Nov 3, 2009 San Francisco Election Endorsements

My spreadsheet compiling endorsements for the Nov 3, 2009 San Francisco election is now ready for download.


click here for larger image

As always, it includes endorsements by the SF Green Party, SF Bay Guardian, SF Democratic Party, SF Chronicle and SF Republican Party. I've dropped the Examiner, since it's no longer really a local newspaper, and its politics are so far to the right that it should make San Francisco Republicans blush.

You can download a printable PDF of San Francisco election endorsements here or an Excel worksheet of San Francisco election endorsements here.

I've limited my "analysis" to color coding the propositions -- blue for "liberal" and red for "conservative," as far as I can tell.

Nov 3, 2008 San Francisco Election Endorsements

Since it's election time, I've put together a spreadsheet compiling endorsements for the Nov 4th, 2008 San Francisco election by the following:

• SF Green Party
  
• SF Bay Guardian
  
• SF Democratic Party
  
• SF Chronicle
  
• SF Examiner
  
• SF Republican Party

You can download a printable PDF of San Francisco election endorsements here or an Excel worksheet of San Francisco election endorsements here.

I've limited my "analysis" to color coding the propositions -- blue for liberal and red for conservative, as far as I can tell.

Super Tuesday Polling Report

My friend Scott regularly works as a polling precinct manager in the Marina district and had this report on Super Tuesday. It's not encouraging.

California has seven registered political parties. Two of them (the American Independent Party and the Democratic Party) have open primaries. This means that people who are not members of a political party can elect to vote in these primaries. 40% of San Francisco voters are “non-partisan” (not members of a political party).

We had 288 votes cast in the machine, 35 absentee ballots brought in by voters, and 40 people that voted provisionally because they weren’t listed on the registry of voters. This is a very high percentage, unique to the neighborhood (the Marina) of my precinct that has many residents moving in and out of the area frequently, and not getting re-registered in time.

Turnout was much higher than expected, but we did not run out of ballots or have any other related issues. The longest wait in my precinct was 10 minutes (during the 6pm rush). Most voters received a ballot in less than 2 minutes. Many people (20?) wanted to switch political parties; specifically, many registered Republicans wanted to vote in the democratic primary, but California does not allow same-day voter registration or party-switching.

I was supposed to have 4 poll workers. One was a no-show. Two were an elderly Russian immigrant couple that spoke very little English. One was a high-school student, recently emigrated from China. He was not a US citizen and could not count or alphabetize. This meant that during my 6am to 10pm shift, when I left to go to the bathroom, incorrect ballots were distributed and people were denied the right to vote.

In a precinct with only one registered member of the American Independent Party, 8 of those ballots were handed out. All of them had “Obama” written in as a write-in candidate by people that probably identified themselves as “Independents” but didn’t get the correct ballot due to language/competency barriers on behalf of my staff (they used “Independent” as a synonym for “non-partisan”). None of those votes will be counted despite the clear intent of the voters.

At least 5 people complained that they had been sent away to a different precinct after their names were not located in the registry. Turns out that my staff was unable to look up names successfully, and the voters had actually come to the correct place originally. It’s not clear how many people were turned away and simply gave up on their efforts to cast a ballot.

Many people were upset that you do not need to show ID to vote (since it costs money to get an ID, it is considered a “poll tax” and is therefore not allowed). Also of concern: The list of registered voters in the precinct, their party affiliation, if they have voted yet, and their home phone number is posted publicly at the entrance to the polling station, as a matter of law.

We probably disenfranchised about 4% of the voters in my precinct (amplified by the fact that only 50% of registered voters bother to vote). This makes me sad. Additionally, it boggles my mind how easy it would be to cheat this system if one were so inclined.

I encourage anyone who finds my Election Day experience surprising/ depressing/ enlightening to volunteer during the next election cycle. Contact your election office for details. Democracy depends on an educated (or at least literate!) populace. I encourage you to get involved.

November 6 Results

It only took a month, but the results for the November 6 San Francisco municipal election are in. Props A, B, C, D, F, G, I, J and K passed, while E and H did not.

As far as endorsements went, the San Francisco Democratic Party scored 100% -- accurately endorsing all 11 propositions.

The San Francisco Bay Guardian scored 73% (8/11), the Examiner scored 64% (7/11), the San Francisco Chronicle scored 40% (4/10), and the Green Party and Republican Party both scored just 38% (3/8).

What does all this mean?

Who Endorses Whom - 2007?

Once again, I've put together a spreadsheet compiling endorsements for the Nov 6 San Francisco election by the following:

• SF Green Party
  
• SF Bay Guardian
  
• SF Democratic Party
  
• SF Chronicle
  
• SF Examiner
  
• SF Republican Party

You can dowload the printable PDF here.

I've limited my "analysis" to color coding the propositions -- blue for liberal and red for conservative, as far as I can tell.

Comments?

Support Public Power - Community Choice Aggregation

This comes from Steve Rice on Indybay:

After the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed Community Choice Aggregation 9-2 on Tuesday adopting a plan to put San Francisco on the way towards energy independence by financing a 360 MW solar network and making the community's power 51% renewable by 2017, rumors have circulated that Mayor Gavin Newsom is threatening to veto the Plan.

Mayor Newsom has repeatedly promised his support over the last two years, and we have done everything necessary to accommodate his office, including changing the legislation to address his concerns and moving a press conference twice at his request. It is UNACCEPTABLE that after all that has been done to work with Mayor Newsom, and after all the time he's promised his support, that he is considering going back on his word and vetoing the legislation.

Not to say that we haven't had reason to be worried. For awhile now he's been running around town for various press conferences touting "new relationships" formed with PiG&E... That lovely utility monopoly that does nothing but sit around spending rate-payer money on nuclear power and dirty energy while feeding us PR garbage that tells us what we should do to be more Green.

WE NEED YOUR HELP!! The mayor has ten days to veto this policy which passed on the 20th of June. Therefore we need to be barraging his office by phone, email or fax until until the 1st of July. See below for how you can contact the mayor.

CALL THE MAYOR!

PLEASE TAKE 2 MINUTES OUT OF YOUR DAY TO CONTACT THE MAYOR and let him know that San Francisco demands Community Choice Energy. We DO NOT WANT a dirty energy monopoly - PiG&E - to pollute our city, our neighborhoods and our anymore.

His number is 415-554-6141 (until 5:30 PM). After you call, forward this email to as many friends as possible. Here's a draft phone script you can use. Or make up your own - talking points online at
http://www.communitychoiceenergy.org or http://www.letsgreenwashthiscity.org.

Draft Script:

"I heard the Mayor was thinking of vetoing the Supervisors' support for Community Choice Aggregation - which would give San Franciscan a choice to move to 51% renewable energy. I was calling to see why the Mayor is doing that? Is that because the Mayor doesn't believe in the climate crisis? Is it because the Mayor thinks PG&E's nuclear energy is a swell idea? Is it because PG&E is a cash cow for Gavin's campaigns?

Who Endorses Whom?

I think endorsements can tell you a lot about candidates and ballot measures, who backs them and why. So for my own edification, I put together a spreadsheet compiling endorsements for the Nov 7 election by:

- SF Green Party
- SF Bay Guardian
- SF Democratic Party
- SF Chronicle
- SF Republican Party

I've limited my "analysis" to color coding the propositions -- blue for liberal and red for conservative, as far as I can tell.

I make no claims about where I stand, and I'm still undecided on several issues, so let me know what you think.

Gavin Newsom Lets His Progressive Flag Fly?

Were supporters of Matt Gonzalez's mayoral campaign mistaken about Gavin Newsom? Is Gavin Newsom really a progressive, albeit with slicked back hair and expensive suits?

If he isn't, he's sure gone out of his way in the last two years to appear progressive.

First he appointed women to head the Police and Fire departments, and the Board of Education.

Then he decreed that gay marriage was legal in San Francisco, setting off a national political firestorm, and focusing some less-than-desirable attention on John Kerry's presidential campaign.

Then he showed his solidarity with hotel workers by joining them on the picket lines.

And now our "progressive mayor" will be introducing Robert Greenwald's new documentary, "WAL-MART: The High Cost of Low Price." And this from a man who has been a champion of big box stores in San Francisco!

This quote should serve as a reminder to those San Francisco voters who've been fooled into believing that Mayor Newsom represents progressive voters in San Francisco:

The Democrats have sought to cast Newsom as just another idealistic Mr. Smith on his way to Washington -- with a pit stop in San Francisco. In reality, he is a budding hack who draws his support from the city's most dubious interests: Real estate magnates, landlords, and the bureaucratic crony network created by [Mayor Willie] Brown .

Plastic Bag Tax
Good Enough for Dublin, Why Not San Francisco?

For now, the proposed measure to levy a $.17 tax on plastic shopping bags is a "non-starter," thanks to a disinformation campaign by the American Plastics Council. Green Party Member and Board Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi proposed the measure to cut down on waste, environmental impacts and disposal costs that are ultimately absorbed by the city. No other US city has such a tax, but it's been successfully employed in Ireland, South Africa, Bangladesh, Australia, China and Taiwan. A plastic bag tax measure in now being considered in Scotland, and citizens there are generally supportive.

If it's good enough for Dublin, then why not San Francisco?

The following image and message comes from a friend now living and working in Dublin, where the plastax is $.15 or roughly $.27 in US dollars.

From my simple observations, I would have to say that the bag tax in Ireland is an unmitigated success. Not only have they reduced bag usage by 95%, but the population itself has become as mindful of its bag usage as the best environmental community in America. I went to Tesco yesterday to do my major grocery shopping for the week. In line, everyone had their own bags -- heavy plastic bags from retail stores, canvas bags with wooden handles, or specially labelled polyurethane bags (which I couldn't find to purchase). The clerk asked if I needed a bag; I said I might need one, but didn't use it.



Most of the people I've talked to were aware of the tax, but looked on it as just another tax. It's not as if the majority gave a second thought about the environment. Keep in mind that there are taxes on so many things here on so many levels. To them it was just another tax. There is some discussion in Great Britain about implementing a road tax where cars would be fitted with a special GPS box that would track their driving down to the road and time of day. Busy roads at the busiest times would be taxed the most. The idea is to eliminate other taxes associated with driving, and the intent is more about reducing traffic than raising revenue, and most of the people understand that. The people here are used to taxes, which is an aspect you'll have to overcome in your initiative.

The closest Irish "fetchandfart" equivalent to 7-11 is the SPAR chain. There's one right around the corner from my apartment in Dublin. Much smaller than c-stores in America, much busier, a lot less packaged stuff. They sell fruit (pears, apples, oranges, bananas), vegetables (potatoes, onions, cabbage, carrots), fresh bread, deli selections, milk, yogurt, cheddar (not the wider commodity known as "cheese", just cheddar). The impulse purchase section is conveniently located as a long high counter along which customers line up to check out. Employees at my SPAR are Korean, I think.

For larger shopping runs, I have gone to a TESCO store about 20 minutes away (by foot). This store has basically the same categories of products as SPAR, but with a much larger selection within each category. The male employees wear coat and ties. I had noticed when I first went there that most of the other shoppers were using their own bags - some canvas, some cloth, most used larger, more durable plastic bags from other stores. This was, of course, before I even knew about the bag tax. I had to specifically ask for a couple of bags.

I had always been saving my bags, anyway, but I quickly realized that, by practice, shoppers brought their own bags. The Asian kids at the SPAR were pretty good about asking if I needed a bag; I was kind of proud of myself the first time I could tell them I'd brought my own. Last night, I bought toilet paper, carrots, and oranges. The latter two were already in their own produce bags, anyway, and the cashier made no effort at all to put these into another bag, and he didn't ask if I needed a bag.

In the states, it used to bug me when the baggers would put everything in bags -- even things that had handles or were otherwise bagged already. My wife stitched together a cloth tube which we could hang in the pantry to stuff all these bags into and pull them out the bottom whenever we needed to reuse one. There were times when it got so full that we just threw them away.

I have done some shopping here. A couple of places put my purchases in logoed paper bags with handles. The bookstore wrapped my purchase in paper and taped it shut. At another store (Dickson's electronics) the cashier asked if I needed a bag. Since I already had one, I was relieved that I wasn't obliged to automatically get another one. On that note, however, I have to add that, from a business standpoint, you do have to make adjustments to prevent shoplifting. In America, there is a certain level of security in the fact that the purchase can be kept in the same bag as the receipt. Anything not in a bag is often labelled with a sticker so security knows it has been purchased. Items not in bags and not stickered, while not necessarily suspect, are probably the first to be questioned by security. From the standpoint of a consumer who is accustomed to this arrangement, it is slightly disconcerting to walk out of a store with purchases not in a bag.

On a similar path, this morning I saw a poster stuck to both sides of a street trash can that read something like "Don't Panic. Don't Pay. Say No to the bin tax". The only reason I paid attention to it was because I left the apartment this morning with the garbage from my morning fruit in a produce bag so I could toss it in one of the street trash cans since I still haven't found the apartment's dumpster I'm supposed to put my trash in.

For the French take on the subject, here's some stuff I found. Use babblefish or Google's page translator to get a rough translation. Bottom line: the French solution seems to be a move to mandate the use of (more expensive) biodegrabable bags instead of a tax.

www.actu-environnement.com
www.novethic.fr
www.notre-planete.info
www.novaenvirocom.ca

"The RBA Potrero sellout"
San Francisco Bay Guardian

When the San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved a one-year moratorium on residential development in north Potrero Hill Dec. 14, the San Francisco Chronicle portrayed it as a blow to developers. But as Rachel Brahinsky reports on page 16, the biggest and most powerful group of housing builders in the city was hardly disappointed: members of the Residential Builders Association celebrated in the hallway outside the board's chambers after the vote, and RBA lawyer Alice Barkley hugged and kissed Sup. Bevan Dufty.

What was going on? It's simple: the RBA, with the help of an unlikely alliance orchestrated by Dufty and including Sups. Matt Gonzalez and Chris Daly, managed to ram through a last-minute amendment that exempted four RBA projects – one of them a whopping 450-unit apartment building – from the interim controls. Among the projects exempted: a 16-unit building on a lot next to the Anchor Steam Brewery that neighborhood activists had argued would be a threat to industrial jobs in the neighborhood.

more ...

Surcharge on Plastic Grocery Bags Worth Considering

"We have a responsibility to promote a healthy and sustainable environment, and by doing that, it means we need to help change people's patterns, and that even means their shopping patterns," said Ross Mirkarimi, who will take office in January. "This is a sensible user fee."

According to the Department of the Environment, consumers lug home about 50 million bags from San Francisco grocery stores each year. Of those, 90 percent are nonrecyclable plastic.

A report prepared in support of the proposal by Robert Haley, recycling program manager for the environment department, says plastic bags gum up recycling and composting machines at Norcal -- San Francisco's waste management provider -- resulting in $1 million in extra costs and lost revenue from the sale of recyclable materials.

The bags account for 2 percent of the city's total "waste stream," and picking up and disposing littered bags cost an additional $7.4 million annually, according to the report.

It notes that an estimated 12 million barrels of oil go into the production of plastic bags, while 14 million trees are felled to make their paper counterparts.

Attacks on Ranked Choice Voting Begin

Don't be surprised if there are more sour grapes and baseless attacks on Ranked Choice Voting from some of the losers in last week's historic election.

"While some voters genuinely like this system and found it easy to use, some voters, in particular Chinese-speaking voters, had a very different experience," said Ben Tulchin of the polling firm Fairbank, Maslin, Maulin (sic) and Associates, which conducted the poll for the voter education group [Chinese American Voters Education Committee].

Why would Chinese-speaking voters have difficulty understanding ranked-choice ballots? It's so easy that children get it -- it's as easy as 1-2-3.

Might the Chinese American Voters Education Committee have had an interest in the outcome of this past election? Perhaps they felt that Lillian Sing would have fared better in a costly runoff against Jake McGoldrick in District 1?

There are other problems with the polls, as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle.

• If FMMA's exit polls didn't asky why some voters didn't make a second or third choice, why assume that they didn't get it?
  
• If just 2,108 voters were polled, how many were Chinese American? How many white and Latino voters were polled?

I would remind Mr Lee that in 2002, Prop A was supported by Asian voters and endorsed by Chinese for Affirmative Action, Asian Pacific Democratic Club, and Asian Week.

Mr Lee and his group must work hard at registering Chinese Americans to vote. If he wants to make sure that his constituency takes advantage of RCV, he should concentrate some of his efforts on voter education, instead of fighting RCV, which benefits communities of color while ensuring that candidates are elected by a majority of voters without the need for costly runoff elections.

Why would anyone be against it?

I've voted in San Francisco for eight years and have never before encountered lines at my polling place. Here is my view from the back of the line at 8:30 a.m.

I hope this bodes well for turnout nationwide in what has been called the most important election in our lifetime. Personally, I don't think that is overstating things.

The latest election results for San Francisco can be found here.

National results can be found here. Polls close on the East Coast in less than three hours. I wonder how many voters will be shut out in Ohio and Florida?

Endorsements for the November 2, 2004 Election

United States Representative, District 8
WRITE-IN Terry Baum

United States Representative, District 12
Pat Gray

Member, State Assembly, 13th District
Mark Leno

Board of Supervisors, District 1
Jake McGoldrick

Board of Supervisors, District 2
David Pascal

Board of Supervisors, District 5
Ross Mirkarimi (Bay Guardian)
Ross Mirkarimi (Examiner)

Board of Supervisors, District 9
Renee Saucedo

Member, Board of Education
Mark Sanchez
Eric Mar
Jane Kim
James Calloway

Measures - State Propositions,
1A YES Protect local government revenues.
59 YES Make gov't open & accountable. (Bay Guardian); YES (Chronicle)
60 YES Protect voter choice.
60A NO "Surplus property" sell-off to paydown bonds? Who benefits?
61 YES Improve children's hospitals. (Bay Guardian); YES (Chronicle)
62 NO, NO, NO Don't limit voters choices.
63 YES Expand mental health care programs. (Bay Guardian); YES (Chronicle)
64 NO Don't weaken consumer protection.
65 N/A
66 YES Reform "3 Strikes." (Bay Guardian); YES (Chronicle)
67 NO Increase phone tax (Bay Guardian) ; NO (Chronicle)
68 NO No casinos in urban areas. (Bay Guardian); NO (Chronicle)
69 NO Protect DNA privacy. (Bay Guardian); NO (Chronicle)
70 NO Casino revenue scam. (Bay Guardian); NO (Chronicle)
71 NO Right idea, wrong plan for stem cell research. Costly and poorly written piece of legislation.; "Prop. 71 a risky experiment in squandering public monies"
72 YES Extend health care coverage.

Measures - City & County Propositions,
A YES Affordable housing bonds. (Bay Guardian); YES (Chronicle)
B NO Worthy aim, but fiscally flawed.
C YES Health Service System
D YES Change to City Charter
E N/A
F YES Noncitizen voting for School Board Elections
G YES Health plans for city residents.
H YES Take back naming rights to Candlestick.
I NO Office of Economic Analysis
J YES Necessary Sales Tax Increase
K YES Improve city services w/ reasonable gross receipts tax.
L NO Sean Penn says, "L No!" (Bay Guardian); NO (Chronicle)
N YES Bring our troops home.
O YES Modest help for the least among us.

Newsom Appointee Grandstands for Free Campaign Publicity
SF Chronicle Happy to Provide It

In case you missed it, the front page of yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle read, "Smoking ban in S.F. parks proposed: Law would affect recreation areas regulated by city," along with a photo of Gavin Newsom's appointee in District 2, Michela Alioto-Pier.

Nice photo and nice timing -- less than six weeks before the election.

This is clearly a frivolous and politically motivated move on Alioto's part. Furthermore, as far as I know it's legislation in search of a problem. Alioto says:

"It's just disgusting -- our parks are covered with cigarette butts."

"Not to mention the fact that children are subject to secondhand smoke when they take a water break while playing micro-soccer."

As to the first point, what park is she talking about? I spend time in Golden Gate and Dolores Park and haven't noticed a problem with butts, let alone any park that is "covered" with them. Besides, wouldn't our litter laws address this?

As to the claim of secondhand smoke, is she kidding? I'm not a smoker, but I've never noticed a problem with secondhand smoke while hanging out in any park, nor have I noticed smokers hanging around small children playing "micro-soccer."

The law, as proposed, would ban "inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted smoking equipment for tobacco or any other weed or plant." Hmm. What's that "any other weed or plant" language all about? Is there a perceived problem of people smoking weeds or plants other than tobacco in District 2, or any other district for that matter? I don't get it.

Why would Alioto-Pier make this proposal now, and why this particular proposal, when the city and her district have plenty of other more-pressing concerns? It's simple, according to David Pascal, who is running against Alioto-Pier in District 2:

"If she's worried about kids and the environment, how about addressing transit policy and our energy infrastructure and the kids with chronic respiratory illness in Bayveiw Hunter's point? 80% of airborne pollution is from mobile sources (cars and trucks), 20% from stationary sources (power plants). Cigarettes contribute a negligible amount.

This is everything that's wrong with American politics. No substance, just opportunistic grandstanding."

District 2 voters need to be told what Alioto has really been up to during her short term on the Board. As far as I can tell, no one in this race has really gone after her. Whoever has the courage to do so might make this a race worth watching, and a real contest, rather than a coronation for Gavin's heir apparent.

Good News for the Sunset and Pacifica?

The latest projections by the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C., suggest that in a worst-case scenario, San Francisco can expect 55 heat- wave days -- three or more consecutive days of temperatures above 79 degrees -- a year by the 2050s and up to 135 such days a year by the 2090s, compared with only 10 to 15 heat-wave days in the 1990s.

These higher temperatures will translate into more deaths among old people, infants and people with heat-sensitive medical conditions, the authors said. By this reckoning, San Francisco would wind up experiencing at least 1, 300 and up to as many as 4,500 more heat-related deaths in the decade of the 2090s -- or three to 10 times as many as occurred in the 1990s.

The scenario suggests San Francisco will be transformed into something akin to an oven inside a deep freeze whose door keeps swinging open and shut.

"You'll get a lot of temperature variation, heat waves alternating with rapid cooling," said Moser, a staff scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. "That's a situation the body won't get used to."

She said this was one of many projected harmful impacts of climate change that might be avoided, or at least reduced, if steps were taken now to cut the amount of greenhouse gases polluting the atmosphere.

The best- and worst-case scenarios in the report reflect different assumptions on how much the release of such gases is cut back in coming years. One scenario assumes continued reliance on burning fossil fuels and rapid increase in heat-trapping gases all this century; the other assumes a transition to cleaner energy sources, which would allow greenhouse gas emissions to peak at mid-century, then taper back to current levels by 2100.

The report calls for "aggressive vehicle global warming standards" and was issued in advance of a key meeting of the California Air Resources Board on Sept. 23 in Los Angeles.

Matt Gonzalez Endorses Ross Mirkarimi

San Francisco's District 5 promises to be an interesting test of the city's new IRV system -- instant runoff or ranked choice voting. With three Green Party candidates and several progressive Democrats running for the seat left vacant by Board of Supervisors President Matt Gonzalez, there is no shortage of good choices to represent the part of the City that stretches from the Inner Sunset to the Western Addition and includes Haight-Ashbury and Japantown.

"In an exceptional field, Ross Mirkarimi stands above the crowd," Gonzalez said. "He has wide governmental experience and the ethics and maturity the job demands. He'll be a strong, yet pragmatic, progressive voice."

SAN FRANCISCO / 'Ranked' vote gets fanciful scenarios / Analyst predicts a change in the political culture:

"'It's very important for the strategy of a candidate to know who is going to come in last and who is going to come in first and second,' Stearns said. 'In D5 it's likely that Robert Haaland and Ross Mirkarimi will come in at one or two.'

Assuming Haaland and Mirkarimi would come in at the top, it's in their best interest to campaign for the votes of the candidates expected to lose, he said."

Green Appointed to Planning Commission

Matt Gonzalez appointed Christina Olague to the Planning Commission. Olague is the first tenant organizer to be appointed to the commission, which is surprising given that 70% of San Francisco residents are renters. More here.

Willie Brown Warned About 9/11?

LORIE VAN AUKEN, WIDOW OF 9/11 ATTACK:  We also know that people stopped flying domestically.  Ashcroft stopped flying.  Pentagon officials stop flying the day before September 11.  They were warned not to fly on September 11.  We think San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was told not to fly.  That’s all domestic.  You know, everybody keeps telling us how they were focused outward. 

MATTHEWS:  You’re talking about before 9/11 they were warned? 

VAN AUKEN: Yes.  Yes, right. 

What next for Terry Baum?

This morning I attended the third Terry Baum press conference in as many weeks. At the last two, reporters turned out from KPFA and the San Francisco Examiner. This time the Examiner's Adriel Hampton -- who has done a yeoman's job reporting this story while the Chronicle and local television stations have ignored it -- passed us by for another story. It dawned on me that the press has done about all it can for this humble crusade for democracy. It's time to take this message to the people, and in a big way.

But how?

I've told Terry's story to many friends, mostly Democrats, and they all seem to get it. But no one reacts with shock or disgust, let alone surprise. One friend, who swims in larger political ponds, said, "Sounds like there was political pressure (from Nancy Pelosi)." That's it, c'est la vie, such is politics in the City.

I ran into Matt Gonzalez at El Buen Sabor on Valencia today. He saw my "Baum for Peace" button and asked, "How is Terry doing?" I said that she's hanging in there, but added that I'm getting discouraged. He said not to worry, that he knew we'd win, that courts have always ruled in favor of voters' intent. I wish I could be so optimistic, based on the way that Arntz, Moll and the press have treated this story so far.

And then I received a message from Arianna Huffington. She reminded me that it was bloggers who made the Trent Lott story stick. Maybe bloggers could make the Terry Baum story stick, so that the press and the City sit up take notice?

Terry has launched a citywide petition drive that would give us a chance to tell her story, but this will take a lot of volunteer hours. Is San Francisco's progressive community up to the challenge?

What can we do as concerned citizens? How can we move this thing forward? Democracy is at stake, people. It doesn't get any more important than this.

How Much Do You Make?

I'm in the wrong business! Thanks to Willie Brown, civil service pays damn well.

In 2003, 2,693 employees earned more than $100,000, up from 952 in 2000. About half of those earning in excess of $100,000 last year did it by working hundreds of hours of overtime. They include police officers, firefighters, public health and transit workers and sheriff's deputies.

That amounts to $269 million in payroll for less than 10% of city workers, and not quite half of the increase in overall payroll from $1.3 billion to $2 billion. I think some city workers should be paid well for their efforts, but this is ridiculous! Notice that teachers didn't make this list.

Matt Gonzalez Bows Out

I was at the Temple Bar Saturday night, where Matt Gonzalez read from the Declaration of Independence to a hushed group of delegates from the Green Party of California's General Assembly. It was an inspiring moment, listening to the rising Green star put the party's efforts into historical context.

Then came the news this morning: Supe walks away, Gonzalez decides against re-election. I was looking at the list of candidates running for Supervisor just a few days ago, and Matt's absence was noteworthy. I figured then that there was no rush, and maybe he just hadn't gotten around to filing his declaration of intent. Obviously that wasn't the case.

Matt's re-election seemed a near certainty, given that he's easily the most popular Supervisor in the City and came damn close to beating Gavin Newsom in the December Mayoral run-off. Why isn't Matt running? He says that he wants to practice law again. Maybe he just wants to take a break before he runs for higher office.

Green Party Locked Out of November Ballot

I believe that the right to vote is one of our most important. ACLU President and New York Law Professor Nadine Strossen has said:

"Our constitutional democracy rests on certain core principles. Every vote should be counted accurately, every vote should be counted equally, and no one should be denied the right to vote based on the color of his or her skin."

In San Francisco's March election, it appears that votes were counted accurately, but then the Department of Elections changed its ruling, effectively moving to keep a third party candidate off of the ballot in November.

Terry Baum, a Green Party candidate for Congress in District 8, ran a write-in campaign to get on the ballot to represent the party against Democratic incumbent Nancy Pelosi in November. State law barred her from being on the ballot EXCEPT as a write-in, because she had been registered as a Democrat in the past 23 months.

She needed 1605 write-in votes from registered Greens to qualify, and on Monday, March 15, after two weeks of counting, John Arntz, head of the Department of Elections, told her that she had succeeded.

Their initial count of write-ins had stood at 1407 on March 10. The DOE then went back to check for votes where Greens had written in Terry Baum's name, but failed to connect the arrow on the ballot. (There were also voters who wrote in her name under the wrong office, but these were not counted.)

On Monday, March 15 at 8 am, Terry received a call from Mr. Arntz with the news that she had received 1651 votes -- putting her over the top by 46 votes. The DOE had worked over the weekend counting all the Green ballots, and 244 had written in her name without connecting the arrow.

That was a week ago. A story came out in today's SF Examiner putting Terry's historic efforts into perspective, "Baum makes write-in history."

Terry reported getting a call from Mr Arntz today, after the story broke, that "the City Attorney says they CANNOT count the votes where people wrote in my name but forgot to connect the arrow. This reverses what the City Attorney said before."

I can see why the City Attorney, as a registered Democrat, might have an interest in keeping a third party candidate off of the ballot, although I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It seems to me that the voting rights of registered Greens are at stake here, although this might seem like a trivial case to members of the two major parties.

The House That Gavin Razed

Last Friday, Mayor Gavin Newsom vetoed an anti-demolition ordinance, passed by the Board of Supervisors, that forbids property owners from demolishing habitable buildings containing 20 or more residential units.

The immediate target of the legislation was Trinity Plaza, a 377-unit, rent-controlled building at Eighth and Market streets that is home to a group of primarily low-income tenants. Owner Angelo Sangiacomo wants to raze the building and replace it with five high-rise buildings containing 1,410 rentals.

Guess who gave money to the Newsom campaign? That's right, Angelo "Father of Rent Control" Sangiacomo.

Newsom said the legislation would "stifle our ability to build new affordable housing.'' That's an argument he's making on behalf of developers, of course. What voters should know is that every time "a rent-controlled building is torn down, the city forever loses units in which rents only can be raised a small percentage annually until a tenant moves out. Housing built after 1979 is not subject to rent control."

It looked like Supervisor Chris Daly had a veto-proof majority of eight supervisors until Bevan Dufty switched his vote to "no" on February 23, joining supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier, Tony Hall and Fiona Ma in opposing the law.

Newsom has been getting a lot of much-deserved attention since he took office January 8, first for appointing women to the posts of police chief and fire chief, and an African-American lesbian to the school board, then for authorizing gay marriages in the City. (Lest we forget, Matt Gonzalez supported gay marriage during the campaign, while Newsom did not. In fact, Gonzalez cited his support for gay marriage as just one of many issues that led him to turn Green in November 2000. "I decided I am not going to vote for candidates who support the death penalty or oppose gay marriage.")

These issues are telling, but ultimately just window-dressing for the house that Newsom will build for himself as mayor. It's on issues like housing, homelessness and big business that Newsom will show himself to be what we were afraid of, just another neo-liberal gentrifier.

Slate for March 2, 2004 Election

// President //
HOWARD DEAN

// US Senator //
BARBARA BOXER

// US Representative, District 8 //
Write-in: TERRY BAUM

// State Senator //
CAROLE MIGDEN

// State Assembly, District 13 //
MARK LENO

// State Propositions //

YES on Prop 55: Education Facilities Bond Act
YES on Prop 56: State Budget, Related Taxes, Penalties
NO on Prop 57: Gov Schwarzenegger's power grab
NO on Prop 58: "Balanced Budget" act

// Regional Proposition //

YES on Regional Measure 2: more funds for mass transit

// City and County Propositions //

YES on A: transfer accrued vacation and sick leave
YES on B: retirement benefits for public defenders and district attorneys
YES on C: reduce police staff, replace with civilians
YES on D: retirement benefits for domestic partners
YES on E: vote of non-compliance for the PATRIOT Act
YES on F: reclassify deputy sheriffs as safety employees
YES on G: supplemental pay for city employees called to military service
YES on I: phase out diesel buses, meet anti-pollution standards
NO on J: gentrification disguised as "workforce housing"

I'm in agreement with the SF Green Party and the SF Bay Guardian on more than 80% of the above ballot items. See for yourself who is endorsing whom.

Keeping An Eye on Mayor Newsom
Matt for Mayor '07

Lots of us who supported Matt Gonzalez in the mayoral election have kept the Matt for Mayor signs in our windows. In Noe Valley, I noticed that someone put up "07" next to their Matt signs. My sentiments, exactly.

In the meantime, we're going to keep an eye on Mayor Gavin Newsom, to hold him to the promises he made, and make sure he doesn't trade any favors for all those campaign contributions he received.

If you weren't there when Matt made his eloquent concession speech, watch it for yourself here.

"When Mayor Newsom is wrong, we're there to oppose him, but ... when Mayor Newsom is right, we gotta get behind him and support him because there are a lot of issues in this city that need our attention and cooperation."

In today's Chronicle:

Mayor says he wants full probe of allegations by city workers
9 say they were told to vote for Newsom

The nine street cleaners said that in the week before the Dec. 9 runoff election they were taken to the Department of Elections and told to cast absentee ballots for Newsom.

Street cleaners said their supervisors told them that if Newsom didn't win they might lose their jobs with the city-funded nonprofit organization called the San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners, or SLUG.

We'll keep an eye on this story, and others as they develop, and see what kind of mayor Gavin Newsom intends to be.

The Matt for Mayor in 2007 starts now.

Making The Case for Matt Gonzalez

This email has been forwarded much during the last week, and the author has even posted a web page and placed Google ads. Good work, Francis!

Dear Friends,

I am not in the habit of sending out group-emails, but because I feel so passionately about the upcoming mayoral election, I'm making an exception.

I believe that Matt Gonzalez's candidacy embodies a vision of the San Francisco in which I want to live:

• a city where the government is ethical
  
• where people earn decent wages
  
• where public transportation is valued and supported
  
• where the arts are important
  
• where people have jobs and places to live that they can afford
  
• where the character of local neighborhoods is celebrated.

I'm not going to tell you that Matt Gonzalez can deliver all of this, but by supporting him, I think we've got a shot at it.

Read the complete letter for yourself -- and pass it on!

Joan Ryan Slams Gonzalez and Supporters

I enjoy reading Joan Ryan's column in the Chronicle, so I was surprised to read her latest: "S.F. voters need to tune in to what's real."

She begins by stating that Matt Gonzalez "owns neither a car nor, it seems, a comb, and who has about him the idealist's air of patient superiority." (Does anyone else find the comments about Matt's hair to be petty and tiresome?)

Ryan decries modern politics for not being "about facts and figures, the black- and-white data that tell us what a candidate actually has done, what a candidate actually plans to do, what a candidate actually stands for." So far, so good. Then she draws a parallel between Matt Gonzalez's campaign and that of Schwarzenegger, who campaigned "on a square jaw and hope." Hmm, this sounds vaguely familiar. Who else is suggesting this?

Ryan then shows her cards, patronizing and insulting Gonzalez and his supporters.

We project onto them the qualities we want to be there. If a guy's quiet, we think he's deep. If he takes us to a burger joint for dinner, we think he's charmingly unpretentious. Then it turns out he's just boring and cheap.

I know, I know, she uses "we," but it's clear she means "you Matt Gonzalez supporters." In case readers think otherwise, she reinforces her point:

He is vague about his solutions to San Francisco's homeless problem, its uneven business climate, its robust drug trade, its struggling schools. So his supporters have had ample room to project on to him all the qualities they want in a politician.

But she saves her harshest words for the final paragraph.

But when personality - or what we assume to be a politician's personality from media reports and opponents' hit pieces - elbows aside measured and thorough consideration of his or her record and plans, then we get what we deserve: leaders unprepared for and incapable of leading.

Is that what Joan Ryan really thinks, that Matt Gonzalez is "unprepared for and incapable of leading?" Is it then safe to assume that Ryan thinks that Gavin Newsom is "prepared for and capable of leading?"

What is Joan Ryan thinking? Ask her for yourself.

More "lies that Newsom would like you to believe about Matt Gonzalez"

On Thursday I decided to send an email to many of my friends in San Francisco, addressing some of the buzz I had been hearing about Matt's Green Party affiliation, whether it would be a mistake for San Francisco to elect a non-Democratic mayor.

I told my friends: "It takes a journalist in Wisconsin to explain why San Francisco should elect Matt Gonzalez, even if he isn't a Democrat." I included an excerpt from John Nichols's op-ed in Madison, Wisconsin's Capital Times, titled "Why partisanship over progressivism?" (John Nichols is also Washington correspondent for The Nation.) Nichols answers the questions as follows:

In contrast to Gonzalez's background, Newsom's spottier record is that of a political careerist who has made his name taking cheap shots at the city's homeless population. Newsom has raised $3.3 million for his campaign from corporate givers such as Bechtel, the defense contractor, and prominent Republicans such as former Secretary of State George Shultz. And he is using the money to attack Gonzalez for being too progressive. At the same time, he is calling on Democrats to rally 'round the party banner.

So why are top national Democrats like Al Gore going out of their way to fly to San Francisco to campaign for Newsom? Why is the Democratic National Committee working to beat Gonzalez?

Because, despite his corporate and Republican ties, Newsom proclaims himself to be a Democrat and Gonzalez does not. Forget about the fact that this is a nonpartisan race. Forget about the fact that Gonzalez has far more potential than Newsom to emerge as a national leader on urban issues. Gore and national and local Democratic insiders are choosing partisanship over progressivism.

Most thanked me for the email, while some shared their concerns with me about possible damage to the Democratic party resulting from a Gonzalez victory. I tried to assuage their fears. But one email caught me completely off-guard, and reminded me that not everyone gets the same information or reacts to it the same way. This email probably says something about what the Newsom camp wants its supporters to think they know about Matt Gonzalez.

Let's review Gonzalez's record:

Triple My Pay--Cut Yours

When Gonzalez wanted a huge pay raise to six-figures, he could have been honest with voters. He could have said, "Hey, I think all 11 of us are worth around $110,000 each. Please vote to give us that raise." This happens all the time all over the country. Instead, Saint Matt the Clever wrote up a ballot measure that had no salary figures at all! He knew that the language of the measure ensured a huge raise, but by pretending that it was just the Civil Service Commission "setting"Supervisor pay, he reaped a 300% pay increase for himself and his colleagues while at the same time he forced rank-and-file City employees to take a 7.5% pay cut.

Care Not Cash

Gonzalez‚ glossy, carefully worded campaign mailers make it look like he's been working on some pretty normal policies as Board President. The reality of his heavy-lifting work is quite different. He opposed the 60% winner Care Not Cash (from the 2002 ballot) and he was the deciding vote against--and the chief opponent of--Care Not Cash implementation at the Board. Good luck finding "Led the opposition to Care Not Cash" in any of his mailers.

Aggressive Panhandling

To slow the scourge of aggressive panhandling, last month 60% of San Franciscans voted for Proposition M. Gonzalez has been honestly unflinching in his opposition to this or any reform - no matter how modest - of our laws that would restrict street thugs from aggressively panhandling San Franciscans. Is progressive Saint Matt like Senator John Burton, proudly opposing the measure at every opportunity, damn the politics? No chance.

Daly's Dirty Appointments

You all remember when Supervisor Chris Daly decided to make some dubious appointments during his reign as Dictator for a Day - after his longtime foe, Mayor Brown, offered him an olive branch and made him Mayor for a day. When asked how he would vote on Daly‚s power grab, Saint Matt the Honest said, "I didn't like the process, I don't believe the way he did it was right.'" And then he provided Daly with the deciding vote to uphold the action--despite the opposition of a majority of his Board colleagues. Intellectual honesty? How about Saint Machiavelli's top student in Poly Sci 401: The ends always justify the means.

Party Labels Don't Matter

And then there is the coup de grace - Saint Matt's double-standard on Party Affiliation. You've heard Gonzalez and his supporters downplaying his Green Party identity, because they know that it's the kiss of death in a largely Democratic town. "He'll be a great Mayor first, and a great Green second," says one of his taxpayer-funded campaign workers, in a familiar refrain. "It's not about party identification, it's about ideas," says another. And when Democrat Gavin Newsom says that Democrats should not support a Green, Saint Matt preaches the Gospel of Non-Affiliation.

But wait! In the closing days of the campaign, party affairs suddenly matter to Matt, and he does a 180-degree reversal.

"Gavin gave money to George Bush!" alleges Gonzalez. "He must be a secret Republican!"

In reality, Newsom's $500 contribution in 2000 was his pro-rated share of a slate card mailer to members of the Republican Party--a common practice amongst all candidates for public office. But that doesn't matter to Saint Matt the Honest. When his first smear campaign (that Newsom is somehow Schwarzenegger-like) was a pathetic flop, he recently resorted to labelling
Newsom "Republican"--in the same week that Al Gore and Bill Clinton came to San Francisco to endorse him. [Note: I recieved this on Friday, so I'm not sure why the author stated that Clinton "came to San Francisco" -- wishful thinking?]

Saint Matthew's is not the campaign of "Integrity and Honesty." It is just the opposite. From his dirty smear of Tom Ammiano's progressive credentials, to his unethical use of the Bay Guardian banner, to his pathetically contradictory "'Green' is a smear, but 'Republican' is fair game" mantra, Gonzalez wants you to listen to what he says, not watch what he does.

The Matt Gonzalez website has "responses to five lies that Newsom would like you to believe about Matt Gonzalez." The email above shows that they missed a few.

Julian Guthrie Tells the Stories of Matt and Gavin

I had a chance to introduce Matt Gonzalez to my wife and her girlfriend on Saturday night at Studio Z on 11th and Folsom. He looked tired. I asked Matt how he felt, and told him that I had heard from a friend who caught it on the news that he was sick today. I told Matt that the local news was talking about his health, that it must feel like he's playing in the World Series, being tired but not saving anything. Matt said something to the effect that he had to look good. I agreed. My wife and her girlfriend were both wearing the green-on-white "Matt for Mayor" t-shirts. My wife asked Matt if he would go into the coin-op photo booth and have his picture taken with the two of them. "Maybe later," Matt said. He sounded tired.

Man, I feel for the guy. He's probably getting by on just a few hours of sleep, having been hit hard by the flu bug that is going around, walking around the Folsom club zone in the cold rain on a Saturday night, with less than 72 hours left until he learns whether a majority of San Franciscans want him as their mayor, dragging around his 70-year-old father, Mateo, in town from McAllen, Texas. I introduced myself to Matt's father, said that he must be proud, certainly we all are of what his son is doing. It occurs to me: Matt could be making a lot more than he makes working for us on the Board of Supervisors.

After graduating from Stanford in 1990, Gonzalez chose a post as a criminal defense attorney in the San Francisco public defender's office, a decision that surprised some back home, who thought he would go on to become a wealthy corporate lawyer.

"Given his educational background, he could easily have gone to a high profile law firm anywhere in the country," Rios said. "A lot of friends wondered why he didn't."

While Matt was making the rounds tonight, I imagine that Gavin Newsom was with the Gettys, having highballs with some high-rollers, planning his transition into Willie's vacant office. He's going to get a rude awakening on Tuesday when he finds out that he can't buy the Mayor's office, even when he's spending $4 million of other people's money, and then some.

Thanks to Julian Guthrie of the San Francisco Chronicle, for telling us the "truth" about Matt Gonzalez:

The ruminative 38-year-old is regarded as the bohemian champion of the poor. But, of the two candidates, he had the more privileged upbringing, although he chose a lower paying career in public service. One valuable possession he owns -- a Rolex watch given to him by his father -- he chooses not to wear.

Guthrie goes on to decry the Gonzalez campaign's hypocrisy on ethics, and Matt's support by "two of the most powerful men in the city's construction world who flourished under the Brown administration."

Guthrie's less than subtle bias is somewhat compensated by a generous account of seeing McAllen and Matt through the eye's of Oralia Gonzalez, his mother.

Don't believe me. Read the article for yourself, and then read Guthrie's accompanying piece on Gavin Newsom. It'll bring a tear to your eye.

Is It About The Party Or The Candidate?

This is what it comes down to, whether it is better to vote for a party or for a candidate. At least that is what the Democratic leadership would have San Francisco voters ask themselves, and they’re saying, “Vote for the Democrat, Gavin Newsom, no matter what. Bite your tongue and ignore the fact that he gave money to help elect President Bush in 2000. Pay no attention to the fact that he is financed by prominent Republicans and has Republicans managing his campaign. Pretend like you didn’t hear about how his campaign falsified a protest email to discredit the Green Party. Forget what he stands for and who stands behind him. Despite everything you know about Gavin Newsom, remember that he is really a Democrat and Democrats are better than non-Democrats -- trust us.”

The Democrats are desperate to get their point across. Why else would they send Al Gore to San Francisco? If that weren’t insulting enough, now they’re suggesting that Bill Clinton might be visiting, too.

Okay, I understand that the Democratic Party is still reeling from losing the California Gubernatorial Recall to Arnold Schwarzenegger. I know they’re still upset about losing the White House in 2000 thanks to the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris. I appreciate the fact that they might be inclined to take out their frustration on a younger, weaker third party like the Green Party, but give me a break.

Nancy Pelosi, don’t you think you’re being a bit melodramatic?

"With or without whatever happened in the recall, its very important for the Democratic party that a Democrat win in San Francisco.”

"I would hope the the city of San Francisco would get serious about this election."

"I respect anybody who wants to participate in whatever party ... so I respect the Greens and the enthusiasm that they bring to the political process. However, the fight in this country is between the Democrats and the Republicans.”

"In order for the Democrats to prevail we have to be strong. Having the mayor of San Francisco be a Democrat is important to us."

"A number of candidates have endorsed Newsom. I think it would be perfectly appropriate that President Clinton visit as well."

Lots of friends I’ve talked to this week are clearly worried about the implications of electing Matt Gonzalez, since he is not a Democrat. Obviously the rhetoric coming out of the party via the mainstream media has been working.

To paraphrase Michael Moore, I say, “Vote for the Democrats only when you have to.” This is not one of those situations. For once it isn’t a choice between a moderate, pro-business Democrat and a moderate, pro-business Republican. We don’t have to be afraid that voting with our hearts will end up electing a Republican. What we have here is a choice between a DINO (Democrat-In-Name-Only) and a strong Democratic candidate who happens to be a Green.

Let me be clear about this. I almost always vote for Democrats and I have never supported a third party candidate when doing so might have thrown the race to a Republican.

What we have on December 9th is a historic moment for both San Francisco and American Democracy – a chance to shake off the shackles of Duverger’s Law, even if just for a moment.

Don’t worry about the two-party system, people. We won’t become Germany overnight, nor will Congress become the Knesset. Don’t worry about the Democratic Party, because they’re not going away anytime soon.

This election had focused on ideas, until Gavin Newsom realized that most San Franciscans didn't like his. Since Democrats at the highest levels have made this into a decision about the two-party system, they leave us no other choice but to kick their asses out of the San Francisco’s mayor office. Maybe next time they will give us a candidate who lives up to the ideals of the once great Democratic Party.

This is not a protest vote, people, this is about what is right and what is decent about democracy, and electing a better mayor for a better San Francisco.

(I finished this post before I had read this – I managed to practically plagiarize an article I hadn’t even read!)

California Urban Issues Project
Direct Mail Campaign

Read these two pieces for yourself (click on images). Listen to their phone messages and then ask yourself, who are they and why do they want Gavin Newsom elected so badly?

front	back
front	inside

More on the California Urban Issues Project

I'm sick and tired of propaganda coming from faceless, Orwellian lobbying groups like the California Urban Issues Project. San Franciscans have been inundated with phone calls and direct mail this week from the group, but who are they? Who is Sally/Susan Smith? Martha Bridegam has done a yeoman's job of researching the group's true nature -- read it for yourself and pass it on.

An Insurrection, Of Sorts

While Marshall Kilduff praises Matt Gonzalez in today's SFGate.com ("The Gonzalez insurrection") for his "canny intelligence," and says he is "more careful and tractable than most think,” he really goes out of his way to characterize Gonzalez as an unlikely victor in next Tuesday’s election.

You might think that the gist of Kilduff's editorial would be neatly contained in its title: "The Gonzalez insurrection." (in·sur·rec·tion: n. The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.) Not really. He dismisses a few Gonzalez ideas as “crazy stuff” and says he worries bureaucrats because he isn’t a status quo public servant. Fine, but why chide Gonzalez for his "floppy hair and bad suits" and comment, "in personal terms, the guy is baffling. He doesn't help himself with the monotone delivery and a personality that's more pilot light than burning flame?"

I would love to hear what Kilduff thinks about Newsom's helmet hair, why he thinks Matt's suits are "bad," and why he thinks Matt's personality is flat, but his shallow personal attacks are irrelevant. I disagree with them, and they have nothing to do with Gonzalez's candidacy, or his qualifications for the job, but he’s entitled to his opinion. Hell, he’s even paid to provide it.

Where Kilduff loses me is when he says that Gavin Newsom is "reasonable, collegial and school-boy honest. He exudes the vision of an MBA, talking about best practices. He's a smart guy who has had every break, financially and politically." Maybe he didn’t see the debate last night? Newsom was less than collegial and did not appear to be so “school-boy honest.” As for his vision, I wasn’t impressed by his harping on having 21 policy papers. Maybe I missed something.

While grudgingly allowing that Gonzalez will get some votes, Kilduff seems to think that Gonzalez won't get elected and isn't really ready for prime time. This may be wishful thinking on his part.

The city may not be ready for a brash outsider like Gonzalez. He may need more allies, seasoning and law-making skill. But he's more than a fringe ideologue. He provides a door-kicking challenge and canny intelligence missing from City Hall. Don't be surprised when that brings him votes next Tuesday.

And to that, Mr. Kilduff, I say, don't be surprised when Matt Gonzalez gets enough votes to become San Francisco’s next mayor.

Incidentally, if you check out Marshall Kilduff's article, you may see Matt Gonzalez's banner ad. I'm glad it's up -- I was really getting sick of Newsom's banner.

The MP3s below are messages I received on my home answering machine during the last few days.

I haven't received any messages from the Matt Gonzalez campaign or any groups endorsing Matt. I suspect that Newsom's people are targeting the areas where Gonzalez's support is strongest, but who knows, they may very well be blanketing the whole city. They have the money for it. My suspicion is that this tactic will backfire on them by raising more suspicions about who is behind the California Urban Issues Project, and why they're spending money supporting Gavin Newsom.

If you have any messages you would like to share, please contact me here.

A message from Sally Smith of the California Urban Issues Project claiming that Supervisor Matt Gonzalez wants to raise taxes on home sales.

audio post powered by audblog

A message from Supervisor Bevan Dufty explaining why he endorses Gavin Newsom for Mayor.

audio post powered by audblog

A message from Susan Smith of the California Urban Issues Project (sounds like Sally Smith - is it the same person?), which I mentioned in a previous post.

audio post powered by audblog

Homelessness is the Key to the Mayor's Office

It looks like Gavin Newsom has decided that his tough-on-the-homeless act has been such a good horse for him that he will ride it into next Tuesday's election. I was out of town over the Thanksgiving weekend and came home to find:

• two pieces of direct mail from the "California Urban Issues Project, 41 Sutter Street, Suite 1483" (a Google search turned up nothing on this group) -- an 11x17 single-fold piece stating "Supervisor Matt Gonzalez is another politician supporting the same failed homeless policies," and an 8-/1/2x11 mailer stating that "While city employees were asked to take pay cuts... Matt Gonzalez gave himself a $70,000 pay raise. For Matt Gonzalez, IT'S ALL ABOUT ME!" (caps are theirs, not mine)
  
• a recorded message from "Susan Smith of the California Urban Issues Project" telling me about the "backroom politics" going on in the City, in particular how Supervisor Chris Daly "took advantage" of Willie Brown's trip to Tibet by making a "backroom power grab move" to "appoint his friend to the City's PUC... This is not the San Francisco way." (Where was the California Urban Issues Project when Willie Brown was making the Mayor's office his private fiefdom?)
  
• an email from Gavin Newsom proclaiming that he is trying to change homelessness policy while Matt Gonzalez represents the status quo, even suggesting that he made homelessness an issue knowing that it would lead to others attacking him. (Gavin, do you mean that "Care Not Cash" and Prop M weren't just cynical fundraising tools to fill your mayoral war chest?)
  
• "Shame of the City," a San Francisco Chronicle series on homelessness. (Is the timing a coincidence? I'm not the only who thinks that it isn't.)

What is going on here? It looks like Newsom is betting that he can win on this issue, and this issue alone. He may be right. If voters really think that Newsom's Care Not Cash and Prop M are legitimate and that Gonzalez represents the status quo on homelessness, rightly or wrongly, they'll vote for Gavin. What Gonzalez has to do now is:

1. convince voters that he has a better plan to solve the City's homelessness problem
   
2. demonstrate to voters that Newsom's use of the issue has only been to serve his own political goals, and that a vote for Newsom is a vote for another mayor like Willie Brown.

Chronicle's Bias Favors Newsom

As we head into the home stretch, it's interesting to see how the San Francisco Chronicle is presenting the mayoral race between Matt Gonzalez and Gavin Newsom. Here are just a few things that the Chronicle has recently told its readers:

• Newsom is playing fair, while Gonzalez's supporters are telling "desperate," "blatant lies."
  
  
• Gonzalez called Mayor Willie Brown "a liar Wednesday for suggesting publicly that Gonzalez has consistently voted against blacks seeking city jobs and appointments." (The Chronicle made no comment on the veracity of Brown's accusations.)
  
  
• "Each candidate has forged alliances that raise questions about whether he might continue some of the questionable practices of Willie Brown."
  
  
• "Both Gonzalez and Newsom have been guilty of picking the parts of the truth they like" for inclusion in their campaign literature.
  
  
• Both candidates are "major hotties."

When the Chronicle isn't reporting favorably on Newsom or negatively on Gonzalez, it's making comments or criticism directed at BOTH candidates. Is the Chronicle trying to appear fair and balanced? If they do aim for unbiased coverage, why haven't they told their readers that Gavin Newsom has outspent Matt Gonzalez 20 to 1, and has violated the city's campaign finance regulations? It's no secret that the Chronicle endorsed Newsom in the first election. I suppose the Chronicle's biased coverage of the runoff campaign shows that their endorsement is still good.

Gavin Newsom is Al Gore, Only Younger --
Just Another Republican Lite

The Democrats are really scared that Matt Gonzalez is going to beat Gavin Newsom in the December 9th run-off. As well they should be. Gonzalez has momentum, and, despite Newsom having outspent him by a ridiculous margin (millions of dollars versus tens of thousands), is leading in the polls. As well he should be. He's a better candidate with a philosophy and track record that is more in line with San Francisco's Democratic values than are Newsom's, despite Gavin's support from some of the parties heaviest hitters. One of them is coming to town to stump for him -- Al Gore.

The Democrats are now concerned that losing the San Francisco Mayor's Office will be an embarassment to the party -- not that the party is short on sources of embarrassment these days, namely Gray Davis being recalled and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger, losing control of the US Senate, being bullied and beaten by George Bush and his ridiculously authoritarian and elitist policies. Peter Camejo knows what this run-off is really about. "This is not a Green versus Democrat fight,'' he said. "It's a coalition of Greens, progressive Democrats and independents against moderate and conservative Democrats and Republicans.''

Take a look at the numbers and you'll see quite clearly that Republicans overwhelming support Newsom, while Democrats, Greens and Independents support Gonzalez. San Francisco voters should support the better candidate, regardless of party affiliation. But San Francisco is still a Willie Brown-machine town, despite the fact that the Board of Supervisors has Gonzalez, Daly and Peskin as members. So the Democrats are happy to run another attractive, articulate pro-business candidate with lofty ambitions who will cater to their moneyed supporters over their liberal base.

Angela Alioto is so afraid of the Democratic machine that she second guessed her plans to endorse Matt last Thursday. Thankfully, not all Democrats are so timid. Former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos is just one among many high profile Democrat who now support Matt Gonzalez.

"The answers don't come from Democrats or Republicans or Greens.

I am a life long Democrat ... and what I found is, in the Mayor's office with tough decisions, you are often alone, with your character, principles, integrity, humility, ability and vision to guide you.

I believe Matt Gonzalez has those qualities. That's why I endorsed him when he ran as a Democrat for supervisor, continued to endorse and support him when he became a Green to escape the business as usual politics of the city.

If you don't think that Gavin Newsom is a lot like Al Gore, and really just another Republican in disguise, listen to what Republican Ryan Chamberlain, District 1 Manager for the Newsom for Mayor campaign sent in an e-mail to Newsom's supporters, saying that Greens supporting Gonzalez are coming to town from places "where money is evil unless it's taken from someone who earned it and given to someone who didn't.'' (Hey Ryan, who is taking our hard-earned tax dollars and giving them to Halliburton, Bechtel and their GOP-supporting ilk?)

As long as the Democratic Party gives us Republicans Lite like Gray Davis, Cruz Bustamante, Al Gore, Joseph Lieberman and Gavin Newsom, they simply don't deserve our support, which is why I'm encouraging all of my Democratic friends to vote for Gonzalez on December 9th.

Martin Sheen Endorses Matt Gonzalez

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

"Matt represents the best of American values, values that make San Francisco a wonderful city to live in, work in, and visit. I am pleased to lend my name to his candidacy."

Does the Gavin Newsom banner ad appear above every story related to the runoff campaign?

Where was Gavin Newsom?

Gavin Newsom's face is hard to miss these days. He's spent over $2 million on his unsuccessful mayoral campaign, not to mention efforts to demonize the poor and homeless with his mean-spirited vanity campaigns, Proposition M and "Care Not Cash."

Since Newsom is never one to shy away from publicity, it comes as a surprise that he is absent from the current Board of Supervisors photo on the City of San Francisco website [click images for larger view]. There is obviously someone posing in his place, but who is it? And why isn't he identified?

What gives, Gavin? You managed to show up when Tom Ammiano was President. Couldn't you bother to pose with your fellow Supervisors? Did you have more important business to attend to? Maybe you had a meeting with one of your rich benefactors? Or was your absence meant to be a slight against the current Board President, Matt Gonzalez?

Gavin Newsom's absence from the Board photo says a lot about the kind of mayor he would be, should we elect him.

Why Newsom is Worse Off Than He Will Let On

I mentioned yesterday that KPIX's Hank Plante seemed surprised, even confused, by the results of his CBS affiliate's poll, showing Matt Gonzalez leading Gavin Newsom by a few percentage points.

Our local all-news channel, and former NBC affiliate, KRON ran a story describing the race as "close," a "statistical dead heat."

The local FOX affiliate, KTVU, ran the same story with a different headline, calling Gonzalez's advantage "slight."

The major daily newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, ran a very different, and more biased story, with the headline:

New poll shows Gonzalez out in front
He leads Newsom 49% to 47% in S.F. mayor's race

This seems pretty favorable, and certainly tells much of the story. The lead paragraph immediately suggests otherwise, saying the race is "too close to call, but Supervisor Matt Gonzalez has a small lead among those most likely to vote Dec. 9."

They Chron also added an interesting conditional statement that KPIX, KRON and KTVU either omitted or missed:

The poll, taken earlier this week by SurveyUSA of New Jersey, gave Gonzalez a surprising 49 to 47 percent lead over Supervisor Gavin Newsom among those certain to vote in the runoff. Among probable voters, Newsom had a 46 percent to 43 percent advantage. Both results are within the poll's margin of error.

Let me get this straight, Gonzalez leads by two percent "among those certain to vote in the runoff," but trails by three percent "among probable voters?"

Like the others, the Chron was surprised by the overall results, indicating that the local media either doesn't get what this election is about, doesn't believe the polling data, or doesn't want Gonzalez to win.

Newsom's chief campaign consultant, Eric Jaye, suggested rather sinisterly that automated phone surveys like this one are "notoriously unreliable."

The Newsom camp is still confident that it has a broader base of support, especially since most Republicans supported its candidate and enough Democrats did to get him to 40% - high, but not a majority. What they pretend not to understand is that 60% of voters didn't want him - and still don't.

The Chron does a lot to help the Newsom camp appear confident, and bolsters its confidence with easily manipulated data, but in the end such a strategy can only backfire, as voters who back Matt eventually realize that they are in the majority, and for good reason. San Franciscans are good, honest people at heart, and believe in merit, not patronage; in honesty, not pandering. And that's why more and more of them are supporting Matt everyday, for a better mayor, and for a better San Francisco.

Matt Leads KPIX Poll
Hank Plante Confused by Results

First, the good news: KPIX polled 543 San Francisco voters and found that a majority will choose Matt Gonzalez as Mayor over Gavin Newsom on December 9th, 49% to 47%.

Second, but there is a catch. Hank Plante, and the local media in general, still don't get it, or worse, are going out of their way to dampen any enthusiasm around Matt Gonzalez's mayoral campaign. Plante writes:

But perhaps the most interesting statistic in it, was the question for people who voted last week for candidates other than Newsom or Gonzalez. When asked who they would vote for now, Gonzalez beats Newsom by about two to one: 59% for Gonzalez, to 29% for Newsom.

"Polls don't vote, people vote," Newsom said.

Newsom says his own internal polls show him well ahead of Gonzalez. And after all, in last week's election, Newsom did substantially outdo Gonzalez.

"You don't get a poll like this and pack up your outfit and go home," Gonzalez said. "But for us, it's a good indication that we have a real viability here. And that's what we feel good about."

Why should Plante be surprised that voters who didn't like Gavin Newsom last week, still don't like him? And what is with the "And after all ... Newsom did substantially outdo Gonzalez" comment? Uh, yeah, you're right, Sherlock, but that's only because there were four candidates splitting the liberal vote against one viable conservative candidate.

On a completely frivolous note, it looks as if Matt got a haircut and is using hair gel. It's about time. I mean, you're cool and all, Matt, but appearances do count for something. Speaking of appearances counting, you might want to talk to some of your volunteers about theirs.

Matt Picks Up Big, Surprising Endorsements

From today's Chronicle, "S.F. rivals battle for endorsements; In surprising move, builders' group supports Gonzalez":

Robert Haaland, president of the left-leaning Harvey Milk Democratic club, said the only debate at Tuesday's endorsement meeting was whether to cross party lines to back Gonzalez, a member of the Green Party, or make no endorsement. "When we have a Democratic candidate like Newsom whose positions are more like the Republicans on the signature issues this club cares a lot about, like district elections and public power, it makes for a much more difficult decision,'' Haaland said. Gonzalez, he added, shares more of the club's values. "It tends to be more about ideology than party,'' he said.

What raised eyebrows, however, was Gonzalez winning the endorsement of the Residential Builders Association, whose live-work loft construction projects Gonzalez opposed.

Joe O'Donoghue, who heads the association, said that despite the differences, Gonzalez is for the little guy, which appeals to his group. "Matt is for the working people, the disenfranchised, and that's what this race is about,'' said O'Donoghue. "It's about the haves and the have-nots.''

Ross Mirkarimi, a campaign strategist for Gonzalez, called the endorsement "interesting and ironic,'' but said "it shows that even those who may disagree with Matt Gonzalez know that he's someone they can trust.''

What Andrew Lee Means to the Mayoral Run-Off

Willie Brown made the San Francisco Mayor’s office his own private fiefdom by handing out political appointments in exchange for personal favors. Last month Supervisor Chris Daly made two appointments to the Public Utilities Commission while Brown was on a trip to Tibet, effectively usurping Brown’s privilege of patronage. As soon as Brown learned what had happened, he cut his trip short and flew back to San Francisco to make two appointments of his own. City Attorney Dennis Herrera has since ruled that one of Daly’s appointments can stand, while Willie Brown’s appointment of Andrew Lee is valid.

While the media’s attention has focused on the legality of Daly’s action, I think it’s worth comparing Daly’s appointment to Willie Brown’s. Daly appointed environmentalist and former Sierra Club president Adam Werbach. Willie Brown appointed Andrew Lee, employee of Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, and son of Julie Lee, “a Chinese American community activist who is a political supporter of and volunteer fund-raiser for Brown.”

While Daly made an appointment that seems to have the city’s best environmental interests in mind, Brown appointed the son of someone whom he owes a big favor and the employee of a close political ally, who also incidentally just endorsed Brown’s anointed heir – Gavin Newsom. This isn't the first time Brown has given Lee such a position.

The saga of Brown's four-year link to Andrew Lee's meager political career is bizarre, eccentric, and yet representative of lowest-common-denominator San Francisco politics.

Willie Brown was a political leader so enthralled by the romance of deal-making that he allowed public agencies to become bastions of patronage, built fabulous monuments while allowing the city to be mismanaged, and set a remarkably low standard for public integrity in San Francisco.

If polls are any guide, our next mayor will be heir to that legacy.

Unless our next mayor is Matt Gonzalez.

Matt Gonzalez in MATTrix Revolutions

I'm not sure whom Don Asmussen supports, but his cartoon depicting Matt Gonzalez as Keanu Reeves is good for a chuckle or two.

Matt Gonzalez Condemns McCarthyist Tactics

"I'm a member of the Green Party. I'm proud of that. But I also want to say that I would not be a member of the Board of Supervisors had I not been elected by Democrats. And I would not have been president of the Board of Supervisors if I had not been elected by Democrats. And I would not be in a runoff in this race for mayor if Democrats had not voted for me."

"We don't want to cast this race as simply Greens vs. Democrats. We're also trying to undermine the efforts of the other side in casting the race in that way because we think they are appealing to a certain type of red-baiting of the old days, a certain kind of McCarthyism almost, this idea that, oh my God, if you're associated with the Green Party, there's something different about you."

Matt Gonzalez Speaks at the Green Festival

Matt Gonzalez briefly took to the main stage today at the second annual Green Festival, after Greg Palast finished a scorching 40-minute talk on the war in Iraq, the Florida election, and the murder by burial of Tanzanian miners by the Barrick Corporation, which employs former President George H.W. Bush.

Gonzalez is a very good speaker. Both his intelligence and his honesty come across clearly. It's good to see that he's not afraid to call himself and Supervisor Chris Daly "lefties" or "progressives." It's also good to see him tout his fiscal conservatism, which might come as a surprise to many voters. The more I learn about Gonzalez, the more I think he'll make a better mayor than Newsom, and a better city of San Francisco.

Can Matt Gonzalez Win?

Since Tuesday, people have said to me things along the lines of: "I would love to see him elected, but Newsom's lead is just too large. Matt Gonzalez doesn't have a chance."

Or does he? Gavin Newsom has had well over a year to convince San Francisco voters that he should be mayor, and spent much of his $2.4 million war chest to make his case -- unsuccessfully. Gonzalez announced that he would run just 90 days before the election and managed to get more votes as a Green Party candidate than did more established Democrats like Angela Alioto, Tom Ammiano and Susan Leal. (Too much is already being made of Gonzalez's party affiliation. Newsom may be a registered Democrat, but Matt Gonzalez's views are more in line with San Francisco Democrats than are Gavin's.)

The numbers do seem to favor Newsom. He received 86,470 votes, while Gonzalez only received 40,213. While voter turnout was low (45%) last Tuesday, it can be expected to be even lower for the December 9th run-off. That could favor Gonzalez, if his supporters are more motivated to vote.

Also consider this: 71,706 voters wanted Alioto, Ammiano or Leal, other than Newsom or Gonzalez. Although some think otherwise, it's fair to assume that these voters are more likely to vote against Newsom in the run-off, rather than for him. Otherwise, wouldn't they have voted for him in the first place?

The local and national press are also helping Gonzalez, albeit unwittingly. By reporting Newsom's advantages, they are increasing the likelihood of his supporters staying at home, as they'll think that the election is a lock.

Can Matt Gonzalez win? Yes, but it's going to be difficult.

History in the Making
Matt Gonzalez Could Become America's First Green Party Mayor

On December 9th, San Francisco can elect the nation's first Green Party mayor -- Matt Gonzalez. It's not going to be easy, especially since some are now calling San Francisco a beach head for the Democrats.

The issue isn't whether San Francisco should have a Green or Democrat mayor, although Newsom's camp is likely to make that their focus. The issue is whether Gonzalez or Newsom is better suited to govern the city, and which candidate's positions are more in line with those of voters.

Voters must decide whether the next mayor should represent the interests of the people or big business. Matt Gonzalez is the current President of the Board of Supervisors, a Democrat who turned Green, a child of immigrant parents, graduate of Columbia University and Stanford Law, and a patron of the arts. Gavin Newsom is considered a rising star in the Democratic Party, endorsed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, friend of the Getty family and a successful businessman. Gonzalez stands up for civil and human rights and is a problem-solver and consensus builder. Newsom serves the interests of the wealthy and is willing to use the poor and homeless as political fodder, as he has with Care Not Cash and Proposition M. The choice is clear.

Matt for Mayor!

In just 90 days, Matt Gonzalez managed to do what many said couldn't be done: enter a mayoral race against a clear, well-financed frontrunner and three City politics veterans and finish in second place, qualifying for a run-off on December 9th. Now it's anyone's race. Will those who voted for Alioto, Ammiano and Leal vote for Gonzalez? Will turnout be high or low? Can Gonzalez beat a candidate who can spend $100,000 a day, everyday, until the election?

There are lots of questions around this campaign. For the next six weeks I'll be watching every move and doing my part to get Matt Gonzalez in the mayor's office. Because San Francisco deserves better than another pay-to-play mayor who works only for himself and his patrons. Matt Gonzalez will make a better mayor, and a better San Francisco.