eMeg has proposed is quite unclear.
If we are going to beat Poizner or Whitman, Democrats will have to offer a different vision for California's future. And that means rejecting the "no new taxes" mantra that is destroying our state and the economic prosperity of the working and middle classes. If Jerry Brown won't offer that vision, will Gavin Newsom?
With the upcoming University of California walkout, we asked our Facebook community recently how the impending UC and CSU cuts were affecting them. The response was overwhelming:
Stephanie from SF State needed only two classes to graduate with her bachelor's degree. But one of the courses was eliminated - graduation will have to wait until next year.
A mother from the East Bay worried that her daughter couldn't enroll in a single class she needs and is about to lose her student status, her financial aid, and health insurance.
Sarah from UC Davis saw her tuition increase almost ten percent, while her mother, a state employee, just took a 15 percent pay cut.
UC Berkeley will be eliminating approximately one out of every ten courses this coming year. UC San Francisco will potentially have to reduce their faculty by fourteen percent because of the recent cuts. UCLA has reduced support to research centers by fifty percent. UC Irvine has completely stopped admitting students into their education program.
All across the state, we are choking off opportunity for hundreds of thousands of young Californians to build a better life for themselves and a better future for California.
And it's our fault. We've allowed our system of governance to de-fund and de-prioritize higher education, putting our state's economic future in jeopardy.
Let me be clear: I favor fully funding the UC system. Cannibalizing our state's future through cuts to education is the exact opposite of the kind of reform and long-term thinking we need from our leaders in Sacramento.
But the current resource-constrained situation forces us to make difficult choices about our shared priorities. We must protect our environment, provide universal health care and invest in infrastructure development. And therein lies our statewide dilemma.
We have a system in California that discourages thoughtful budget and financial planning, requiring a two-thirds majority every year to pass a budget that paralyzes our state. We have a complex web of ballot initiatives that further complicates the process.
Walkouts like the one currently planned will become more frequent unless we undertake systemic reforms and truly take California in a new direction.
We need to convene a constitutional convention and get serious about changes to the system. Until we do, we're jeopardizing our ability to be competitive in the global economy. Preparing our children for success in the 21st century necessitates investment in higher education not cuts to it.
In San Francisco, we have a robust rainy day fund. We drew down on our reserves to make sure not a single teacher in San Francisco was laid off when the recession hit. We created a partnership between SFSU, the school district, and the city to guarantee a college education to every public school 6th grader who wants one. And if their families can't afford tuition, we help with that too.
We operate with a limited budget in San Francisco, just like the state. But we managed to keep teachers in the classroom and promise every student a chance to go to college. We didn't raise taxes - we reformed the budget process and used resources in a smarter way.
It's time to shake up the system that's put our state in this mess. We need come together to fundamentally rethink how we govern California.
Some call it a Twitter Town Hall, some call it a Tweet hall. Whatever you want to call it, you can follow the action at the hashtag #ttnewsom. The Mayor will join in at 12:45.
The big question: How will he work with Asm. Tom Ammiano in Sacramento?
This week San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom will conduct his first online town hall. I've been asked to moderate it, and so I want to know what's on your mind.
It isn't news to anyone here that California faces an incredible set of challenges. The budget solution is a temporary patch at best and our legislators can't fully address the problem due to the two-thirds requirement. Our school system ranks 49th in the country where we used to be among the leaders. Our unemployment rate is projected to hit an astonishing 12.2 percent this year-and in some counties, it's been higher than that for a long time.
Even though we're clearly in crisis, opportunity abounds. California has long enjoyed a reputation for leading the way with innovative policies for the rest of the country.
At Netroots Nation, we believe voters should have access to their elected officials, expect authentic conversation and hold them accountable. At our national convention we've heard from elected leaders including President Obama (then a Senator), President Clinton, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, Gov. Howard Dean, Mayor Gavin Newsom, and many more. We're happy to play a part in creating a space for that dialogue locally. That's why I agreed to play a part in this online town hall.
Well, that's two pretty big endorsements in only a few days. Now, I'm not sure former Senator Kuehl will make quite the splash that the Bill Clinton endorsement did, but for progressives, Sen. Kuehl is an important leader. An out lesbian, Kuehl has been a progressive stalwart throughout her legislative career. Her record was most strong on health care. While she was in the Senate, she carried SB 840, the single payer plan for California, and even got it passed once, before it was vetoed.
"In Gavin Newsom, I see a leader who has taken courageous stands to protect the rights of all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation," said Kuehl. "And Gavin's success in providing access to health care for all San Franciscans is the kind of leadership we need to see in Sacramento if we're to achieve universal health care in California."
Now, Mayor Newsom will still need to work on the fundraising front to actually be competitive. But if he is willing to discuss some of the issues important to progressives, his campaign could pick up a little more grassroots energy.
On the flip side, SEIU Local 1021 paid a not so friendly visit to Room 200 of SF's regal City Hall to complain about pay disparity for jobs that are heavily minority and female.
SEIU Local 1021 paid a visit to Mayor Gavin Newsom at his City Hall office yesterday, but his doors remained closed and locked. It won't be the last time Newsom will hear from them, however. The union is launching an aggressive campaign to "dog the mayor," organizer Robert Halaand told the Guardian, to pressure him to uphold the city's commitment to comparable worth. (SF Bay Guardian)
But all is not lost for the dashingly slick mayor of the City of St. Francis. He's getting some big time help. From a press release:
San Francisco, CA - Former President Bill Clinton and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom will participate in two events together in Los
Angeles on October 5, the Newsom for California campaign announced today. One event will be a fundraiser to benefit the Mayor's primary
campaign for governor.
"President Clinton's record of achievement as president and as a senior statesman is inspiring to all Democrats," said Newsom. "I am truly honored that he will join me in October."
If there is one thing that the Big Dog can do, other than rescue reporters, it is raise money. The fundraiser and appearance will give Newsom a desperately needed boost at a time when Jerry Brown is running away with a race that he hasn't actually entered yet.
It is going to take more than a couple of campaign stops for the Newsom campaign to really challenge the Jerry Brown Express, yet, if you had to pick a name that would help in a Democratic primary, Bill Clinton would be pretty high on that list.
UPDATE by Dave: ABC News has a report. A (public?) event is reportedly scheduled to be held in October in East Los Angeles, a largely Latino area. The real benefit of this endorsement will come if Newsom can tap in to the ground effort that Hillary Clinton used so well to defeat Barack Obama, particularly in the Latino and Asian communities.
