On behalf of the City's small businesses, I am pleading with the Board of Supervisors to declare a moratorium on headline-grabbing legislation. We simply can't afford it. Small businesses are still fighting through the economic downturn. At the same time, the City is struggling to close a $500 million budget deficit, laying off thousands of workers and fighting to keep vital services available. In this climate, there's just no room for politics-as-usual. But they're at it again. This time, the Small Business Commission on Monday will decide whether to support Mayor Gavin Newsom's idea that small business owners who sell mobile phones need to post San Francisco-specific product labels for customers. In the words of one public health official, if the government starts requiring warnings on everything with undefined risks, everything "from apples to xylophones" would have to be labeled. The last thing we need is the City getting into the business of mandating product labels in convenience stores, dry cleaners, and restaurants for all kinds of different products. What's next? Will I need to get my labels approved by the government with information on what ingredients are in the hair product I sell? As many as 15,000 city workers are facing lay-offs. Nine hundred school workers, including 10 percent of the City's teachers, are facing lay-offs. Metered parking may be extended to Sundays. The City's police force faces $30 million in cuts. We just don't have the luxury of spending money on silly nannny-state ordinances. San Francisco politics is a circus. We all know that. We all know that won't change. But on behalf of small businesses, we're asking that our political leaders stop the merry-go-round at least until we've weathered the economic storm.
For the good of the progressive movement, for the good of the state of California, and for the good of your candidate, Janice Hahn, you should resign your post as chief strategist to the Hahn campaign.
In this time of profound economic and political crisis, California deserves a campaign that is focused on solving the issues that have brought our state to its knees, a campaign focused on restoring the California Dream. Petty attacks like those you have begun to level against other candidates -- including attacks on Jerry Brown's age -- not only distract from those issues, but they undermine your own candidate.
Your attack on Gavin Newsom is highly unethical. (See below the fold.) By using against him conversations you held with Newsom while he was a client of yours you are not only breaching the trust you held as a senior advisor to Newsom's gubernatorial campaign, you are also potentially making Newsom into a sympathetic figure, further undermining Hahn's cause.
Janice Hahn has a lot to offer Californians -- she is a successful local government official who has a long record of effectively implementing progressive policies. She has built a considerable amount of support across the state during her campaign because of her pledge to bring a local government perspective to a profoundly broken state government. You risk undoing that work by resorting to your typical, failed approach of attacking the opponent instead of showing the electorate why your candidate deserves their support.
We write not as supporters of any particular candidate or potential candidate, but as progressive Californians who are sick of watching you run promising campaigns into the ground with your destructive style of vicious personal attacks. All you accomplish is electing Republicans. Do the ethical and honorable thing and resign from the Hahn campaign immediately.
Signed,
Dante Atkins
Calitics Editorial Board
Robert Cruickshank
Public Policy Director, Courage Campaign
Marta Evry
Venice for Change
Rick Jacobs
Founder & Chair, Courage Campaign
Brian Leubitz
Calitics Editorial Board
Julia Rosen
Online Political Director, Courage Campaign
Shayera Tangri
Dan Ancona
Joel Wright
David Atkins
Note: for an in-depth explanation of why Garry South is a disaster for Democratic candidates, peruse the open letter Calitics posted laying out South's failures in January 2007.
Note 2: It should be emphasized that this isn't really about Janice Hahn, we were impressed with her during our interview last year. But Garry South is really doing her a disservice over the last few weeks. Mudslinging just isn't the way to win a Democratic primary.
This morning's CalBuzz post features a story on the debate of whether Gavin Newsom can raise money from people who gave him money for his Governor campaign for the LG campaign. Hmm...good question.
Of course, Garry South, who is consulting for Hahn's campaign after bleeding Gavin's Gov. campaign dry, thinks that he can't tap that same maxed-out donor base. By the by, very interesting that South was denigrating the LG position from his pricey perch at Gavin's Gov campaign, and now seems to be all about the Numero Dos gig. Interesting.
The Exec. Dir of the FPPC, Roman Porter, believes that he can raise money from these same donors, on the theory that it is a different race. I'm inclined to agree when given this language:
Except a candidate for governor, a candidate for statewide elective office may not accept from a person any contribution totaling more than $6,500 per election.
I think the key is how you read "statewide elective office." Does that mean a single office, or any statewide elective office. There's not any solid caselaw to answer the question, so if somebody gets around to suing, there could be some interesting litigation.
Election news never stops, and this being an election year, don't expect a slowdown any time soon. So, why not combine two of the developments?
First, Speaker Bass made her entry into the congressional race to replace Diane Watson official.
"This is a very, very humbling moment," Bass told community leaders and supporters who joined her at her Mid-Wilshire-area office. "I am so proud to announce I'm going to throw my hat into the ring."
If elected, Bass said, she'll have "very big shoes to fill."
Watson, who announced last week that she would not run for reelection after 35 years in public office, said she was pleased to back Bass.
"I 100% -- maybe 300% -- endorse Karen Bass," said Watson, 76, whose Los Angeles-area 33rd Congressional District is among the most diverse in the nation. (LA Times)
Last week, Watson declined to endorse anybody in the race. It was a bit of surprise, but perhaps they just wanted to wait to make the announcement official this week. With the current field, Bass appears to be the big front-runner. Nobody else has really made noise about entering the race, but Congressional districts only come up so often, so you never know.
Now, to SF Mayor Gavin Newsom. When he left the race for Governor, he was struggling with money, paying Garry South $20K per month, and becoming increasingly unsettled. But apparently, he's interested in Lite Guv:
Nothing official yet, but San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is putting together a campaign team for a possible run for lieutenant governor and will probably submit a ballot statement today to go in the state voter guide. (SF Chronicle)
There has been an awful lot of rumors and speculation and much press coverage for the past week or so that San Francisco Gavin Newsom was about to enter the CA Lt. Governor race. The SF Appeal Online Newspaper reports Mayor Newsom pulled the plug on the rumors at a press conference in San Francisco Tuesday. He did, however, keep the plug, ....just in case.
From The Appeal:
"I don't know who said what to who (Monday), but there is no pending announcement. There never was," the mayor told a pack of online, print, radio and television media in Room 200 at City Hall. "I haven't made up my mind. There is no pending decision."
The deadline to file paperwork to run for the office is 5 p.m. March 12.
"I'll let you know," his honor promised. "Don't believe the rumors until then."
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.
