Don't waste your vote on Gore's Newsom like you wasted it on Gore

[AP]

This is a reaction to that post with the opposite perspective that's on the front page right now. The more I think about it, the more offended I am that Gore would go to SF and act like you had to vote for the Democrat in order to avenge Gore's loss.

I'll tell you something, I'm pretty sure that I cared more about Gore winning that election than Gore cared about winning that election.

If Gore had fought to the bitter end, I might have a little respect for him. But he didn't. He did not fight for my vote to be counted, and now he expects SF'ans to vote for Newsom in order to send some message to (is it?) Greens about what happened to him?

Come on.

Had 2000 been between only Gore and Nader, it woudl have been a very tough call. However, I know for a fact that my vote for Gore in 2000 was a strategic vote to make sure the most liberal person would get elected.

Well, guess what Al? There's no Republican in this race (well, maybe one -- Newsom). So there's no need to vote strategically. If I'd be avenging anything with a vote for mayor of SF, it would be to avenge the sickness I feel about having voted for someone in 2000 who didn't care as much as I did about winning.

[w4rma]

1. AP: Loves: Clinton and Blair, Hates: Dean and Gore. Interesting. (n/t)

[Forkboy]

4. Be more interesting if you had a point

[AP]

10. Notice the pattern: I like liberals who can win elections. Smart, huh?

Tony Blair. The UK's a fucking MONARCHY! When Blair entered office there was an entire branch of the legislature which wielded power than to inherited privilege! That is one fucked up society. Blair is the most liberal person who could get elected and he's actually trying to turn the system into one which could elect people MORE liberal.

Clinton: A WINNER. An oasis in a desert of Carter, Mondale and Dukakis. Finally the Democrats figured it out.

Gore: LOSER. LOOOOOSSSSEEERRRR. Big Time.

Dean: ?

Connect the dots.

[w4rma]

12. You hate President Carter, also, correct?

Carter seems to hang out with the Dean/Gore crowd, also.

[AP]

14. Do you have ANY winners in that crowd?

Carter the person wasn't the problem, so much as Carter, the person who was unabled to control the media manipulation of his image.

[w4rma]

18. Both Carter and Gore won. (n/t)

[AP]

19. 1980-2004: Dean's camp 0, Clinton's camp 2.

I'll be with the Clinton camp, thank you.

[w4rma]

27. 1976-2000: Dean's camp 4, Clinton's camp 2

President Cater won in 1976
Vice President Gore won in 1992, 1996
And President Gore won the popular vote (and if not for voting irregularities in Bush's brother's state, the electorial college) in 2000.

[AP]

33. Any dem could have won in 76 and any dem should have won in 2000

It took intelligence and strategy to win from 80 to 96, and will take more to win in 2004. Only Clinton has campaigned brilliantly since JOHNSON '64!

And if Dean's going to be as stupid as all the other Dems who lost since 64, than he'll be a loser too in 2004.

[w4rma]

38. "Any dem" is running against the same guy in 2004. That's a lock for us?

Nope. It's going to be another close race if we win it.

[AP]

48. Fortunately we have two or three Dems who are excellent matches.

Don't you think?

[w4rma]

52. Yes, many electable candidates. But, definitely no lock. (n/t)

[w4rma]

11. …splitting into two parties: the party of Clinton, and the party of Dean…

The Democratic Party: Outside In
(The New Republic) This commentary from The New Republic was written by Ryan Lizza.
…
The Dean split is mirrored in the centrist New Democrat movement as well. No organization has been more hostile to Dean than the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). In May, Al From and Bruce Reed, the chairman and the president of the DLC -- the group that served as a policy springboard for Clinton's rise -- wrote their now-infamous manifesto warning that nominating Dean, whom they view as hopelessly left-wing, would bring certain defeat for Democrats in 2004. But, for months, another prominent New Democrat has been making a different case. Simon Rosenberg, who cut his teeth on Clinton's 1992 campaign and now heads the New Democrat Network (NDN), sees Dean as the most innovative and potentially transformative Democrat since Clinton himself. Like Stern, Rosenberg is a bit of a rebel within his own movement. He once worked for From, but his organization is now challenging the DLC and is becoming an increasingly influential player in Democratic politics. Unlike the more top-down DLC, NDN is building a grassroots network of donors and has become a key player in the new world of 527s. "NDN has not endorsed Dean or embraced him, but we have given our opinion that this is a serious campaign that is going to change the party," says Rosenberg.

As the party's split into Deaniacs and anti-Dean Clintonites unfolds, one of the most intriguing subplots concerns the machinations of Gore. Immediately after the Florida recount was decided in 2000, Gore's senior aides were purged from the DNC and Clinton's were installed. Some ex-Gore staffers are still bitter about the coup, and several express admiration for what Dean is doing.

The two men have a strained history, but lately Gore is sounding more and more like Dean. His three most important speeches since leaving office have been harsh attacks on President Bush's Iraq policy and his abuse of the Patriot Act. The two most recent were delivered before MoveOn.org, the Internet network for grassroots liberals, which is overwhelmingly pro-Dean. Some suspect that, just as Dean went outside the Beltway and built his own high-tech grassroots army to bypass the sclerotic D.C. establishment, so is Gore. It's not a bad way for him to exercise influence in the party, if he wants to make a potential endorsement more powerful or if he still harbors hopes of running for president in 2008. "The rest of the Democratic infrastructure is controlled by the Clintons," says one top Democrat.

Perhaps Gore would not endorse the former Vermont governor (though Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, says "they talk relatively regularly"). Regardless, he'll have to choose sides, because the Democrats are splitting into two parties: the party of Clinton, and the party of Dean.
…
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/13/opinion/main583484.shtml

[AP]

13. The party of winners vs the party of losers. You are so naive.

This is schism manufactured by TNR. In case you haven't noticed, the RW has been trying to discredit Clinton since before he even anounced he was running for President. This isn't based on anything true. It's an attempt to destroy Clinton by pitting him against Dean. If Dean loses the nomination, they'll try to get the deaniacs to blame Clinton. If Dean wins the nomination, he lose the general election and it will destroy the democratic party. It's win-win for the RW.

Furthermore, if anything, this spectrum - Clinton vs Gore/Dean - this spectrum puts Clinton on the left and Dean and Gore on the right. Gore loved Wall St and Citigroup and big business and wanted to take out Sadaam more than Clinton did. But that's not what this article is about. It's a lot of speculation to sow the seeds of doubt and self-anhilitating Clinton-hatred in the fertile ground of the minds of Dean-or-nothing crowd.

[w4rma]

17. I'm not the one up here smearing candidates, AP. You are. (n/t)

[AP]

20. You smeared Clinton and Blair, and ME!

I'm telling the truth.

[w4rma]

32. How did I smear you, Clinton or Blair in this thread? Your opinion.

Your opinion may be honest, but it isn't neccessarily true.

[AP]

37. What's post #1 implying?

?

[w4rma]

40. Your post says that folks wasted their vote on Gore (n/t)

[AP]

47. I was saying that I felt that way. Of course I encourage other

people to think the same way I do. I explain why I feel the way I do about Gore. I think it's a fairly logical argument. I don't know where the line is between an out-and-out smear, and a person just trying to share their honest opinion. However, I don't think I crossed it.

And I think what I said was way less of a smear than your quasi-McCarthyism, implying that I'm consorting with bad people like Clinton and Blair and not with people you consider righteous (Dean and Gore, is it?).

[w4rma]

51. quasi-McCarthyism? Who is attacking candidates of another "group"?

not I. Not in this thread. You however have.

I think if someone is being quasi-McCarthyistic, it would be yourself, not I.

[AP]

56. McCarthy indicted people based on the company they kept.

He didn't provide any other evidence. Kind of like post #1, and a couple of your other posts.

[AP]

54. I want to emphasize:

at no time in the 6 weeks after election day 2000 did I perceive that Gore wanted to be president more than I wanted him to be president.

When he gave his concession speech, my reaction was, "if he had appeared that comfortable on camera throughout the campaign, he'd be president today."

I'm not 'smearing" Gore when I say that he has a lot of nerve to go ot SF and tell people like me who voted for him in 2000 that we had to vote for that creep Newsom as if it were some kind of vengeance vote for Gore. If I saw him act like he cared about winning, I might be out there avenging for him left and right.

He has his corporate boards, and his cable station, and his daughter's husband is making money hand over foot. I'm living every day with the fact that Bush is running the show.

Thank you very much, but my vengeance will come in the form of voting for the most liberal person with a chance to win in every election there is. That's Gonzalez in SF.

[frank frankly]

2. fine post, AP

very fine indeed

[JI7]

3. agree

with no republican in the race it's not an issue to me.

[Ardee]

5. While Gore must share the blame

His handlers, read Donna Brazile, demonstrated what has become typical democratic cowardice and refused to open up the campaign and fire any big guns.

The call to vote for Newsom to "save" the democratic party is about as pathetic as Ive seen yet. But, unfortunately, as the sun continues to sink on the democrats (thanks to the neocons in power there)we will surely see more and more of this sort of desperation.

Newsom is a typical "new" democrat, namely, a republican.

[AP]

7. A green victory would be good for Democrats nationally.

It might make more moderate conservatives stop thinking of them as the party of the far left. And it'll send a message to Democrats on the coasts that there's nothing to gain by being a Republicans in Democrat's clothing.

It will also marginalize the Republican party even further when the Dems realize there's no place for people with views like Newsom's and that they have to get more liberal if they want to compete with Greens.

[SahaleArm]

16. No it would just prove SF is way out there.

The Groper is governor and it's not because the party leaned to the right.

[AP]

23. If you believe in liberalism and progress, you never lose when the

most progressive liberal running in a election wins.

I believe there are many Democrats who still believe in liberalism and progress.

[SahaleArm]

44. The point was don't expect America to vote like SF....

Not that Newsome is some sort of model Democrat... SF is an island of liberalism and progressiveness.

[AP]

6. Greg Palast at the Commonwealth Club said about Gore:

Gore didn't fight for 2000 justice because his corporate friends told him that if he contested the race there would be no corporate board seats for him, ever.

Sorry, no link. Heard that on the radio today. I don't know what Palast's evidence is. However, I will say that it makes sense, judging from Gore's actions.

[JackSwift]

8. I hope the Greens lose in San Francisco

and every where, in every vote, for all time.

[Forkboy]

9. Mature of you

Do you have any idea of the situation in SF or are you just naturally a knee-jerk Dem?

[La_Serpiente]

15. I WANT Gonzalez to win in San Fran

I am not from there, but I did live there for a few weeks. I really liked the city and appreciated it's liberal streak.

Why do I want Gonzalez to win? He could serve as an ideological beacon for Democrats to live up to. He is in essense "The Liberal". I don't expect Democrats to be puritanical in their beliefs, but I do expect to have some core, liberal values. Basically, he is there to keep the Democrats in check.

Also, if Gonzalez does a good job, it could make the left more appealing to voters nationwide.

On top of that, it could empower other political parties (i.e. Reform, Libertarian) to campaign for their own candidates, shutting down the Republicans on their home turf.

[dsc]

21. Tell me this

When Gore lost the Sc decision what oh what should he have done? Any recount done in defiance of a SC order would have been beleived to be partisan. Thus the Republicans would have voided it in either the FL or US House. Then he still wouldn't be President. BTW Clinton is less liberal than Gore by any scale you may wish to use.

[Terwilliger]

25. saying Clinton is less liberal than Gore is not a selling point

it just confirms that Gore was mini-manged by the DLC in 2000, and it's no wonder he couldn't gain consensus

[dsc]

41. I am not interested in selling points

but it is true that Gore was more liberal than Clinton by any measure you may wish to use.

[AP]

50. Clinton said Gore was the biggest advocate for taking out Sadaam

Since this seem to be a pretty big measure of liberalism viz Dean, how do you square that with the fact that Clinton didn't take out Sadaam?

If not on foreign policy, then how was Dean more liberal? He ran a campaign on being more sanctimonious than Clinton, and he wanted to give seniors a prescription drug plan. Did that make him more liberal?

[AP]

29. dsc, we've debated this endlessly in the past. Suffices to say

I'm not impressed with the way Gore conducted himself in Nov and Dec of 2000. He never seemed more comfortable than when he conceded. Clinton was trying to tell him through intermediaries to fight harder. Meanwhile, Gore was sending Jackson home telling him don't bother.

And then we have Palast today saying that Gore backed down because he didn't want to jeopardize any corporate board memberships.

I believe it.

[dsc]

39. you have a sight for that?

and does Palast if you do of him saying it. Again, what specific thing could Gore have done after the Supreme Court ruled? This is a simple question and deserves an answer.

[AP]

45. Not only that, I have a cite for it.

Google "commonwealth club". Look up Palast. I think he spoke last week. It's on the radio this week.

[AP]

46. How did Gore let it get down to the Supreme Court decision

without creating a national mood that the wrong thing was happening?

100 things went wrong with 2000, and 95 of them were choices Gore made.

[aquart]

53. Blaming the victim?

That's really what you hate. That Gore was the victim of a political rape and he didn't bounce back from the trauma till too late.

He should have been superpresident, able to rebound from any blow and still keep ticking, like Bill Clinton did.

He wasn't ready for an America in which the constitution was a toilet rag. He was a boy scout and maybe too damn innocent for world we live in.

Very good things would have happened under President Gore. Many more people would still be alive. Many many more would still have arms and legs.

Instead, a long planned conspiracy finally got it right, and made everything else go wrong.

Yeah, after the impeachment, Gore should have known they'd stop at nothing, poor boy scout.

[AP]

55. Victim? I'm the fucking victim! Look, I'm not saying that it wasn't the

Republicans who were at the center of this.

I'm talking about context. Gore is acting like there some kind of personal vengeance reason that we should vote for Newsom. If he wants to talk about personal vendettas, he should have put some more personality on the line in 2000, and he should have acted like he was taking that whole thing personally. I had a lot on the line, and that didn't seem like enough to motivate him.

If we're talking about 2000 on a structural level -- which Gore WASN"T doing today -- I'm prepared to lay the blame at the right doorsteps (of Republicans).

[Terwilliger]

22. My dad thought of Newsom as kind of mean

and he's a Repub

[funkyflathead]

24. Go ahead vote for that traitor Gonzalez

I'm a DEMOCRAT first folks.

Heck if BUSH ran on the Democratic ticket I'd vote for him.

I just love my party too much to ever vote for any other party. EVER!

[Forkboy]

26. And this is the damn problem

Heck if BUSH ran on the Democratic ticket I'd vote for him.

[funkyflathead]

28. I'm the yellowest dawg you've ever seen n/t

[Forkboy]

34. not something to brag about

but oh well,have a ball.

[funkyflathead]

42. Well you now know I am not a Democrat because of principles n/t

[Forkboy]

43. obviously

[Kitsune]

30. "if BUSH ran on the Democratic ticket I'd vote for him."

Don't give them any ideas. I'm sure the party elite would be happy enough to put him on the Democratic presidential ticket as well as the Republican one.. Christ, they give him everything else he wants...

[Terwilliger]

31. you're rather conventional

sorry, but blind partisanship means nothing to me

[funkyflathead]

35. That's cool.

It does mean something for me.

Democrat until I die.

[Tinoire]

36. "Heck if BUSH ran on the Democratic ticket I'd vote for him"

Wow

Some Democrat :eyes:

No wonder we're in the mess we're in. How many more do you plan on rubber-stamping?

[Tinoire]

49. Excellent post! More about Newsom the reptile

Newsom Facts of the Day

He's Clearly A Republican
Knowing that being a Republican is political suicide in San Francisco, Newsom registered as a Democrat—although he's as Republican as Karl Rove:

•Newsom Donated $500 to George Bush for President
•Newsom voted to support the US Invasion of Iraq
•Newsom walked out on the Supervisor vote against Ashcroft's "Patriot Act"

Gavin Newsom's Anti-Tenant Votes
Tenants and rent control will be in BIG trouble if Gavin Newsom is elected Mayor–he will be far worse than Willie Brown for tenants. Newsom is a friend of slumlords (he sponsored legislation cut penalties for Housing Code violations in half) and speculators (He voted against amending the Ellis Act to ban evictions of tenants who are seniors, disabled, or catastrophically ill; when his mother and 3 other tenants were illegally evicted under the Ellis Act, Gavin did nothing! The Tenants Union had to bring the landlord to DA Hallinan, who prosecuted the landlord (it seems when it comes to protecting his mother vs. protecting landlords, Gavin will choose the landlords over his mother.)
http://www.sftu.org/

Newsom Voting Record Flyer

ANYBODY BUT GAVIN
Corporate and Landlord Puppet

Sup. Gavin Newsom's record on the Board of Supervisors is that of a corporate, downtown developer, and landlord puppet. Nearly every neighborhood or tenant group which appears before the Board of Supervisors can count on Newsom voting against them and with his corporate and real estate donors and handlers every time. Newsom's votes have clearly reflected a Supervisor out of touch with neighborhood interests and strongly supportive of the Residential Builder's Association (RBA), developers, landlords and corporate interests of every kind. Newsom himself is a developer of "live/work" units and a landlord who has evicted tenants for no-fault reasons.

Any other candidate would be much better than Newsom. Newsom does not support rent control and will work to repeal it! He gets a lot of good press (especially on Channel 2 because Ross McGowan is an investor in Newsom's businesses), spends a lot of money, looks good and has good corporate and political handlers. But the bottom line is that he votes against the average person, neighborhood interests, renters, and voters of San Francisco nearly every opportunity he gets and in favor of the corporate development, business and real estate interests.

NEWSOM'S ANTI-NEIGHBORHOOD AND ANTI-TENANT VOTES

July 22, 2003 Voted against proposal to strengthen rent control by giving tenants more seats on the SF Rent Board.
November, 2002 One of 2 Supervisors (Hall) to support massive condominium conversion and rent control repeal measure (Prop R) on the November 2002 ballot.
October 7, 2002 One of 3 Supervisors (Hall, Maxwell) to rubber-stamp all of Willie Brown's nominations to the Planning Commission and Board of Permit Appeals.
March, 2002 Prohibited from voting on limits to new "live/work" units because he is a developer of "live/work" units.
April 15, 2002 Voted against controls on "big box" projects, like Ikea or Home Depot. Specifically voted against neighborhood notice and approval requirements.
March 18, 2002 Opposed requiring developers to include affordable housing in their developments (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance).
February 11, 2002 One of 2 Supervisors (Hall) to vote against additional protections for tenants, especially senior tenants, from evictions and pass-through of capital improvements.
August 20, 2001 Again voted against requiring developers to include more affordable housing. (He and Hall opposed resolution to Planning Commission).
July 23, 2001 Voted against public power. He and Hall voted to prevent the voters from deciding on the ballot whether or not we should have public power.
July 9, 2001 Voted against limiting evictions for condo conversions. One of 3 Supervisors (Hall, Yee) to vote in support of the Mayor's veto of Tenant protection Legislation.
April 2, 2001 Voted to allow evictions of seniors under the Ellis Act. One of 3 Supervisors (Hall, Yee) voting against a resolution urging the State Legislature to amend the Ellis Act to prevent the eviction of senior tenants under Ellis.
February 20, 2001 Voted against a temporary ban on rent increases for capital improvements


SOME EARLIER NEWSOM VOTES (Compared to Bay Guardian Positions)
(Prior To 2001, Newsom—a landlord—was prohibited from voting on most landlord/tenant measures. In 2001, the conflict of interest law was changed, allowing him to vote. During this time he could not vote on a measure to limit OMI evictions of senior, disabled and terminally ill tenants, but indicated if he could he would vote against those protections.

Newsom
Strengthen Campaign Finance Reform_______4/24/00...NO
Delay Living Wage_______________________6/1/99....YES
Support War On Iraq______________________10/7/02...YES
Limiting ATM Fees________________________2/17/99....NO
Lower Fines For Slumlords________________10/31/97...YES
Deny Eviction Defense Funds______________7/24.00....YES
Allow More Condo Conversions_____________Fall 00....YES
Ban Capital Improvement Rent Hikes_______Fall 00....NO

http://www.sftu.org/

Helpful information for non San Francisco DU-ers

$34 An Hour Wage Needed To Rent In San Francisco

San Francisco is the 2nd most expensive place to rent in the United States—led only by San Jose. It's the 3rd most expensive county—led only by San Mateo and Santa Clara. A study by the Low Income Housing Coalition found that a renter in San Francisco needs to earn at least $34.13 per hour to afford the average vacant 2 bedroom apartment—that's an annual salary equivalent of $71,000. Rent control is the only thing which has enabled people earning less than $71,000 to remain in San Francisco (note that the two adjoining counties without rent control have higher rents)