top
Health/Housing
Health/Housing
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Gavin's Greatest Gift

by Mike Ilich (illmatic [at] sfsu.edu)
What's the secret to Gavin Newsom's success? While well-funded campaigns and draconian attacks against the homeless are well known, there is a psychological element that makes Newsom more dangerous than the usual bourgeois posterboy: his ability to present himself as a well-intentioned underdog, with the self-indignance to enforce it. While this explains his inflated popularity, there's little chance that the greater SF population is going to fall for it.
gav_tux.jpg
I had an interesting chat with Gavin Newsom today. After arriving late for the candidate forum in Jack Adams Hall at SF State, Mr. Newsom regaled us with what he sought to portray to us as a commanding vision for leading San Francisco. He spoke plaintiff, with vigor about his ability to cut through politics and get sides to agree. Interestingly, Newsom while coy and self-congratulatory in his assertion of this point, was actually being quite truthful. Indeed, the 36 year old maverick has succeeded in reaching beyond his bourgeois milieu to the ranks and files of the sub and unconnected. What’s more, Gavin has done this while appealing succinctly to the pet interests of his well-heeled own. Since his emergence as “mayor material,” he’s nary a step retreated from the bully pulpit of cracking down on the most desperate, and thus most bothersome, losers in the capitalist game of prosperity and destitution – the homeless.

What could be the first insightful thing that Gavin could give regarding that which he has the furthest distance from, a common bystander might ask? How could San Francisco’s version of Prince William offer anything useful at all in ways to remedy the predicaments of poverty and homelessness? After all, how many folks on the streets lost multiple properties and businesses before they became homeless? Of course, Newsom would never willingly answer these questions ingenuously. Newsom’s tack has been to wax intrepid over his gallant display of grit and “passion” for going where no governing man has gone before in approaching that problem. This strategy has achieved a modicum of success. Newsom is proud to be a candidate in the Schwarzenegger vein – a brazen candidate ready to rattle off detailed descriptions of measures that sound great, but are usually mischaracterized, exaggerated, or plain don’t exist. What’s been most effective for Gavin in this endeavor is the air of confidence that he exudes, knowing that it appeals to those who look up to those successful in business. I didn’t think that there were many of those people in San Francisco, but I guess in times of depression we’ll look to anyone who seems to still be doing well.

Supervisor and mayoral candidate, Matt Gonzalez has commented that his own ideas and intellectual acumen expose Gavin to be a lightweight in comparison. Gonzalez, while both highly educated and successful despite a life of poverty and lack of privilege, has also been amazingly successful. However, he’s done it working for the people as a defense lawyer and advocate. Thus far, Gonzalez has proven to be the anti-Gavin: insightful, thorough, and attentive to complexity. Newsom, while portraying himself to be similar, has proven to be only concerned with “what works.” Expedience and impudence are his trademarks.

How Newsom has become so steeped in these qualities should be of no surprise. Gavin, the son of former judge William Newsom, has been groomed his whole life to be the debonair magnate he has become. He’s had all the help he needs and then some, thanks to his pop’s connection to the Getty family. William Newsom, the manager of the Getty Family Trust, has been sure to distribute Getty-backed aid to Gavin whenever possible. From the purchase of his Maui estate, to the 10 of his 11 businesses in which Gordon Getty was the lead investor, Gavin Newsom is anything but a “self-made entrepreneur.” Ditto for his role in city government. Gavin only began his public service after his dad’s buddy, John Burton, convinced Willie Brown to appoint Gavin to a supervisor post in 1997. If not for the district elections which allowed him to represent the Marina and Pacific Heights districts, he probably wouldn’t have lasted long enough to launch his “care not cash” initiative last year.
Call me cynical, but it’s hard to imagine that Gavin, after amassing a sizable fortune as a property speculator and upscale restaurateur, suddenly found himself driven to serve the public out of benevolence and civic virtue. Yet, that’s exactly how he’s portrayed himself.

Do San Franciscans buy this shape shifting? My guess is not really, but Gavin has become excellent at deflecting criticism and confusing his detractors. Despite all that’s public record about his silver spoon privileges, he provokes second guesses about his publicized shortcomings. While this often amounts to outright lies and denial, Gavin clearly understands how to pass himself off as a misunderstood trooper who’s negative impacts are really just growing pains towards progress. When he’s not spinning revisionist history about his days of humility, working as a janitor and construction worker who then “suddenly decided to open a small wine store,” as he confessed in his speech today, Newsom is boldly denying commonly held facts, such as his ties to the Getty’s and his sudden liking to a living wage ordinance in SF. “I’ve always supported the living wage, I don’t know where you get these things,” he said Monday. Never mind that he only voted against it in 1999 and recently told the Chronicle he wasn’t inclined to support Prop. L. Newsom wants us to believe that’s all media hype, of which he’s unfairly a victim.
And this is perhaps Gavin’s greatest weapon. In a city of lefty progressives with a board of supervisors to match, Newsom has scored major points portraying himself as the risk-taking outsider. It is this angle, perhaps, which best explains his success. After all, who has more sympathy for the underdog than those on the Left? In questioning him about why he would continue to attack the homeless and claim that he was pushing humane compassion, I found myself uneager to contradict him. Not because I didn’t feel the need, but because his whiny and dismissive pouting that he’s everyone’s favorite target, is frustratingly too much to bear. It’s like trying to convince a prince that he’s not invincible; the fallout of aggressive denial would be too daunting.

And thus, Newsom perhaps pulls off one of the most deft political tricks. He manages to both preempt his detractors into polite grimacing despite their loathe of his aggressive cajoling, all the while marching to City Hall rallying against the aggressive cajoling of street squatters trying to survive. Nothing short of diabolic genius.

The question is whether we’re gonna buy it. Gavin’s a steamroller of a salesman, even if he’s got snake oil oozing out of his pores and hair. His common man performance gained significant applause from the SF State crowd. Gonzalez, Alioto and Ammiano all did as well. So perhaps, this means little. Let us pray.
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Disgusted at the campaign
Yeah, yeah, so he hates poor and homeless people, but let's get specific. He's as criminally corrupt as Willie Brown and Frank Jordan put together. And he's giving away San Francisco to political thug Number one, Joe O'Donoghue, who "Residential" (Irish) developers are looting and plundering S.F., putting up crappy cookie cutter lofts and monster houses where they don't belong.

Why don't the clueless other candidates attack this bastard's voting record? Four years ago I asked somebody at Tom Ammiano's campaign headquarters why they didn't publicize all of Willie Brown's attrocities and outrages in their campaign literature. The answer: "Tom doesn't like negative campaigning." Shit, how ELSE can anybody get elected to any office in this country.

Fuck. Get ready for four more horrendous years. Here's O'Donoghue's,,, er, Newsom's voting record on gentrifying San Francisco:


NEWSOM'S VOTES

2001 - PRESENT

n.b. RBA = Residential Builders Association, headed by Joe O'Donoghue

October 7, 2002. One of three Supervisors (Hall, Maxwell) to rubber-stamp all of Willie Brown's
nominations for the Planning Commission and Board of Appeal.

September 30, 2002. One of four Supervisors (Hall, Sandoval, Yee) who cast repeated votes against the
residents and surrounding neighbors of 1598 Dolores Street who are opposing a monster development
sponsored by the Residential Builders Association (RBA) in their neighborhood. Supervisor Newsom even
voted to take away the four foot setback offered by the developer.

August 19, 2002. ONLY SUPERVISOR to vote against saving the historic Geneva Car Barn.

August 12, 2002. ONLY SUPERVISOR to vote against a continuance on behalf of the neighbors at 1598
Dolores Street (RBA project).

July 29, 2002. One of three Supervisors to vote against improving the emergency response system.

July 22, 2002. Voted against adding an environmental specialist to the Department of the Environment.

July 15, 2002. Opposed the Safety and Livable Street Ordinance.

- One of two Supervisors (Hall) voting against interim controls which would give neighborhoods additional
notice on conditional use hearings in the Mission (heavily opposed by the RBA).

July 8, 2002. Cast repeated votes against the neighborhood opposing a fourth story monster development
at 3130-3154 Noriega Avenue.

July 1, 2002. One of two Supervisors (Hall) who opposed a resolution urging Bechtel Corporation to
withdraw its punitive legal claims against the Country of Bolivia and its people.

June 24, 2002. Voted against the neighbors opposing the addition of a fourth story at 2455 Bush Street.

April 29, 2002. One of three Supervisors (Hall, Sandoval) voting against the neighbors and surrounding
residents opposing the placement of multiple antennas on St. John’s Church.

April 15, 2002. One of three Supervisors (Hall, Maxwell) voting against interim controls which would
require additional neighborhood notice and approval for the construction of big box retail outlets in our
neighborhoods.

March 18, 2002. Opposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for the poor which would require developers
to include more affordable housing in their projects. (Ordinance heavily opposed by the RBA).

February 11, 2002. One of two Supervisors (Hall) to vote against additional protections for tenants,
especially senior tenants from evictions and pass-through of capital improvements.

January 11, 2002. One of two Supervisors (Hall) to vote against cleaner air in San Francisco and to
require that installation of new fireplaces be “approved” for environmental safety. (Ordinance opposed by
the RBA).

December 17, 2001. One of two Supervisors (Yee) who opposed Proposition D, which reformed the
appointment process for the Planning Commission and Board of Appeal and which was passed
overwhelmingly by voters and which ended corruption at the Planning Commission (opposed by RBA).

December 3, 2001. One of two Supervisors (Hall) voting against requiring the Mayor to submit his budget
to the Supervisors at an earlier date.

November 19, 2001. Opposed Proposition D with Supervisor Hall.

August 20, 2001. One of two Supervisors (Hall) voting against a resolution to the Planning Department
and Planning Commission encouraging them to require greater affordable housing in larger projects.

July 23, 2001. One of two Supervisors (Hall) voting to prevent the voters from deciding on the ballot
whether or not San Francisco should have public power and a municipal utility district.

July 9, 2001. One of three Supervisors (Hall, Yee) to vote in support of the Mayor’s Veto of Tenant
Protection Legislation.

June 11, 2001. Voted against Tenant Protection Legislation which would prevent evictions.

May 29, 2001. One of two Supervisors (Yee) voting against formation of the Election Task Force.

May 22, 2001. One of two Supervisors (Hall) to oppose providing easier access for appeals of
Conditional Use Permits to surrounding neighbors.

April 30, 2001. One of three Supervisors (Hall, Yee) voting to permit the destruction of a sound,
affordable Victorian home at 696 DeHaro Street over the objection of the entire neighborhood and
neighborhood associations, including the Protrero Boosters’. (RBA in favor).

April 2, 2001. One of three Supervisors (Hall, Yee) voting against a resolution urging the State Legislature
to amend the Ellis Act to prevent evictions of tenants.

February 20, 2001. One of three Supervisors (Hall, Yee) voting against tenant protections and a
temporary moratorium on non-seismic capital improvement pass throughs.

- One of two Supervisors (Hall) voting against the formation of a municipal utility district to permit public
power.


by Chris
While, I do not like Newsom, nor what I understand of his perspective and vision for the future of SF, I find pieces like this accomplishing little and only attacking what all who would read this probably already agrees with in spirit. Also, effort like this do little to promote another qualified candidate or future vision of SF that Newsom cannot bring about. To ponder the attraction of Newsom on SF Indymedia is a bit silly. To present the case for one of the other candidates and the why behind it would further my understanding of their candidacy.

Sure, this is the web site that had one poster say they were not voting in the election because their was no socialist candidate (silly to be sure, even more silly if there actually were one to spout unproved theory like so many libertarians or other micro party cadidates), but there are several people running that have sufficient vision, if less clout, to compete with Newsom. We just need to be more aware of them, and don’t need a run down of how Newsom has connections in high places (as if several of the other don’t). I should add that I live in Oakland and have plenty of mayor issues of my own to keep me from following other cities’ races closely. So, a bit more focused work on getting someone besides Newsom elected, rather than tabloid-izing his fund raising, would serve the greater good. Right now, it looks as if Newsom has a clean sweep, which is not the end of the word even if there could have been a better candidate.

As far as the writing style goes in this: Keep the language simple and direct. Excessive verbiage and sprinkling of high and might words (sometimes used incorrectly) does not lend itself to the piece nor contribute an air of authority in your writing.
by bc
He appears to be EXACTLY what SF needs to clean up the scum and remove blight.
Welcome your next Mayor!
by bc
He appears to be EXACTLY what SF needs to clean up the scum and remove blight.
Welcome your next Mayor!
by bc
He appears to be EXACTLY what SF needs to clean up the scum and remove blight.
Welcome your next Mayor!
by bc
He appears to be EXACTLY what SF needs to clean up the scum and remove blight.
Welcome your next Mayor!
by brother d-day
which way to the newsom victory party?...go gavin, the next mayor of s.f.
by q2112.com
Bernie Ward's "love fest, kiss-in" on 30 October 2003 with San Francisco mayoral candidate Gavin Newsom. It was hard to stomach.

(The part about Gavin Newsom is about half-way down the page)
by Mike (illmatic [at] sfsu.edu)
I would hope that most who read this do not suffer from lack of information about the 3 other candidates much better qualified for Mayor than Gavin. If that were so, I do indeed think there would be more need for providing that. Note that the point of this article was to expose Gavin's snake oil approach that, like it or not, has proven seductive to even the most well-intentioned of our City. I fear that this might be the X factor; folks who may be looking to find reasons to rationalize and accept what many have called "inevitable" (Mayor Newsom) could fall victim (even unconsciously) to his psychological, "bene gesserit" type tactics. No question, exposing his voting record is a critical component that can sober up any of those feeling themselves swaying towards accepting Newsom as mayor. But hopefully, a recognition of his slimy, duplicitous tactics will also do the same.
Also, note that Gonzalez is contrasted in the article as the anti-Gavin, with the implicit assumption that if SF - a city of some 70% renters - don't want a self-aggrandizing, spoiled brat of a landlord running the city, then someone just like them (Gonzalez) is the obvious counter-choice.
Food for thought, that's all...
by D
I've never had a problem with Matt Gonzalez, but he says nothing about the homeless problem in San Francisco.

Gavin is most likely guilty as you charge him, but at least he is addressing the homeless problem as a PROBLEM. What I most suspect him of is not having any real intention on the matter, and it's certainly not enough to buy the album for one good song.

What I have a problem with is the level of political discourse in SF, especially from the left. First off, there are homeless people (like the few you mention who are dot com bomb victims) and the many Bums. straight up bums, in this town, who have never had a job and never wanted one. The filthy, not interested in help, waloow in thier feces douche bags who seem proud to swagger drunk and offend the hard working folk. As if they had a God given right to shit on my sidewalk.

And I say My sidewalk, because I pay taxes. I'm actually standing up to my end of the social contract. Why should I feel pity for those who wipe their asses with it, if at all?

I'm pro help for the homeless, so I voted yes for prop J. I'm anti-bum so I voted yes on prop M.

The only person who addresses the problem as such gets the city peppered with cowardly un-credited and un-footnoted posters calling him a Racist Liar.

Can somebody point me to actual documentation of such for rich boy Gavin and while you're at it please point me to a proposal of Matt's for dealing with the city's poor defenseless syringe class that doesn't involve asking them to move in and date our daughters?
by cp
yep - that was weird. Bernie ward is one of the only liberal talk show hosts with a higher than 10 megawatt station in the state, but he has such a random set of positions. pro-yugoslavia intervention, against Iraq intervention etc.

So, what was Matt Gonzalez's background before law school? Where is he from?
by JMo
To those who think that Gonzalez doesn't have a plan for the homeless: Go to www.MattGonzalez.com and click on Issues. Just on a practical note; has Newsom talked about how to fund the costs of processing and jailing "aggressive panhandlers" that fall under Prop M? It's virtually unenforceable and does nothing to solve the problems of homelessness. Besides, there's already an aggressive panhandling law on the books. Prop M was entirely campaign rhetoric. I must not forget that Alioto is now in the picture... again. I think she has demonstrated who she is in the past few days. She has about as much integrity as Newsom; I don't see anything being solved if those two win. I think their lame-ass deal backfired though.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$230.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network