“If you can’t trust Gavin with your best friend’s wife, how can you trust him with the state?” — Travis Allen
This was said at the gubernatorial debate.
Newsom went to one woman, who runs Delancey Street, and was miraculously cured of alcoholism! (And cocaine abuse also?)
But there is also the controversy regarding Tippy Rourk’s payout for government service.
Unfortunately, all four Dem candidates voiced their support for the “high-speed rail” project, an insanely expensive boondoggle which is to run between SF and LA. (Don’t count on ordinary people being able to pay the fares!)
See Allen’s comments here.
Gavin Newsom markets himself as a friend to undocumented migrants.
But is he really?
The Mercury News reports:
A fight over sanctuary policy a decade ago when Newsom was mayor of San Francisco suggests that he wasn’t always as strident a defender of immigrant rights.
In July 2008, Newsom imposed a city policy that reported undocumented youth arrested for felonies to federal immigration authorities. That decision — made the week after a father and his two sons were killed by an undocumented immigrant — meant that some kids were put at risk of deportation even if charges against them were later dropped.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to overturn Newsom’s policy in 2009, mandating that minors could only be referred to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement if they were convicted of a felony. But Newsom’s administration simply ignored the board, continuing to turn juvenile arrestees over to ICE for the rest of his term.
Meanwhile, according to emails obtained by the Bay Area News Group, Newsom’s administration also conducted a review of people in the city’s probation system and referred more than 350 suspected undocumented immigrants to ICE.
San Francisco immigrant advocates say Newsom’s record should call into question his commitment to defending California’s sanctuary policies.
“Don’t try to rewrite history and portray yourself as a champion of immigrants when you yourself were prominently involved with a policy that led to the separation of families,” said former Supervisor David Campos, who led the fight against Newsom on the issue.
Corporate-controlled San Francisco Chronicle details how Newsom, who struck a match for gay marriage in San Francisco (as long as your spouse is not an undocumented immigrant) is now, as expected, cynically using this accommplishment to raise funds for his campaign (so he can sell out working people)!
“The ad also highlights Newsom’s efforts to bring universal health care to San Francisco residents and being at the vanguard of 2016’s successful Proposition 63, which banned the possession of large-capacity firearm magazines and passed over the opposition of the powerful National Rifle Association.”
Does Newsom have the soul anything out of conviction?
One doubts it!
These are nice liberal messages, but Newsom also privatized parks and persecuted the homeless during his Willie Brown-facilitated two terms as mayor.
Will the gullible fall for this?
The San Jose Mercury News reports:
Other big supporters of Newsom include employees at the San Francisco private equity firm Tao Capital Partners, which has given $209,200 to the lieutenant governor, and the Wonderful Company, a Los Angeles-based holding company, which has donated $112,900. Other major boosters include workers at San Francisco companies such as cloud-computing giant Salesforce ($86,400) and Twitter ($84,800).
The company declined to comment on the donations, which included maximum individual amounts of $56,400 contributed by Brian Chesky, the company’s chief executive; Laurence Tosi, Airbnb chief financial officer; and Stephen Conley, Head of Global Hospitality & Strategy. Newsom also received $56,400 from co-founder Joe Gebbia, and $250 from Laura Spanjian, Public Policy Director.
Capitol One Radio reports:
Newsom reported raising $4.6 million in the last half of 2017. Combined with money he raised earlier — including funds left over from his 2014 campaign for lieutenant governor — he has $19.5 million cash on hand.
Controller and competitor John Chiang has created this fake news site covering Gavin Newsom.
According to a recent article on SFGATE, Gavin Newsom has “the support of 31 percent of registered voters.”
This is hardly a mandate, as so many people neither register nor vote.
While equally-vapid and corporate interest-obsequious Villaraigosa “has support from about two-thirds of the state’s Latino voters”, he has done little to deserve this support.
“On high-speed rail, one of the governor’s signature issues, Newsom argued that while he supported the original plan, he has real concerns with the proposed rail system as it’s now proposed.”
Newsom simply is not giving any hint of what his views are on the disastrous imbroglio that is “high speed” rail.
Not only is this unlikely to ever get built (given the protests from wealthy landowners). it will also be extremely expensive.
What is needed instead is socialized, subsidized service that will allow people to travel at affordable rates around the states, with frequent service.
Providing very expensive but “faster” service to those of Gavin Newson’s class is simply bonkers!
“I’m not timid,” Newsom maintains.
That is correct: He has been very active in answering to the needs of the mega wealthy, their business interests, foundations and “nonprofits.”
His shrewd analysis is here.
A short excerpt is here:
“I’m excited to head into the next phase of this campaign and want to make sure I represent everybody who’s part of this team. If I could only focus on one issue, what would you want it to be?”
I wrote: Economic justice, which means income and wealth redistribution and a tax system that doesn’t allow a few people to have billions while others are homeless in the streets. Do the opposite of what you did with Care Not Cash and create a guaranteed annual income.
As with this support for Gay Marriage. Newsom shrewdly supported the “legalization”of cannabis on a ballot initiative in the fall of 2016.
Just as his support for Gay Marriage garnered him campaign contributions from wealthy gays and lesbians, so his support for cannabis decriminalization (while taxing it and regulating its sale) has attracted donations from the “industry.”
The LA Times reports:
Some in the industry see Newsom as a candidate who listens to their concerns and will stick up for them. Although Newsom says he has never smoked marijuana himself, he was one of the first statewide officeholders to support legalization of recreational use.
The host of the Salinas fundraiser on March 3 was Indus Holding Company, maker of cannabis confections such as Toasted Rooster and Crispy Kraken chocolate bars.
Dinner gave way to a roundtable discussion among the 20 or so guests, who raised with Newsom some of the issues affecting their nascent businesses, according to interviews with multiple attendees.
Banking was a major topic that night, they said. Currently, the vast majority of banks and credit unions will not work with cannabis companies, because the federal government considers their revenue illegal. Some operate on an all-cash basis, and most lack the ability to find traditional financing.
A proposal discussed that night would have the state create a special bank that would serve the cannabis industry. Newsom has not taken a public position, but he expressed interest in the idea of a pot bank, three attendees said.
Newsom declined to be interviewed for this story.
As Democrats go, Chiang seems to be a better choice than Newsom or Villaragosa. Jon Regardle reports:
Newsom and AnVil both have flaws. Each suffered a damaging extramarital affair, and Villaraigosa was a mediocre mayor at best. Plus, once you get beyond their key bases of support, you wind up with a lot of Californians who lean conservative. That may not be definitive in a June primary, but if Chiang finishes in the top two and moves on to the November runoff, you can see him as more palatable to Republicans in places such as Bakersfield and Orange County.
Chiang seems ready to swing big. By all accounts he is willing to do do the work the governor’s race requires. His website is decent, even if the main insignia, with a green badge-shaped outline around his name, looks like a pudgy arrowhead turned upside down.
“We can’t be great going forward if we have third-world infrastructure.” — John Chiang
The late San Jose Mercury News reported on Chiang back in March.
San Francisco environmental activist attorney Jon Gollinger writes in the Chronicle.
It’s been almost three years since Lt. Gov. Newsom, in his capacity as one of the three members of the State Lands Commission, filed a lawsuit against the people of San Francisco to do just that. Now the Chairman of the State Lands Commission, Newsom continues to sue San Francisco to invalidate Proposition B, the Waterfront Height Limit Right to Vote Act. San Francisco voters overwhelmingly approved Prop. B in 2014 in the aftermath of the 8 Washington luxury condo fiasco to ensure voters always have the opportunity to weigh in on future plans to raise the existing height limits along The City’s shoreline. Three years and many legal filings later, the lawsuit is about to have its day in court at a hearing in June. Both sides have submitted lengthy legal briefs making the case to Superior Court Judge Suzanne R. Bolanos that she should rule in their favor. The impact of Bolanos’ decision will ripple far beyond one ballot measure and one city.