Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Republicans elect a San Francisco mayor
Did San Francisco elect a Democratic mayor, or a Republican?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: DECEMBER 14, 2003
REPUBLICANS ELECT A SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR; DEMOCRATS TAKE THE CREDIT
CONTRARIAN COMMENTARY BY ANDY MARTIN
(SAN FRANCISCO)(OUT2.COM) A funny thing happened last week: Republicans elected a mayor of San Francisco, and Democrats took the credit. The Yiddish term chutzpah probably applies: it took chutzpah, that is gall, even a flirtatious denial of reality, for Democrats to claim the election victory as their own.
First, some background. San Francisco is a special place, a combination of a unique climate and culture.
The city has a benign, Goldilocks climate, seldom too hot and seldom too cold. It creates conditions for social tolerance and, occasionally, social excesses. It is no wonder that the apotheosis of the 1960’s took place in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood, or that Haight-Ashbury today continues to be a funky area. In a visit to Golden Gate park, I was met by signs soliciting beer, by young people smoking dope and doing nothing, or very little.
Yet San Francisco’s institutions demand attention. City Hall in San Francisco is America’s most extravagant municipal building, demanding respect, even awe. Nowhere else do you find such municipal grandeur. Chicago’s city hall is a poor relation, New York’s a colonial relic, by comparison.
This culture of grandiosity extends to private institutions. The Pacific Union Club still sits astride Nob Hill like a faded, but still potent, remnant of a bygone era. San Francisco still considers itself the center of power in California even though Los Angeles has long since preempted the role.
And San Francisco’s civic culture retains much of the flavor of radical labor politics and gold rush exuberance that characterized its 19th century origins. There is nowhere else like it in America. Into this cauldron stepped Gavin Newsom, to become mayor-elect.
Anywhere else Newsom would be an urban Republican. He owns a wine and restaurant business, with his own vintage, PlumpJack Winery. He is a successful entrepreneur. He accepted the mantle of “Establishment candidate.” He has called for more conservative policies towards the homeless and promised to revitalize the local economy. His opponent Matt Gonzalez accused Newsom of being a tool of business, real estate and “Getty Family” interests. Horrors.
Thus, although Newsom ran as a “Democrat,” he was a Republican in reality. Matt Gonzalez, the Green candidate, was the de facto Democrat.
Gonzalez actually drew more voters to the polls on Election Day. Newsom won on Republican absentee ballots. Republicans supported him quietly, but still supported him. Who was it that said you can achieve wonders if you don’t insist on taking the credit?
Newsom outspent Gonzalez by 10-1. He brought in Democratic heavyweights such as President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. The Democratic “establishment” in San Francisco was terrified he would lose. Yet Newsom only managed to eek out a 53-47 victory. It was close, too close for Democratic comfort.
So was this a great Democratic Party victory? Is Newsom a new Democratic “rising star?” I doubt it. Newsom has more in common with the last Republican mayor, George Christopher, than he does with the current Democrat, Willie Brown. Brown may have sponsored Newsom, but he will probably live to regret it. A new Republican Governor is cutting state aid. It’s hard to cut social pending when you run the People’s Republic of San Francisco. And Newsom’s opponent, Gonzalez, continues to control the local city council (called the Board of Supervisors).
Newsom is going to need all the help he can get. Maybe he should become a Republican. It will take a lot of skill, and luck, to avoid being a one-term mayor as a Democrat.
As for the Democratic Party, if they can’t elect one of their own—Gonzalez—in San Francisco, and are forced to promote a Republican in drag, where else can their political philosophy prevail? If Newsom fails, expect a Green Party mayor as the next occupant of America’s grandest municipal structure. It will be a fitting contrast. Will it happen? Fasten your seat belt. And thank, or blame, the Republicans who elected Newsom.
(c) Andy Martin December 14, 2003.
-------
Andy Martin has filed to seek ballot access for the Republican Party nomination for U.S. Senator from Illinois. He is an international broadcaster, talk show host and columnist. His views can be seen at Out2.com (Govt. & Politics). He has served as and chief national and foreign correspondent, and Baghdad Bureau Chief, for Out2.com.
E-mail: andy [at] andymartin.com
Media contact: Andy Martin (312) 245-7071
REPUBLICANS ELECT A SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR; DEMOCRATS TAKE THE CREDIT
CONTRARIAN COMMENTARY BY ANDY MARTIN
(SAN FRANCISCO)(OUT2.COM) A funny thing happened last week: Republicans elected a mayor of San Francisco, and Democrats took the credit. The Yiddish term chutzpah probably applies: it took chutzpah, that is gall, even a flirtatious denial of reality, for Democrats to claim the election victory as their own.
First, some background. San Francisco is a special place, a combination of a unique climate and culture.
The city has a benign, Goldilocks climate, seldom too hot and seldom too cold. It creates conditions for social tolerance and, occasionally, social excesses. It is no wonder that the apotheosis of the 1960’s took place in the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood, or that Haight-Ashbury today continues to be a funky area. In a visit to Golden Gate park, I was met by signs soliciting beer, by young people smoking dope and doing nothing, or very little.
Yet San Francisco’s institutions demand attention. City Hall in San Francisco is America’s most extravagant municipal building, demanding respect, even awe. Nowhere else do you find such municipal grandeur. Chicago’s city hall is a poor relation, New York’s a colonial relic, by comparison.
This culture of grandiosity extends to private institutions. The Pacific Union Club still sits astride Nob Hill like a faded, but still potent, remnant of a bygone era. San Francisco still considers itself the center of power in California even though Los Angeles has long since preempted the role.
And San Francisco’s civic culture retains much of the flavor of radical labor politics and gold rush exuberance that characterized its 19th century origins. There is nowhere else like it in America. Into this cauldron stepped Gavin Newsom, to become mayor-elect.
Anywhere else Newsom would be an urban Republican. He owns a wine and restaurant business, with his own vintage, PlumpJack Winery. He is a successful entrepreneur. He accepted the mantle of “Establishment candidate.” He has called for more conservative policies towards the homeless and promised to revitalize the local economy. His opponent Matt Gonzalez accused Newsom of being a tool of business, real estate and “Getty Family” interests. Horrors.
Thus, although Newsom ran as a “Democrat,” he was a Republican in reality. Matt Gonzalez, the Green candidate, was the de facto Democrat.
Gonzalez actually drew more voters to the polls on Election Day. Newsom won on Republican absentee ballots. Republicans supported him quietly, but still supported him. Who was it that said you can achieve wonders if you don’t insist on taking the credit?
Newsom outspent Gonzalez by 10-1. He brought in Democratic heavyweights such as President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. The Democratic “establishment” in San Francisco was terrified he would lose. Yet Newsom only managed to eek out a 53-47 victory. It was close, too close for Democratic comfort.
So was this a great Democratic Party victory? Is Newsom a new Democratic “rising star?” I doubt it. Newsom has more in common with the last Republican mayor, George Christopher, than he does with the current Democrat, Willie Brown. Brown may have sponsored Newsom, but he will probably live to regret it. A new Republican Governor is cutting state aid. It’s hard to cut social pending when you run the People’s Republic of San Francisco. And Newsom’s opponent, Gonzalez, continues to control the local city council (called the Board of Supervisors).
Newsom is going to need all the help he can get. Maybe he should become a Republican. It will take a lot of skill, and luck, to avoid being a one-term mayor as a Democrat.
As for the Democratic Party, if they can’t elect one of their own—Gonzalez—in San Francisco, and are forced to promote a Republican in drag, where else can their political philosophy prevail? If Newsom fails, expect a Green Party mayor as the next occupant of America’s grandest municipal structure. It will be a fitting contrast. Will it happen? Fasten your seat belt. And thank, or blame, the Republicans who elected Newsom.
(c) Andy Martin December 14, 2003.
-------
Andy Martin has filed to seek ballot access for the Republican Party nomination for U.S. Senator from Illinois. He is an international broadcaster, talk show host and columnist. His views can be seen at Out2.com (Govt. & Politics). He has served as and chief national and foreign correspondent, and Baghdad Bureau Chief, for Out2.com.
E-mail: andy [at] andymartin.com
Media contact: Andy Martin (312) 245-7071
For more information:
http://andymartin.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
20% of us San Franciscans voted absentee. If you send it in the mail or you go to a voting booth, your vote counts. I am an "independent" or "declined to state," but even if you're a Republican, some of us believe we all have a right to vote too.
As for our new mayor being a closet Republican. Well, I wish all Republicans were pro-choice, supported gun control and gay marriage like Gavin Newsom.
This may come as a shock to you, but there are people in San Francisco who voted for Gavin Newsom as the "lesser of two evils" because we rejected a Texas rich kid who used daddy's money to go to elitist schools like Columbia and Stanford. Money earned as a tobacco executive. We rejected a candidate who refused to disclose his tax return (what does he have to hide?). We rejected a candidate who was elected President of the Board of Supervisors in what was nothing more than a lynching of Sophie Maxwell orchestrated by Tony Hall. We rejected a candidate who was endorsed by Joe O'Donoghue. We rejected a candidate whose fanatical followers tried to cast Tom Ammiano as a "millionaire." And we rejected a candidate who belongs to a virtually all-white party that makes the Republicans look diverse.
Get used to it - Matt Gonzalez lost.
I know Matt Gonzalez's devotees are in need of a new idol. I see lots of Howard Dean signs in windows next to the Gonzalez signs. And while they're all worshipping Howard Dean as the new savior, they can ignore the fact that Howard Dean is definitely to the right of Gavin Newsom.
As for our new mayor being a closet Republican. Well, I wish all Republicans were pro-choice, supported gun control and gay marriage like Gavin Newsom.
This may come as a shock to you, but there are people in San Francisco who voted for Gavin Newsom as the "lesser of two evils" because we rejected a Texas rich kid who used daddy's money to go to elitist schools like Columbia and Stanford. Money earned as a tobacco executive. We rejected a candidate who refused to disclose his tax return (what does he have to hide?). We rejected a candidate who was elected President of the Board of Supervisors in what was nothing more than a lynching of Sophie Maxwell orchestrated by Tony Hall. We rejected a candidate who was endorsed by Joe O'Donoghue. We rejected a candidate whose fanatical followers tried to cast Tom Ammiano as a "millionaire." And we rejected a candidate who belongs to a virtually all-white party that makes the Republicans look diverse.
Get used to it - Matt Gonzalez lost.
I know Matt Gonzalez's devotees are in need of a new idol. I see lots of Howard Dean signs in windows next to the Gonzalez signs. And while they're all worshipping Howard Dean as the new savior, they can ignore the fact that Howard Dean is definitely to the right of Gavin Newsom.
Howard Dean, the virtual deity of the radical left is in fact FAR to the right of Gavin Newsom. Nice point.
Also, who in their right mind would support an individual like Matt Gonzalez-- who has NEVER had a job outside of government. The guy has cashed a taxpayer funded paycheck his ENTIRE working career. That is just wrong in my book. Government should not be a career-- it's a service. At least Gavin has built some successful business that in his own right, provided jobs, and made something of himself before turning to government!
Also, who in their right mind would support an individual like Matt Gonzalez-- who has NEVER had a job outside of government. The guy has cashed a taxpayer funded paycheck his ENTIRE working career. That is just wrong in my book. Government should not be a career-- it's a service. At least Gavin has built some successful business that in his own right, provided jobs, and made something of himself before turning to government!
I think we have seen the high water mark of the hard left in SF. They have spent so much effort demonizing Newsom, who anywhere but here, would be considered among the most liberal of Democrats. The Gonzo supporters need to realize that there is more to SF than the poor and bike lanes. Perhaps it is time for you on the far left to understand that you cannot run a city by demonizing the very things that produce the money you want for your many social programs. And why on earth you folks are so concerned about the homeless, who themselves would not give you the time of day except to panhandle you for money, is beyond me. $200 million a year could build a lot of bike lanes and support a lot of art groups. Maybe you need to re-prioritize.
Forget elections. Break out the pitchforks and torches. Bring back the guillotine.
"Forget elections. Break out the pitchforks and torches. Bring back the guillotine."
The citizens of SF have no interest in ending the lives of you, the perpetually-unsatisfied lunatic fringe. If you don't like the city, why don't you move someplace else? Portland, for example, has plenty of bike trials AND they coddle the homeless.
The citizens of SF have no interest in ending the lives of you, the perpetually-unsatisfied lunatic fringe. If you don't like the city, why don't you move someplace else? Portland, for example, has plenty of bike trials AND they coddle the homeless.
We have been coddling the "homeless" here for years for what result? I have worked for the city for several years, specifically with homeless people. There is real, honest need out there, and I support programs that will help those who are homeless by no choice of their own; the mentally ill, people displaced by disasters, lost jobs, domestic violence, and so many other causes. These are real people with real lives and they need and deserve our help. The drifters, dealers, panhandlers, con artists, and those who pray on the weak are NOT our problem, and should be shown the nearest bus out of town. I, for one, am sick and tired of SF being the world's biggest enabler for abusive behavior. It's time for it to end, and end it will.
"If you don't like the city, why don't you move someplace else?"
YOU are the one who should move; you have the rest of this fascist country. We claim the Real Bay Area (Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco) for ourselves: Artists, musicians, poets, anarchists, beats, hippies, punks, and other social and political radicals. These are the people who make up the character of San Francisco (and Oakland and Berkeley), not the right wingers who just happen to be born there. Those of us who left our friends and families behind to come here demand these three cities, you fascist Americans have the rest of the country, so just move!
YOU are the one who should move; you have the rest of this fascist country. We claim the Real Bay Area (Oakland, Berkeley, San Francisco) for ourselves: Artists, musicians, poets, anarchists, beats, hippies, punks, and other social and political radicals. These are the people who make up the character of San Francisco (and Oakland and Berkeley), not the right wingers who just happen to be born there. Those of us who left our friends and families behind to come here demand these three cities, you fascist Americans have the rest of the country, so just move!
why don't we move? you have claimed these three cities? give me a break. let's get out of the 60's. real san franciscans are sick and tired of these counter culture nuts moving out here and claiming this city as their own. we are tired of being a national joke because of the radical left ideas that seem to be initiated from some coffee house in the mission or some bookstore in the haight. true dan franciscans are the ones who were born here, grew up here, went to school here and buried our parents here. we are sick and tired of listening to the far left moaning about what has happened to their city. it isn't your city and it never will be. and as far as being a kucinich supporter goes, while he may have some honorable ideas, the fact remains that he will not get the nomination. if you people want to defeat "W" you have to rally around a candidate who has a shot to win. kucinich doesn't.
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.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network