Endorsements 2010: State races

|
(24)

GOVERNOR

EDMUND G. BROWN

We have issues with Jerry Brown. The one-time environmental leader who left an admirable progressive legacy his first time in the governor's office (including the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the California Conservation Corps, and the liberal Rose Bird Supreme Court) and who is willing to stand up and oppose the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant has become a centrist, tough-on-crime, no-new-taxes candidate. And his only solution to the state budget problems is to bring all the players together early and start talking.

But at least since he's started to debate Republican Meg Whitman face to face, he's showing some signs of life — and flashes of the old Jerry. He's strongly denouncing Whitman's proposal to wipe out capital gains taxes, reminding voters of the huge hole that would blow in the state budget — and the $5 billion windfall it would give to the rich. He's talking about suing Wall Street financial firms that cheated Californians. He's promoting green jobs and standing firm in support of the state's greenhouse-gas emissions limits.

For all his drawbacks (his insistence, for example, that the Legislature shouldn't raise any taxes without a statewide vote of the people), Brown is at least part of the reality-based community. He understands that further tax cuts for the rich won't solve California's problems. He knows that climate change is real. He's not great on immigration issues, but at least he's cognizant that 2 million undocumented immigrants live in California — and the state can't just arrest and deport them all.

Whitman is more than a conservative Republican. She's scary. The centerpiece of her economic platform calls for laying off 40,000 state employees — thereby greatly increasing the state's unemployment rate. Her tax plan would increase the state's deficit by another $5 billion just so that a tiny number of the richest taxpayers (including her) can keep more of their money. She's part of the nativist movement that wants to close the borders.

She's also one of the growing number of candidates who think personal wealth and private-sector business success translate to an ability to run a complex state government. That's a dangerous trend — Whitman has no political experience or background (until recently she didn't even vote) and will be overcome by the lobbyists in Sacramento.

This is a critically important election for California. Vote for Jerry Brown.

 

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

 

GAVIN NEWSOM

Why is the mayor of San Francisco running for a job he once dismissed as worthless? Simple: he couldn't get elected governor, and he wants a place to perch for a while until he figures out what higher office he can seek. It's almost embarrassing in its cold political calculus, but that's something we've come to expect from Newsom.

We endorsed Newsom's opponent, Janice Hahn, in the Democratic primary. It was hard to make a case for advancing the political career of someone who has taken what amounts to a Republican approach to running the city's finances — he's addressed every budget problem entirely with cuts, pushed a "no-new-taxes" line, and given the wealthy everything they wanted. His immigration policies have broken up families and promoted deporting kids. He's done Pacific Gas and Electric Co. a nice favor by doing nothing to help the community choice aggregation program move forward.

Comments

You endorsed Newsom? Yes, I realize you are endorsing him because he is "not a Republican," but he is also incompetent, arrogant and immature. He has been a disaster as mayor and has no qualifications to be the Lt. Governor or dogcatcher for that matter. His political career should end in San Francisco, preferably with his immediate resignation. At least then he would have done the right thing. I mean surely there was some third party candidate you could have chosen before choosing Newsom. I have to say, you lost quite a bit of my respect.

Posted by Just Jennifer on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 4:29 pm

This is a protest vote moment. The guy isn't fit to represent my foot, he's incompetent, egotistical, self-centered and doesn't deserve to be Mayor of the most progressive city in America. Turning children over to immigration? Dividing families? Selling San Francisco to developers to push out the poor and make room for the rich? Protest vote. I'm voting for the Peace and Freedom Party dude, he certainly can't be worse than Newsom.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 12:44 pm

you're a moron. stop complaining just to complain. why don't you run the city if you don't like Newsom.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 1:50 pm

That is what you should have stated - with a full stop after.

Having risen to his level of incompetence quite some time ago, Ammiano is a shining example of the Peter Principle,
He should have been quashed after his School Board time.

Ask around on your next trip up to the state capitol building: fellow legislators don't have much time for him, leaving him ineffectual.

Posted by CRS on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 9:16 pm

I have already cancelled my subscription to the San Jose Mercury News because of their one page article in favor of Jerry Brown
Was considering a subscription to the San Francisco Chronicle but no way, all these journalist are just a bunch of left wind radicals

Posted by Guest on Oct. 11, 2010 @ 10:45 pm

The Guardian endorsements are proof positive that Liberalism / Progressivism is a serious and debilitating mental illness.

Posted by Guest A Voice of Reason on Oct. 12, 2010 @ 1:24 pm

I've always wondered why a publication such as this, which has a history of attacking this State's political establishment, always endorses certain factions of that same establishment every time election day rolls around.

After many long years of pondering this matter, I have finally come to an answer
Political "Progressives" rule by fear

A prime example is the text of the above Governor's endorsement - Like it or not, we have to vote for Brown, OR ELSE! Never mind that this man was responsible for the forced displacement of thousands of Oakland residents. Never mind he caved in to the very same moneyed interests that he denouced on his radio program, and never mind that he has left such a record of betrayal and deceit that he gives amorality a bad name.

Like it or not, we are told, we have to vote for Jerry Brown.

Its almost as if someone is sticking the muzzle of an automatic against the publics head and threatening us with death if do not support this man.

I am sorry, but I will not have my choices governed by fear.
I vote FOR someone, not against.
This election, as I usually do, I intend to vote Libertarian

And as to the matter of the "Old Jerry", there is a saying- "You are judged by the company you keep."
Please check the following link to a photo of Jerry Brown with a so-called "Man of God", and then decide if you want such a man back in Sacramento.

http://www.thomaspeep.com/wp-content/uploads/cache
/1425_NpAdvSinglePhoto.jpg

I Love You California!
JFD

Posted by Guest John F. on Oct. 12, 2010 @ 3:25 pm

Yes, the republicans are about cutting jobs and cutting taxes for the wealthy, a sure recipe for fiscal and social catastrophe. But, what is Jerry's recipe for sanity in depression times for California? Why were the Greens shut out of the debates? Laura Wells was arrested for having the audacity to challenge the status quo? Why has the Guardian not mentioned that we the voters deserve someone that represents the interests of the masses and not the corporate machine? Just a thought.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 5:10 am

I'd like to see SF Bay Guardian recommendations on the judicial races - it says 'state races' but doesn't include those.

Those are some voters are the least informed about, and it'd be nice to told who is progressive and who is on the radical right.

Posted by Craig on Oct. 12, 2010 @ 4:01 pm

I completely agree! I can't find any info whatsoever on them that is useful. I did find one website called "ratethejudges.com" but found, as I suspected, that it is a Christian-oriented site. And as a much more liberal thinker, it's unfortunately not even useful as a backlash item (vote the other way from their recommendations) because they use two scales, one of which I agree with. Argh.

Anyone have a lead on info about the judges beyond flat CVs?

Posted by Tina F. on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 5:14 pm

Newsom? Pathetic!

This is what happens to old progressives. They become like old sick dogs lying on the floor too tired to shake up things. In other words, hack apologists.

Remember, it's better to vote for what you want and not get it than vote for what you don't want and get it!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2010 @ 1:04 pm

Craig,
Good question. I've actually taken the time to do some research on the judicial candidates. The problem is that it's very hard to do. They do their very best to purge their bios of political statements, and the legal community circles the wagons and vilifies anyone who actually runs against a candidate (as we see with Nava running against Republican-turned-DTS-just-in-time-for-election Ulmer). So typically, they retire in mid-term, and then are up for a vote at the next election after the Governor quietly appoints their replacement.

But if you look carefully, you can get cues as to where they stand -organizations they belong to, who they worked for, and most importantly who appointed them. Republicans almost always appoint Republicans, and Democrats almost always appoint Democrats. And while they never say *who*, they do say *when*. And then you can go back and see who was governor at that time.

Well from what I found, nearly EVERY single ONE of them was appointed by a Republican, from Supreme Court on down. The exception is Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno.

I would recommend waiting to see if Jerry Brown is still ahead, and if he is, vote NO on every single judge on the San Francicso ballot, except Moreno. If they lose, the next governor appoints the replacements. It's time to shake up the courts, because the courts no longer reflect the socio-political makeup of California.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 15, 2010 @ 9:26 am

One site I'm finding useful is http://www.judgevoterguide.com/

-- of course, I'm going against every single one of their recommendations. I actually hate that judges are even on the ballot. But the info this site has collected is helpful, their bias is very clear, and I'm certainly voting Yes on anyone that they've targeted to remove from the bench.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2010 @ 10:38 am

Please get your facts straight. Presiding Justice Conrad Rushing was appointed by California Democratic Governor Gray Davis (as was Justice Carlos Moreno).

Posted by Guest Babs on Nov. 02, 2010 @ 11:20 am

Actually, TWO of the four Justices on the ballot were appointed by Democratic Governor Gray Davis: Associate Justice, Supreme Court, Carlos Moreno, whom you mentioned, and Presiding Justice, Court of Appeals, Conrad Rushing.
Justice Carlos Moreno was appointed in September of 2001. According to a 2009 New York Times Online article by John Schwartz, "As a member of the state's Supreme Court, Justice Moreno sided with the court's majority in last year's decision allowing same-sex marriage. After that decision was countered by a public initiative, Proposition 8, he was the sole member of the court who voted in 2008 to block the enforcement of the initiative while the court was considering its constitutionality". I think he should be a resounding YES vote.
As for Justice Conrad Rushing, also a Democrat,who was also appointed to Santa Clara Superior Court in 1978 by Jerry Brown (!) - the right-wing judgevoterguide.com hates him, which of course means if you are liberal to progressive you DO want to vote for him. They write of his judicial philosophy: "To favor no one, not rich, not poor, powerful or weak, and to improve the courts for the benefit of the people".They go on to write "In 1987, Rushing ruled that the NCAA’s mandatory drug testing plan, implemented in 1986 for postseason competition, was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy". Justice Rushing is one of the good guys!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

Actually, TWO of the four Justices on the ballot were appointed by Democratic Governor Gray Davis: Associate Justice, Supreme Court, Carlos Moreno, whom you mentioned, and Presiding Justice, Court of Appeals, Conrad Rushing.
Justice Carlos Moreno was appointed in September of 2001. According to a 2009 New York Times Online article by John Schwartz, "As a member of the state's Supreme Court, Justice Moreno sided with the court's majority in last year's decision allowing same-sex marriage. After that decision was countered by a public initiative, Proposition 8, he was the sole member of the court who voted in 2008 to block the enforcement of the initiative while the court was considering its constitutionality". I think he should be a resounding YES vote.
As for Justice Conrad Rushing, also a Democrat,who was also appointed to Santa Clara Superior Court in 1978 by Jerry Brown (!) - the right-wing judgevoterguide.com hates him, which of course means if you are liberal to progressive you DO want to vote for him. They write of his judicial philosophy: "To favor no one, not rich, not poor, powerful or weak, and to improve the courts for the benefit of the people".They go on to write "In 1987, Rushing ruled that the NCAA’s mandatory drug testing plan, implemented in 1986 for postseason competition, was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy". Justice Rushing is one of the good guys!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

I too think that we should not be electing judges at all. However, since they're on the ballot...I too have found www.judgevoterguide.com to be a useful anti-guide. It's written by a right-wing judicial reviewer and clearly spells out their bias toward each of the "candidates". Basically, I'm definitely voting "NO" for the judges recommended and considering voting "YES" for those the author of that website does not recommend. You can see that from the progressive's point of view, Moreno is the only clear "YES" vote, while Lambden, Siggins, and Jenkins are potentially "YES" votes as well. Everybody else, in my mind, deserves a solid "NO", including Ming Chin and Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who both stand on the wrong side (in my view) on affirmative action and gay marriage.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 21, 2010 @ 11:41 am

Where did you find out about Chin and Cantil-Sakauye's stand on affirmative action and gay marriage? Great research and insight you've provided, thank you.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 11:40 am

the following link allows you to see who people have contributed money to

http://www.newsmeat.com/

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
Yee

Yes, we don't really have much of a choice, but completely ignoring the current legal issues surrounding Yee's bill to bar the sale of video games to minors is grossly negligent. While the man has for a long time been on my radar as a poorly-informed idiot on par with the PMRC attacking a form of our culture and blaming it for social ills to appeal to his middle-class power base this is an even more serious issue with deep concerns for freedom of speech. The issues surrounding this have received significant national attention and protests as the case approaches the Supreme Court. Those of us in his district can at least be bothered to be properly informed on the issues. Lots of people wish there was something more they could do about it, we actually have the ability to do so.

Posted by Belgand on Oct. 28, 2010 @ 11:42 am

Thought I'd drop by the liberal paper: SFBG.

Now that I know where you stand, I can now fill out my absentee ballot with the OPPOSITE candidates that you endorse.

And, Newsom?? Give me a break! That one made me laugh out loud.

Posted by Johnny M. on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 8:58 pm

the christian republicans also oppose c.t. weber almost as much as newsom. so vote c.t. weber (he's the peace and freedom candidate). who wants to see newsom succeed, that moron.

Posted by screw newsom , that twit, vote c.t. weber on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 11:27 pm

THINK before you press "SEND" people, k?

Do you see Justice Rushing on the San Francisco ballot? Take a look.... OK then. I rest my case. I was talking about the judges on the ballot, not every single judge in the entire universe.

As for the rest, I stand by what I said.

Siggins -Legal affairs secretary for Governor Scwarzennegger
Jenkins -Reagan justice dept, Deukmejian era appointments.

'nuff said.

NO on every judge except Carlos Moreno.

(For the dense, that's every judge on the BALLOT, not every judge in the history of the universe, OK?)

Posted by Greg on Nov. 02, 2010 @ 1:55 pm

You should keep in mind that people outside of San Francisco actually DO read your articles. So maybe you should consider being more explicit on which judges are a "no". Because while he might not be on the ballot in San Francisco, he *IS* on the ballot in San Jose. I mean, if you want to disown every reader you have outside of SF, that's your business, but it seems self-destructive in the long run...

Posted by June on Nov. 02, 2010 @ 2:54 pm

Related articles

  • Listen to the Guardian's endorsement interviews

  • Guardian endorsements for June 5 election

    Sure, the primaries are a joke -- but your vote still matters. Our take on the trash wars, the DCCC race, and more local elections

  • Endorsements 2011

    Avalos for mayor. Mirkarimi for sheriff. Onek for district attorney. Yes on C, No on D, E, and F ... complete endorsements for the San Francisco election

  • Also from this author

  • Guardian endorsements

    Campos for Assembly, Yes on Props. B and 42, re-elect Gov. Jerry Brown — our recommendations for the June 2014 primary election

  • The future of Piers 30-32

  • Hold BART accountable for deaths