Newsom's getting closer

|
(18)

There are really only two obstacles to Newsom's jumping into the Lt. Gov.'s race. One is the possibility that he might lose, but he would be the instant front runner. The other is the supposed fear of leaving the city in the hands of whatever mayor the Board of Supervisors chose.

And according to the Chron's politics blog, he's gotten over the second hurdle:

"It's no surprise I'm looking at running for another office," he continued. "I'm out of here. I'm termed out anyway...I do take my job seriously, but I'm capable of doing a lot of things at one time. By definition, it's a skill set I must have."

He added that if people are so concerned about one of the supervisors becoming mayor for the year before the next scheduled mayoral election, maybe they shouldn't have elected them to the board in the first place.

"If it's just concern with me leaving, maybe they should look at who they elected," he said.

 

 

Comments

I liked the part where they claim "a host of editorials and columns" are calling for Newsom not to run, and link to one editorial from the Chronicle and one column--from the Chronicle.

Newsom (and Heather Knight) are confusing the people who "are so concerned" (big biz and their mouthpieces) with the other 700,000 or so of us in SF.

Posted by sasha on Feb. 19, 2010 @ 6:57 pm

The other 700,000 people voted...

2007

Newsom 73.66%

lets see who else, progressives like;
Chicken John, annoying burning man type 1.75%
Josh Wolf, guy with a camera 1.25%

2003
Newsom in run off 52.47
Gonzalez 47.19

Oddly the original election tells an interesting story in that "moderates" got 65% and the "progressives" got 30%

In a city wide election the people will likely vote "wrong," with a few years of progressive blundering with a mayor Daly, the city will vote for most anyone not a progressive, although they will be informed by the Guardian that they are stupid and voted wrong.

Posted by glen matlock on Feb. 20, 2010 @ 11:56 am

It's not too late to get a ballot measure on that will require any mayoral appointee to the board or vice-versa to run in a special election within 90 days. It's completely undemocratic to allow supervisors to anoint one of their band of miscreants to further destroy San Francisco - an appointed mayor is bullshit. And the same goes for supervisors as well.

"Mayor Peskin" sends chills down my spine. Plus with the city budget crisis we can't afford new 3' tall podiums so he can see over them at ceremonial events.

Posted by Lucretia the Trollop on Feb. 20, 2010 @ 4:13 pm

"...to allow supervisors to anoint one of their band of miscreants to further destroy San Francisco..."

--------------------------

How specifically is the Board of Supervisors "destroying San Francisco?"

Just saying that doesn't make it so. Most of the Board is progressive and forward-thinking, and if one prefers a regressive Board, one can always move to a place where backward/regressive thinking is the standard....and there's a whole pile of places like that to choose from. Which is why some of us live here.

Is anyone forcing you to live here?

Posted by Sam on Feb. 20, 2010 @ 6:38 pm

That was pretty progressive eh?

It's also "progressive" to complain about downtown special interest then be openly owned by the public employee unions?

Your position of, love the progressive authoritarianism or leave, is very interesting, as is your claims that progressives are forward thinking while also pointing out "Just saying that doesn't make it so".

Sam you might want to explore the views outside the mono culture of San Francisco progressives.

Also, is it regressive to want a city run well? Because the progressives have shown they surely can't do that.

Posted by glen matlock on Feb. 21, 2010 @ 12:36 pm

I re-read your comment after posting an earlier reply and noticed something in particular you said.

I have to ask: Do you even live here? I ask because Aaron Peskin is *not* even on the Board now, so you wouldn't have to concern yourself about a "Mayor Peskin." Here's a list of the Board members FYI:

District 1 Eric Mar
District 2 Michela Alioto-Pier
District 3 David Chiu*
District 4 Carmen Chu
District 5 Ross Mirkarimi
District 6 Chris Daly
District 7 Sean Elsbernd
District 8 Bevan Dufty
District 9 David Campos
District 10 Sophie Maxwell
District 11 John Avalos

*President of the Board

The Chronicle has been mentioned here. The day that paper goes out of business can't come soon enough. And they can shut down their SFGate website with that backwater cesspool "community" of mostly rabid regressive people who comment there. That site has the most willfully-ignorant group of people on it that one will find anywhere. Where do those people come from? Looks like some of them have come over here.

Posted by Sam on Feb. 20, 2010 @ 7:05 pm

Sam... I think the Board can appoint anybody, so Peskin is possible. When Trollop mentioned "one of their band", I think it was meant to mean appointment of a person with/of the same political persuassion (presumably a progressive)... not necessarily meaning one of the current supervisiors

Posted by Guest on Feb. 21, 2010 @ 6:15 am

Guest...I didn't get that impression from Trollop. I got the impression that Trollop doesn't even live here and/or Trollop doesn't have a clue who's on the Board today and is still living in the days of Aaron Peskin. If I had to guess, I would think that the Board would select the president of the Board, if he wants the job of mayor.

Posted by Sam on Feb. 21, 2010 @ 3:09 pm

About Mayor Peskin? I hear that from the Chron and from people like Lucretia, but really: On a policy level, what has he done that's so bad?
I disagreed with Peskin's vote on approving Home Depot on Bayshore, and I disagreed with his vote approving market-rate housing on Cesar Chavez and Mission, but overall, most of the time, he was an excellent supervisor. He was always hard working, engaged in policy, serious about issues -- and while generally a progressive, he was hardly a radical leftist.

What's so scary?

Posted by Tim Redmond on Feb. 21, 2010 @ 5:41 pm

So your position is that you like Peskin and the rest of the progressive authoritarians, "so what could be the problem?"

Posted by glen matlock on Feb. 22, 2010 @ 11:03 am

Didn't Peskin have a habit of making late night calls, presumably fueled by alcohol, threatening those who he felt wronged him in some way? Is that something that gives you confidence in him?

It's interesting that no one has challenged the gist of my argument - that having an appointed mayor designed to allow the board to ram through legislation the last mayor successfully vetoed is undemocratic. And my position extends to supervisors appointed by the mayor as well - if a seat needs to be filled on an emergency basis then that's fine - appoint someone. But they should have to either run in a special election within 90 days or hold the seat as a placeholder until the special election takes place. This is consistent with allowing the people a choice on who governs them. How anyone could have a problem with this is beyond me - other than they're essentially lame-ass hypocrites like Sam - the fascist progressive who wants all voices he disagrees with silenced.

Posted by Lucretia the Trollop on Feb. 22, 2010 @ 2:17 pm

LOL. Lucretia dear....

You really don't have any idea as to what you're talking about. Let me explain: For example, if I ran this site (or any site for that matter), there would be no moderation of comments at all. I am opposed to moderation of comments. My feeling is that people should be able to say what they want, no matter how uncomfortable it makes some people feel. Except for commercial spam, I would allow all comments unmoderated even those I strongly disagree with, including what you write.

A fascist would take the *opposite* approach. A fascist would ban you.

I would oppose any one deleting your comments or banning you. I would support you being able to say what you want. That is not the definition of a fascist.

I previously suggested that people who don't like it here leave. I thought that most people would figure that out, and understand what I meant by that comment. But clearly it went over some people's head. I suggested that because why would one live in a place that one don't like or even hates? That makes no sense to me. If I personally didn't like it here in San Francisco I would MOVE to a place I do like for my own peace of mind and sanity. I hope this clarifies things for you. You make baseless assumptions and accusations about me when in reality you know nothing about me. Maybe you are just trolling around and trying to "bait" people into arguing with you, as many people do on message forums. But I don't know what your intent is and I have no interest whatsoever in arguing with anyone. Who has times for that?!...other than paid Internet trolls.

Posted by Sam on Feb. 22, 2010 @ 3:37 pm

You stayed in the USA the whole 8 years of Bush?

Posted by glen matlock on Feb. 24, 2010 @ 10:07 am

Your verbosity is a poor substitute for the lack of intellectual rigor behind the words you go on and on and on with. Using your "America, love it or leave it!" attitude I'd suggest the real conservative Republican here is you.

Posted by Lucretia the Trollop on Feb. 22, 2010 @ 4:24 pm

Once again Glen is 'twisted'. If you recheck vote tally in most recent election I think you will find approx 75% of SF voters did NOT vote for Newsom.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 22, 2010 @ 5:03 pm

search - San Francisco mayoral election, 2007

Go to wikipedia page.

Being a progressive means not doing any research because you know it all already, and denying reality helps.

Posted by glen matlock on Feb. 24, 2010 @ 9:11 am

It would seem a bit silly to do that when, in this case, there's a general election only about 10 months after the appointed mayor would take over, but in theory, I have no problem with that, Lucretia -- as long as there's also a special election any time a mayor appoints a supervisor.

The practical problem is that special elections have very low turnout and aren't terribly representative.

Posted by tim on Feb. 22, 2010 @ 5:29 pm

Uhhh - they're certainly more representative than an unelected, appointed mayor or supervisor. And yes - this should apply to mayor appointees to the board as well.

Posted by Lucretia the Trollop on Feb. 22, 2010 @ 8:39 pm