SF Mayor Newsom: Hero or Yuppie Scum? Still undecided here...

[UdoKier]

(Okay, I don't really think he's yuppie scum. It makes a good headline, though.)

I have been trying to gauge whether or not to support our charismatic young mayor next time he's up for election.

Thus far here are my ratings for his initiatives:

Effort to deputize city workers to give out fines for littering : A+ great idea

Enforcing laws against panhandling in medians, other dangerous places: B (still not fully enforced)

"Care not Cash" for the homeless: B- Good idea to stop SF from being a magnet for homeless people, but does too little in reality for homeless already here.


Stepping in on behalf of striking hotel workers : A+ You can't strike out by supporting workers with me

Issuing gay marriage certificates: C+ great idea, bad timing. Helped make gay marriage into a major election-year strawman, even though both party's candidates supported civil unions. Would've been a great idea for THIS February...

Assistance for yupsters making up to $100,000 in buying a home: F This stuck in my craw more than anything. There are still tens of thousands of people in this city making less than $30K per year. The median income is still only $60K, believe it or not. Why on earth we should be trying to help yuppies who could easily afford a condo to buy a house? This seems to be aimed at making SF MORE exclusive, rather than more democratic & diverse. AWFUL idea. good article here.

http://www.beyondchron.org/?sourceid=&smenu=110&twindow...


So far his average is a low B for me. Not bad, but would a more progressive candidate be better next time around, or is Newsom's considerable clout with the business community enough of a boost to his effectiveness to make a vote for him a worthwhile compromise? Luckily, I still have a dew months to think about it.

[mike_c]

1. not a san franciscan, but an interested norcal resident nonetheless....

Newsome has pleasantly surprised me. I supported Gonzales, but Newsome has done a much better job than I expected. I generally agree with your overall assessment, although I give him higher marks for approving gay marriage licenses-- when the right thing to do is obvious, delaying for political reasons is worse than doing the wrong thing altogether, IMO.

Still, I'll always support a more progressive candidate if one runs against Mayor Newsome. What Newsome has really succeeded in doing is raising the bar for such an opponent.

[David Dunham]

2. Newsome's gay marriage stunt hurt Kerry and Dems in 2004

Newsome gave Rove's gay-marriage bashers all the ammunition they needed to carry Ohio and Missouri with the help of anti-gay marriage amendments. Bush's re-election owes a lot to Newsome's foolish stunt.

[mike_c]

3. approving marriage licenses for all americans was STILL...

...the right thing to do, and I don't give a rat's buttucks if a bunch of bigotted RW pisswads got their knickers into a twist about it. I was also VERY disappointed in Kerry's refusal to follow suit and argue that the time for descriminating against gay Americans was past.

on edit: I don't think it was a "stunt." Was ending Jim Crow laws a "stunt?" Howabout allowing women to vote? Ending legal protection for hate crimes? Since when has extending the rights of citizenship equally to all Americans been a political "stunt?"

[David Dunham]

4. Newsome violated existing CA laws by approving gay marriages

Newsome should have gone to court first and tried to get the existing CA laws held unconstitutional, as was done in Mass.

[mike_c]

6. well, we can argue all day long about what Newsome SHOULD...

...have done, but I for one am happy that he did SOMETHING other than fretting about how the RW would be threatened by the notion of loving gay families enjoying the same rights as other American families, or worse yet, deciding in the name of political calculus that those gay family's rights just weren't worth doing something about. Personally, I applaud that decision as the single most important thing Newsome has done so far, and if it led to a RW anti-gay backlash then at least we all know where we stand-- and Newsome is no more responsible for that than jews were responsible for Hitler's rabid anti-semitism (and both forms of fear and hatred share more than a few similarities, IMO). The RW and even some dem moderates are willing to amend the Constitution for christ's sake, to make sure that same-sex couples who love one another cannot enjoy the same rights as other Americans. Right on, Gavin!

[mitchtv]

5. blame the victims

it was already a planned issue. Dems like Dianne pull that kind of pullshit. Sorry if my freedom interfers with your political aspirationss.Studies show that politicos who supported gay rights kept their jobs.

[slackmaster]

7. I think "gadfly" would be the best term

Somewhere between an innovative political genius and a demagogue.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

8. Both?

Newsom isn't an either or. He has been good on some important issues and shit on others.

I have seen Newsom several times at local election events and that guy is slick as owl shit. The only thing I came away with from the meetings was that he is one ambitious politican who I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw.

I'm a Democrat who voted for Matt in the last election, and will continue to vote for the liberal candidate whose views most closely reflect my own.

And I don't think Newsom is that candidate for me.