Mayoral Run-Off - December 2003

Only two offices to decide, but so much at stake! San Francisco voters asked the Living Room Slate to do a compilation for the mayoral run-off election. So, again with pizza and beer, we went over our interviews with some of the most respected City Hall watchers and workers (even some elected officials!), all protected by confidentiality. We came up with the following. Let us know if it helped.

MAYOR

We sure didn't end up with middle-of-the-road candidates.

Gavin Newsom and Matt Gonzalez represent vastly different spheres. That's too bad, considering how polarized we are as a city. Their biggest challenge, before proposing plans on fiscal sustainability or homelessness, will be to stretch beyond their comfortable constituencies. Can Gavin do more than wave a finger at sprinklers in SROs? Can Matt really empathize with the struggling owner of a 4-unit building?

Let's first see how SIMILAR they are:

• They each have platoons of slavish admirers who cannot concede to their candidate's having a single fault. We understand charisma, but we just can't talk to these people anymore!


• They each claim to represent the outlook of average San Franciscans. Newsom points to his mom's struggles, and to his stint at a Marin public high school. He enjoys watching pro sports and being at his restaurants. Gonzalez comes from a small border town, and was the first in the family to get an advanced education. He lives a simple life with few possessions. He actually knows homeless people.


• In reality, each represents an elite (but of very different kinds). Newsom is a society page fixture at chic nightspots, at charity balls, and in socialite salons. Gonzalez is the educated intellectual, with impressive degrees from Stanford and Columbia; his cultural pastimes are poetry and art.


• Both say they can handle tough fiscal decisions and eliminate patronage jobs.


• Both need heavy-duty management experience. Newsom has a staff wherever he goes, and as part-owner of businesses, hires managers. Gonzalez has been a public defender, and hasn't had to manage much.

Now let's look at a few BAD reasons to vote FOR either one:

• The Democrats/Greens need support. (San Francisco needs a good mayor regardless of the party affiliation.)


• I will vote for Gavin/Matt because only rich/poor people know how to solve our problems. (People really say these things.)


• Gavin is a close friend. (Thousands of people seem to believe this; at least it demonstrates his ability to connect with crowds.)


• Gavin/Matt is sexy/cool and I don't like the other guy's hair. (Oh, please take this seriously.)

Here are GOOD reasons to vote AGAINST these candidates:

• Newsom is an empty vessel filled with political brainwashing by the wealthy Fisher/Hellman and Getty/Shorenstein interests. They think business, particularly big business, is always right. Even when it's wrong. He routinely ignores the neighborhoods and blows off the environmentalists.


• Gonzalez is too much a part of the doctrinaire Green Party that expects unquestioning fealty. At least there's no guillotine in Union Square.


• Newsom's history of conflicts and recusals and his stated loyalty to the people "that brung ya" weaken his independence and sincerity.


• Gonzalez enjoys debate, but he doesn't expect his fellow Greens to engage in healthy internal disagreement. There is a lock-step-ishness to the Green votes on the school board, and it's needlessly destructive. Rather than comprehend the disaster that Superintendent Arlene Ackerman is managing to set right, he is quoted instead as echoing the Green school board members' complaints that she must understand that she serves at their pleasure.


• Newsom is a gifted speaker, but his wordy pronouncements, larded with 25-cent phrases and continual gestural punctuation, are starting to appear canned and overly coached. Here is a large video sample of his rather Milli Vanilli responses to the Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/archive/2003/11/25/newsomivu.DTL


• Gonzalez and his entire camp persist in viewing Joe O'Donoghue as merely an outspoken older gent with a quaint accent. This sort of naivete is hard to swallow. This man (O'Donoghue) and his organization (Residential Builders Ass'n.) are known for felling whole neighborhoods and ... [why words are missing] opponents on the grand staircase of City Hall. Opposing O'Donoghue's self-interested political wishes must be done visibly and immediately.

Finally, some GOOD reasons to vote FOR the candidates:

• Gavin is a nice fellow with a fantastic organization. He and his people are ready to step into City Hall without missing a beat.


• Matt is a nice fellow who is tremendously thoughtful and candid. He respects creative solutions from smart people. He has very high marks from the Sierra Club.


• Gavin is exceptionally presentable and well-spoken.


• Matt's intelligence and integrity are generally unquestioned (except by Angela Alioto!).


• If what's good for big business is what's good for San Francisco, Gavin is an easy choice.


• Matt has strong beliefs and arrives at them on his own, and is still open to new viewpoints.

And now, for our conclusion:

Our nearly unanimous support goes to Matt Gonzalez.

First, a few words on Gavin Newsom.

Surprisingly, we had a tough time finding a lot of solid reasons for supporting Newsom, other than simple fear of Gonzalez. We really did try. Contact with bona fide supporters yielded soft statements such as "he's honest," "he really loves San Francisco," and "the Green Party is so left." The least convincing was from a woman who gushed about the Gettys. We were referred to his lovely policy documents, but we saw those as testament to his hard-working team, and not as the brain-child of his own priorities.

The other surprise was our developing sense of pity for Mr. Newsom. Yes, we actually started feeling sorry for him. His personal life is unstable, many of his supporters are selfishly expecting something from him, and any core beliefs are subsumed by the doctrines of his backers. And now he is the next big hope for the Democratic Party. That's a tall, tall order for someone who, arguably, found himself propelled along this far.

The biggest practical problem with Gavin is that we have found him to be closed-minded. Once the agenda is set and, say, Jupiter is aligned with the Chamber of Commerce, other stars in the constellation are wasting their breath in getting him to consider another approach. Privatization of the Presidio, building rights downtown or on Lombard Street, preserving historic cottages -- he too easily ignores all these and so many more citizen concerns, sometimes providing misleading lip service only. We saw many groups who were flattered by a letter his office produced in support of their causes. Not many realized that the letter was worth little more than 37 cents in postage.

Fundamentally, then, we are unable to really trust Newsom. We have experienced his slippery statements so often we are left feeling that he will never really be straight with us. On both neighborhood and city-wide issues, he has repeatedly told us one thing and then voted differently. It's clear that if we want his help, we need to go first to the people he listens to: those backers we mentioned earlier, or the Chamber of Commerce. That's hard to do and it's an unfair, unstated requirement. That's not a quality we like in a mayor.

And back to Matt Gonzalez.

We have mentioned the two largest flaws in his candidacy: the naivete he has shown in handling the Joe O'Donoghue-Walter Wong support, and the treatment the superintendent of public schools is getting from his close colleagues. Our support for Mr. Gonzalez is contingent upon dealing with these two issues right from the start. We must vow to keep watch on Mr. O'Donoghue's next deals, and we must also gather support for Arlene Ackerman. Her threatened departure would be a disaster for a historically shaky school system.

Stylistically, Gonzalez could improve. His scanty eye contact, his infrequent smiles, and his photos make him appear impenetrable and unsympathetic. His lack of polish, though, is reassuring to anyone who has dealt with false promises from smooth officials. We don't buy the opposition theory that he is an unwashed garage band musician who will embarrass us. It would be nice, though, if he warmed up a bit.

Matt could also improve his behind-the-scenes team-work with colleagues, but he hasn't been accused of outright vindictiveness, as Gavin has. Matt has been open to introducing legislation from the grass roots up - in one case, on unwanted chain stores. Gavin is so focused and obedient to the powers from the top that such a bottom-up approach would be unthinkable. No, a Gavin idea, be it Care Not Cash or Workforce Housing or Best Practices, typically has a brilliant title and is well-marketed, but gathers no consensus from the parties concerned. This top-down method rips our city apart, even when the bloody thing passes in an election.

The best reason for our support is that Matt may not always be interested in our cause, but we can trust the honesty in his response. He is able to vote unselfishly. Rather than oppose district elections, which give a greater voice to the little guy, he supports them and is able to build a momentous campaign from that rarest of political creatures: interested young voters. Yes, they're too idealistic and too unrealistic, but how preferable that is to ossified personal and business interests who are backing Newsom.

In the end, we feel strongly that Matt will be more receptive to the concerns of neighborhoods and little people. No, he hasn't always receptive to constituents. But so far, we've fared far, far better with Matt than with Gavin.

What clinches our decision: the way the campaigns are being run. Traditional campaigns with dubious endorsements and outrageous hit piece mailers are tiresome and distasteful. We thought the Newsom advertising to be sickeningly sensationalistic, outlandishly false, and real overkill. Newsom has about $4 million to spend plus all the help the Chronicle can give in the form of Ken Garcia the pit-bull and a 5-part front-page series on homelessness -- just in case voters forget Newsom's signature issue. Gavin should be able to take a more dignified approach. A vote for Gonzalez will send a signal that we've had enough, and we don't like being bought.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

We just can't stop complaining about Terence Hallinan. He bumbles, he is a sloppy manager, he lets politics interfere with his work. Similarly, we can't stop praising Kamala Harris. A born politician, even her photo practically shakes hands. She's competent, too, and could likely run things a lot more smoothly.

So why do we support Terence Hallinan? Mainly because we trust him more. First of all, his conviction rate is at least adequate, given the liberal juries we have here. His use of diversion programs for non-violent offenders is exactly what we want. We find it troubling that Harris would boost her conviction rate by making less use of these diversion programs.

Second, we don't like the way Harris overstates and fudges her record and experience. We don't like it at all. She has claimed to be co-founder or president of non-profit organizations that turn out to be little more than web sites. She claims to have far more experience than she has. Her assistance from the Willie Brown apparatus has helped propel her campaign immeasurably.

The biggest problem with Harris is summed up in the last three questions or so from this interview, where she demurs on the issue of going after corruption: http://www.law.com/jsp/pubarticleCA.jsp?id=1063212118710

If Hallinan wins, someone else will fill his shoes when his term ends. If Harris wins, we are stuck with her for a very long time, and we simply don't trust her.

Posted by kbaum at December 1, 2003 11:55 PM | TrackBack