California Dem bench looking frayed

Cross posted at Happening Here

LA mayor Antonio Villaraigosa with SF mayor Gavin Newsom

In the San Francisco Chronicle, political reporter Carla Marinucci describes the fallout from Mayor Gavin Newsom's admission that he'd had an affair with an employee who was also the wife of his campaign manager (now hastily departed) as "a mushroom cloud over his promising political career." She quotes an unidentified Republican political consultant:

"This guy is no longer a credible candidate to be governor of California,'' said one of the Republican strategists. "It's an extraordinary good day for (Los Angeles Mayor) Antonio Villaraigosa ...

Well maybe.

Screwing his friend's addicted wife isn't going to kill Newsom at the polls in this city. Folks aren't going to pick a mayor based on who he fucks. We don't do that. But he may be in trouble for another reason. Before he was elected, he was generally considered a lightweight. Sure, he made an attractive front man for developers, landlords, and downtown business interests who are always afraid the raging rabble will rise up and take over "their" jewel box financial hub. But his program was just poll tested buzz words and wedge issues (clear out the dirty homeless now!)

Unexpectedly, Newsom has turned out to be a somewhat interesting mayor. Neither of his immediate predecessors, Frank Jordan and Willie Brown, showed any interest in trying to frame policy to make the city work. Newsom seemed, even if I disagreed with much of it, to be actually trying to govern. On good days, he even worked with progressive supervisors, notably on Tom Ammiano's universal health insurance plan.

He also had a moment of political brilliance in fronting for gay marriage. No -- this was not politically risky. In 15 years this will be a no-brainer -- note that today, after 15 years of "don’t ask, don't tell," the Harris poll reports that 55 percent of the population thinks gays should be able to serve openly in the military. Attitudes are changing rapidly -- Newsom smartly seized an opportunity to appear courageous and forward-looking with only short-term risk.

How did a lightweight prettyboy do so relatively well as mayor? It seems very likely that he was highly dependent on having smart, dedicated people around him who perhaps found opportunities that a more fully formed mayor might not have allowed. And it is the continued loyalty of this entourage that is threatened by the disclosure of Newsom's affair. Who wants to toil to promote a guy who'll betray you to follow his dick? Only ambitious schemers. Newsom might very well be able to rehabilitate himself politically over time by demonstrating maturity and policy accomplishments, but he may have a hard time finding aides whose quality can compensate for his weaknesses. <center>***</center>So is Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa the beneficiary of Newsom's at least temporary political eclipse? Again, maybe. As a San Franciscan, I'm not as close an observer of Villaraigosa, but from up here, he doesn't look to be sweeping all opposition aside or winning friends. His signature policy initiative, a school takeover law has crashed in the courts. He has alienated African-Americans by vetoing a settlement payment to an Black firefighter who was fed dog food in a hazing incident. The controversy revived scrutiny of a longstanding racist, Animal House culture in the fire department; the chief resigned; and Villaraigosa appointed a Black interim chief -- only further stirring the hornet's nest.

African American leaders questioned whether the mayor had tapped the incoming chief as a public relations ploy to mollify critics upset with him for vetoing a $2.7-million legal settlement for a black firefighter who sued the city after co-workers fed him a spaghetti dinner laced with dog food....

Among those wondering about the mayor's intentions was the Rev. Eric P. Lee, executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles. "This was a move to quiet the storm of controversy," Lee said. "I'm concerned with the shallowness with which this seemed to come about."

For a politician whose stock in trade is having been elected through a Black-Brown alliance, this is pretty devastating stuff.

I'm afraid California Democrats are still looking for a new generation of standard bearers who have more to offer than being "not the Republican." The Governator has proved that Dems are vulnerable until we do better.

•  Tip jar

  Never a dull moment in San Francisco... not to mention LaLa land.

  by janinsanfran on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:08:26 PM PDT

  •  Given the bad publicity the LA Times heaped on

    Arnold just before his win in the recall election, seems like Newsoom will survive this if he just shrugs and keeps walking.

    by oculus on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:11:11 PM PDT

•  If Gavin Newsom....

  ....wants to cheat or help someone cheat, that's his business, but if it's with a subordinate, that's a serious ethical problem. He shouldn't run for re-election, at the least.

  by metal prophet on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:21:07 PM PDT

  •  The only reason she was a subordinate...

    ...was that she was the wife of his friend and subordinate, right?  The interesting case would be "sleep with me or I'll fire your husband", though everything I've read suggests that no harassment charges will be filed.

     

    by other72384 on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 05:55:53 AM PDT

•  We are in a post-sex scandal world...

  At least the milder heterosexual (non-pedopheliac, non-drug involved) kind. Such as cheating on your wife.

  Ahnold's escapades and groping did not grind his political career to a halt. Rudy Guiliani's 2 failed marriages and the total mistreatment of his last wife (she found out he was going to divorce her through the press IIRC) is not harming his prospects much either.

  I suspect in a year's time this will be old news. It certainly will not matter in SF, and he'll probably get re-elected. And as you say he has been a relatively good mayor substantively. By the time he runs for governor this will be a non issue and he will probably have re-married.

  I think people overplay the amount that these types of sex scandals actually harm politicians, especially of the Democratic kind that are out there 24/7 speweing the virtues of the sanctity of marriage, or of abstinence or sexual purity. It's not nearly as hypocritical and ultimately the standards are lower for Democrats as a result.

  by michael1104 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:27:10 PM PDT

  •  Agree, at least in part

    Newsom can recover from the sex scandal. Barring something unforeseen, he can certainly win re-election in SF. I do question whether he can get the quality of aides he has had in the past. He had a gloss that is much tarnished by messing around with his campaign manager's wife. Apparently lots of people in their circle knew -- but not the husband, who is well liked. Gives people pause that Gavin treats a friend that way.

    by janinsanfran on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:35:36 PM PDT

    •  asdf

      The guy rode to election on a reaganesque platform of demonizing the homeless ... I don't think it should come as much of a surprise that he'd treat his own friends poorly when given the chance.

      by Balam on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:46:25 PM PDT

•  Great thoughts

  Easily the best I've seen here on the whole thing. I too had been impressed by Newsom in his efforts to govern, though like you I didn't agree with much of it. I was very impressed with his strong stance on gay marriage but even moreso on the hotel workers.

  But over the last year or so he's really seemed to lose interest in his work. My sense is that is related to his affair - personal crises sometimes lead folks to be distracted from their jobs. And Newsom has found the Supes less than willing to go along with him. Based only on what I've read, Newsom strikes me a bit like George Moscone, though he had more political acumen and experience than Newsom.

  In terms of the Dem bench, there are persistent rumors Loretta Sanchez is interested in a statewide campaign. Barbara Boxer's announcement today that she's running again in '10 means that Loretta will either have to fight Villaraigosa for the governorship or hope DiFi finally spares us all and hangs 'em up in '12. But from what I can tell DiFi plans to be in the Senate until she keels over.

  Ultimately what you are pointing out is more evidence that the problem in CA isn't just with the personalities or the bench, but the ongoing problems of the Democratic Party itself, its inability to foster sustained grassroots support. That's a problem that is at least 100 years old and speaks to the deeper social and economic issues in the state as well.

  Consider this: all of CA's governors since 1966 have been political opportunists, few if any of whom ever had a major movement backing them.

  by eugene on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 11:46:56 PM PDT

  •  Hey Eugene

    You ought to know a lot of this stuff by now! I think you nailed it that the problems are deep and structural in the Dem party in California. The state is ungovernable and we keep making it more.

    Not sure I agree about Moscone. At the time, he seemed potentially substantial. We didn't get to find out where he was going.

    by janinsanfran on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:30:24 AM PDT

    •  Moscone

      He was more substantial, but he also did exhibit some signs of weariness of the job, and had his share of extramaritals. The difference was he had more experience and commitment and would never have self-destructed in the way Newsom has, and would likely have rallied himself well for re-election in '79.

      One stat I think more folks should be aware of is that since 1900, CA has only had four Democrats elected as governor. Of those four, two of them were named Edmund G. Brown, and the third of the four was on Jerry's staff. The two not named Brown - Culbert Olson and Gray Davis - had a troubled single term in office and either lost re-election or as we know with Davis got recalled.

      by eugene on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:24:52 PM PDT

      •  And, if memory serves...

        ...Davis would have likely NOT won re-election, had he not found Republican primary voters so easy to manipulate into backing the "worst" candidate.

        by WayneNight on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:36:15 PM PDT

•  until the democrats can cough up a visionary

  by that i mean a candidate who actually has a clear sense of where to take california, and is willing to sell that vision hard, without fear of ruffling feathers, we'll keep muddling around in this holding pattern.

  california isn't the same state that it was in the early 90s, and yet every single statewide politician campaigns as if it is.

  in a sense, it's not unlike the nation as a whole. we have given up any possibility of changing, of moving forward, of entering a 21st century that isn't just a caricature of the last quarter-century of the 20th.

  and so we sit, bound by the straitjacket of prop. 13, law and order, and white flight suburban politics, even as the state ceases demographically to resemble the california that brought this status quo into being.

  the first democrat who speaks fearlessly to the future - and actually speaks to it, not just saying "the future" as a hollow buzzword - will catch like wildfire.

  by wu ming on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:09:40 AM PDT

  •  Waiting

    think you are right about this -- there is room for someone who can break out of the mold (if they have enough initial cash to project their message.) Wish Villaraigosa was it, but he seems tone deaf.

    by janinsanfran on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:32:34 AM PDT

•  Update on the Newsom Story

  NBC11 repoted tonight that the Newsom campaign wil pay Alex Tourk a "generous" severance package.

  by RandyMI on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:17:19 AM PDT

•  I'm not familiar with Villaraigosa,

  but that's the phoniest, creepiest smile.  A "would you buy a used car from this man?" kind of smile.  For governor?  And I thought Arnie was bad.

  by tovan on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:38:43 AM PDT

  •  i thought the same thing at first

    i didn't even vote for him, i'm sorry to say.

    But he's been fantastic for Los Angeles, and I'm proud of my mayor.  I'd vote for him for governor in a heartbeat.

    by thereisnospoon on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:46:17 AM PDT

  •  He's a great mayor

    I proudly voted for him and supported him in both elections.  I think his biggest weakness is that his charm, charisma, and wit is better than some of his policy ideas.  His educational policy is lacking and sometimes he can be overly political.  But he's still a vast improvement over others.  

    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:37:06 PM PDT

•  newsom came clean

  you know what i mean, the one redeeming part of this scandal of sorts was newsom's honesty and willingness to cop to the affair.  nothing like defusing a volatile story by admitting one's own wrong-doing.

  and i also agree that his governance in the past year plus has been a bit absent-minded in nature, as if he had lost some of the drive that had motivated him before.

  as always here in sf, we are never boring, the floor show is always free and usually sex is involved somewhere in the mix.

  oh yeah, villaraigosa does MOST DEFINITELY look like a used car salesman with that all-tooth smile. kind of scary in a soCal kind of way.  

  _______________

  it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

  -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

  by dadanation on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:50:30 AM PDT

  •  Norm Coleman-esque I'd say!

    by michael1104 on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 01:04:59 PM PDT

    •  exactly. LOL. n/t

      _______________

      it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

      -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

      by dadanation on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 05:17:20 PM PDT

•  He told the truth

  Oh I think Newsom will be ok. He admitted it and apologized. He would probably have run the risk of losing valuable advisors and fans if he had lied about it a la Clinton who not only lost advisors and admirers when he lied about his extramarital sexual adventures, but in some instances, made rabid enemies of old friends. I don't care who Newsom fucks as long as it's not a child or a small animal and I would vote for him for governor.

  by slouching on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 03:41:44 AM PDT

•  Villaraigosa

  Villaraigosa has the potential to be the next great Democratic political star.

  by Expo on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 06:00:28 AM PDT

  •  Yeah he does

    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:37:37 PM PDT

  •  Despite some critical words in this

    I sure hope you are right. Seems like the right guy in so many ways. Can't imagine anything harder than being mayor of LA except maybe being governor of CA.

    by janinsanfran on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:13:26 PM PDT

•  Why is it that...

  ...we often seem to have a hard time finding good gubernatorial talent in the states that we ought to dominate outright?

  Massachusetts is as good an example as California.  Patrick is the first Democratic governor there in a long, long time.

  Anyway, thank you for posting this.  The analysis of Newsom's situation is much appreciated by this non-Californian.

  by WayneNight on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:31:48 PM PDT

  •  Divided Government belief

    >>...we often seem to have a hard time finding good gubernatorial talent in the states that we ought to dominate outright?

    Massachusetts is as good an example as California.  Patrick is the first Democratic governor there in a long, long time.<<</p>

    Some of it is a belief in a divided government since many of these states have heavy Democratic majorities in the state legislature (sort of how Democrats have controlled the Wyoming Governorship for 24 of the last 32 years despite the state's heavy Republican tilt).  And some of Massachusetts was Dukakis going rather stale by the end of his tenure and Weld being able to come in as a fresh alternative.

    by Mister Gloom on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:52:24 PM PDT

    •  Let me ask a question about

      the opposite occurence, ie a state with one-party control of executive and legislative branches: How do they maintain it? How often has one party controlled exec and leg. of the federal governent? and If the democrats elect a president in '08, how can they hold on to both? by giving as much power as they can stand to the minority in congress?

      by shgigmeplease on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 01:50:59 AM PDT

  •  Thing is...

    There really isn't anybody in the California Democratic party who can offer the same type of vision for the future that Deval Patrick offered in Mass.  Even the most charismatic of the California Dems are still politicians through-and-through.  The main reason Patrick won is because he came through as sincerely not giving a shit about politics, but just wanting to make the state a better place to live.  

    by Balam on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:57:12 PM PDT

•  Um.....okay where do I begin

  We have a large, deep bench in California.  The Republicans have NO bench.  Now I don't want to be one who claims that Republicans can't possibly win in the state or that it's a done deal for Democrats in statewide elections.  It's not.  But I am tired of all of this non stop whining about the Democrats in California and this constant fear of the Republican Boogeyman.  He's not there.  It gets tiring after a while.  It really does.  

  Gavin Newsom, provided he wins reelection, is not going to suffer in the long run for this transgression.  In a race against Antonio Villaraigosa, dirty laundry is going to be left off the table.  Villaraigosa has a LOT of skeletons in his closet.  The Democrats have a lot of great future statewide candidates.  Debra Bowen, Jackie Speier, John Gariamendi, Jerry Brown, even Steve Westly is considering running again.  

  And btw, Villaraigosa's refusal of the settlement for that firefighter was a good move.  This firefighter was a willing participant in previous hazing of other firefighters.  He brought it upon himself.  And 2.7 million tax dollars to this guy?  Antonio did the right thing.  Both Villaraigosa and Newsom have a lot to offer.  Both are far from perfect (Newsom on a personal level and Villaraigosa on a policy level).  But let's relax.  We have PLENTY of Democrats statewide.  That's not to say that Republicans can't win but I am tired this constant sky is falling approach.  There I said it.  

  by SoCalLiberal on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:35:19 PM PDT

  •  Isn't Jerry Brown...

    ...a bit on the old side to run for governor again?

    I'm just sayin... I've seen his pic lately, and he looks really, really, really old.

    by WayneNight on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:39:19 PM PDT

    •  He's only in his early 60's

      And he could legally run again.  I want him to be governor as much as I want Hilary Clinton to be president but he could run.  People talked about him being a candidate in 2006 for governor.  

      California has a deep bench, a good bench.  Not every single candidate has to be a star or the best ever.  If Antonio and Newsom fail to make it, there will be plenty of others.  Not that I think they're failing.  Newsom screwed up and it could cost him reelection.  In which case he's no longer a candidate.  

      by SoCalLiberal on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:52:33 PM PDT

      •  Wow, Brown looks...

        ...older than 60.  At least I think he does.

        As for Newsom, I doubt anyone will care about his affair.  I suspect most people in San Francisco care a lot more what he's doing for the city as mayor than they do about who he's sleeping with.

        by WayneNight on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 09:00:13 PM PDT

  •  Question re: Gariamendi

    >>The Democrats have a lot of great future statewide candidates.  Debra Bowen, Jackie Speier, John Gariamendi, Jerry Brown, even Steve Westly is considering running again.  <<</p>

    Hasn't Gariamendi already run for Governor twice and lost?  Doesn't that kind of make him the Mike Hatch of California politics?

    by Mister Gloom on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:55:15 PM PDT

    •  No

      by SoCalLiberal on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 09:00:46 PM PDT

    •  Yes

      But he actually loses the primaries (in 82 and 94) - not the general election, which differs from Hatch.
      He also lost another primary for a down ballot election sometimes during the 80s and had a wonderful two-day run during the 2003 recall.
      Now on the positive he has won his last three statewide elections (insurance commissioner and now Lt Governor). He has made very very clear he intends to run for governor again next time around (2010)
      My kindest take on it is zzzzzzzzzzzz

      by doriangz on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:15:54 PM PDT

      •  The 2010 primary will be fascinating

        The Republicans will nominate whoever is the biggest wingnut and the Democrats will have a major race between many powerful contenders.  Things could change though.  Let's say a Democrat wins in 08' and becomes mighty unpopular, the Republican would have a chance at winning in 2010.  

        by SoCalLiberal on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:55:04 PM PDT

  •  Antonio did the "right thing"

    Sure -- he did, for that set of his constituents who are good gov't folks and who are white.

    But the record of racism in the Fire Department and the perception of racism in this case are going to hurt him badly with Black voters. Blacks are 7 percent of the population and as much as 9 percent of the electorate and are absolutely essential to statewide Democratic candidates. Villaraigosa has a problem.

    by janinsanfran on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:17:42 PM PDT

    •  Uh-huh

      Sure -- he did, for that set of his constituents who are good gov't folks and who are white.

      Then he's doing what he has to do as a leader, not as a pandering politician.  Antonio has his weaknesses and his faults.  But denying 2.7 million dollars to that man does not constitute a problem.  We want all want good governance.  All of us.  Whites, Latinos, Asians, Jews, and yes even blacks.  Antonio has appointed many African-Americans to positions in city government.  The fact is, that racism and hazing in the LAFD is not going to be solved with awarding a guy millions of dollars who helped participate in the hazing of others and furthered the problems himself.  Payouts will not reform a department and clean up a mess.  And having constant racism and hazing only adds to that mess.  Antonio Villaraigosa is not racist and I don't think vetoing one man's big fat check is going to hurt him in the long run.  

      I fault Antonio on his educational policy.  It simply consists of taking over the school board.  Now, his proposal is unconstitutional and it denies key representation to people who's kids are in the LAUSD but who do not live in LA.  Antonio doesn't have a vision for what the schools will produce, how they will teach, how to better the educational experience for our youth, he just wants a takeover.  Well sorry but that's just not gonna cut it.  He's done great things on transportation but he could do more.  Yes, getting funding for all sorts of projects and cutting down the time for those projects is great.  But he could take the lead in developing a transit system that will reach beyond its current scope and he's the only one with the popularity to get something like that enacted.  Also, while I like the fact that everyone knows who he is, he seems to be just a bit too flashy.  Yes, it's great that he gets on tv and gets all these appearances and a lot of that is fine but I think it gets too excessive sometimes.  

      But yeah, other than educational policy, he's doing great.  He's working towards cleaner government, he's taking an active role as mayor, he's getting funding for transportation projects, he's working well with business leaders to bring investment and jobs into the city, and he's also working well with William Bratton.  I was worried that he might start the Tom Bradley vs. Daryl Gates Sequel but he's chosen not to do that.  Kudos to him.  If he ran for governor, I'm not sure I'd vote for him but he would be a credible candidate.  

      by SoCalLiberal on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:56:24 PM PDT

  •  debra bowen

    a rising star!

    by Turkana on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:17:30 PM PDT

•  Deep Bench for Democrats in the State

  >>The Governator has proved that Dems are vulnerable until we do better.<<</p>

  Generally, the Governator was the only Republican who could win statewide, and that still took a recount.

  Besides Newsom and Villaraigosa there are:  Lt. Governor/ex-State Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, former State Controller Steve Wesley, State Treasurer/ex-Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Attorney General/former Governor/former Secretary of State Jerry Brown, and State Senator Jackie Spier who could run and that doesn't include the folks who just got elected statewide in '06 (Bowen and Chiang).  The only other elected Republican statewide is Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and that took a lot of dirt re: Cruz Bustamante to be the default winner.  

  by Mister Gloom on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 08:50:08 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    First I agree that limiting the bench to the two mayors is simplistic. I do think they are both the most charismatic figures for the future but nevertheless Garamendi (zzzz) and Westly if anything have clearly said they intend to go for governor too and Jackie Speier is an intriguing prospect.
    Secondly, however lame one may think our bench is, everyone should keep in mind how weak the Republican bench in CA is ! Poizner - and maybe, down the road, the mayor of Fresno whose name escapes me right now. That's the extent of it.
    Maybe we can't win by being "not the Republican" but let's face it, we can win by having an actual candidate vs ... well ... nothing (or a super conservative psycho as the GOP has a self-destructive tendency to nominate here).
    Third I don't know to which extent Newsom will hurt in the future over this but I strongly disagree with your assessment of Villagoraisa being somehow damaged. Granted, the school plan is crashing and burning right now (but how does that play in public opinion ? That he is losing or that "at least" he is trying ?) and he will have to overcome that but the black firefighter settlement issue seems to be overplayed here. I mean there were reports that the firefighter in question did the same prank to others if anything and the Board is ambiguous about regretting they signed off on the settlement in the first place. I think the potential impact is being overdramatized if anything, because the issues are not clear-cut. Villagoraisa is still popular - even if, like Newsom, it is more based on his image and dynamism than on his accomplishments that are, in both cases, limited.
    Newsom may lose some votes now that it is clear he is heterosexual (inside joke for all San Franciscans) and Villagoraisa has trouble holding the African-American community still (considering the racial climate of LA, he is doing quite well in that regard actually) but to call them damaged goods is way premature.
    If anything, the gay marriage thing had damaged Newsom in the middle term way more than this affair (not that he was wrong but we all know how that plays outside of the Bay Area).

    by doriangz on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:06:17 PM PDT

    •  Westly's Future

      Having spoken with former controller Westly a few times recently, I can honestly say that he has not at all made up his mind about running for anything as of yet - and by "honestly" I mean his not deciding isn't some sort of Kabuki theatre.  When he says "I'm leaving my options open," it doesn't mean "I'm figuring out when (not if) I will announce."

      At this point he is committed to helping other Democrats through California Leadership Committee and building his new business in the clean-tech investment world.

      That said, he is committed to service.  And if he decides that running for Governor would be his best chance to serve, I wouldn't be surprised to see him take another crack at it.

      by jdthompson on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:35:56 PM PDT

    •  The Villaraigosa stuff is overblown

      Antonio has some dirty laundry from his past but that's not in play now.  Newsom is a goodlooking guy but he needs to change his hairdo.  The 80's are over.  I think that for the second term, he should change his hairstyle to something more traditional.  I think he'd look a lot better.  

      by SoCalLiberal on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 12:01:24 AM PDT

      •  Gel vs. Spray

        I'm not in the Bay Area, but I seem to remember some sort of mini-media-storm when Newsom tried changing his hair once before.

        As I remember it, he went back to his old 'do and sticks with it out of fear of more front page reprisals for defacing the local treasure that sits atop his head.

        It must be working - or at least it was in '04 - at the Boston Convo, he was the guest of honor at GQ's party.

        That was actually the first time I met the guy, and found him to be a very thoughtful guy, who was very passionate about his work.

        by jdthompson on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 12:16:22 AM PDT

  •  Yup, you seem to be the only one here

    not bringing gloom.

    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:57:46 PM PDT

•  The California Dem Party

  sucks.

  They're arrogant. Egotistical. And, quite frankly, just downright lazy.

  They seem to think that the State will always be Dem and they don't have to actually do any work in educating the public on issues they (supposedly) stand for.

  Take for instance the recent election for CA Supreme Court judges. Want to know where I got a good deal of information on the candidates and their records, the Republican Party of Los Angeles' website. Not a freaking thing on the CA Dem site.

  And, they say they can't do a single thing about two Democratic Slate Mail houses that send out information telling people to vote against the very same bills the Dems are supporting.

  Morons.

  by jillian on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 10:34:12 PM PDT

  •  Judges and Slates

    I can't say I ever saw anything about the Judicial races, either.

    I did see the party fighting back on the issue of the Slate Mailers that went against Prop. 87.  Art Torres had a well attended and fired-up press conference on the issue that earned media attention.  Senator Feinstein, whose face was featured aon one of the slates I think you're talking about also swung back at the people who made these slates.

    Prop. 87 Follow the Money video

    Not enough can be said about that slate issue though.  When my wife received her "Democratic Voter Guide" in the mail, she totally blew a gasket.  Stuff like this usually doesn't get her riled, either.  It's a very, very shady practice and industry.

    by jdthompson on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:42:26 PM PDT

    •  One of those folks

      was actually a staffer for Sen. Gary Hart.

      He should F**ng know better.

      by jillian on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 09:11:48 AM PDT

      •  Who are you talking about?

        Which person was a Hart staffer?

        by jdthompson on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 06:34:20 PM PDT

•  Gavin has ADD

  I think he means well, and at first he governed well because that was his intention.

  But I think the office is just wearing him out a bit. He needs some time off to recharge. Like a few years off. And with no challenger, the temptation to take his office for granted is high.

  He still has a lot of growing up to do. And typical of someone with ADD when he is worn down his judgement gets more flaky.

  by catfish on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:07:59 PM PDT

  •  But ADD is no excuse

    He is just a little immature sometimes is all I'm saying. It's getting to be a little annoying.

    by catfish on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:08:46 PM PDT

  •  Well doesn't he have medication for that?

    I think it's just that he's quite young and men can be very immature sometimes.  I guess I could go be his campaign manager.  I like the guy and I'm not married (Nor will I be unless by Newsom again) so it wouldn't be too much of a problem.  2010 is a long way off and we have a deep bench in California.  

    by SoCalLiberal on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 11:56:58 PM PDT

    •  Well he doesn't know he has ADD

      This is my armchair diagnosis.

      You can see him sort of saying to himself "who am I kidding? I can't handle this job" and so he avoids it. But he can handle it, he is just acting a little overwhelmed.

      Yeah I think I could be his campaign manager too. Get him on some meds, get him a performance coach.

      by catfish on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:49:23 AM PDT

•  Wake up people!

  Are you kidding me? Seriously? What is with all this moaning and wailing and gnashing of teeth at the  California Democratic Party. What a bunch of bullshit.

  This really doesn't matter. No-one in SF (And I doubt anymore in this country) will care that Gavin Newsom fucked his friend's wife, and then told the truth when asked about it because she decided to do a tell-all cause of her rehab. I love how most of the people who commented on this story, said he'll 'probably' get re-elected. I guaran-fucking-tee he'll get re-elected unless theres a REAL scandal. Like he's raping dead bodies while stealing millions of dollars from a city-funded HIV research non-for-profit, while making fun of black stereotypes on Martin Luther King day. (That was my twisted attempt at humor, for the slow people out there.)

  I have no idea why people expect politicians to be these incredibly amazing role models of morality. That has never been the case, nor will it probably ever be.

  Maybe Gavin's lost some of his focus in the past year. I can't really say I've seen that. All I ever see in the paper, or in the news, or whatever is him working on projects. Ya can't always make headlines people. He's working towards Wireless Networking for everybody in the city right now. May not be the best plan, but once again, the reason people like him so much here is because he's TRYING.

  Now there's a concept some of you should try to grasp. A politician who tries to govern, and who is honest, EVEN with a GIANT fuck-up pinned right on him, can STILL get elected. And no less, can 'probably' get elected to a higher office.

  by Sajun777 on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 04:23:37 AM PDT

•  No surprise

  The SF media has been buzzing at a low level for at least two years now about Newsom's separation from his wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle. Both he and she have been seen stepping out to major functions on the arms of others. She even took a job in another city. The only thing that's surprising about this story is how many people now profess to be surprised.

  by linden on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 07:44:29 AM PDT

  •  Kimberly is remarried with a child

    and living in New York.

    by catfish on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:50:45 AM PDT

    •  Oh sure, but

      what are the odds they weren't each seeing other people before the divorce? I'd be pretty surprised if they hadn't been. There was always a dormant "Newsom's having an affair" story just waiting around to happen.

      by linden on Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 05:10:48 PM PDT