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.