Gavin watch: The Lt. Gov. rumors

02.16.10 - 1:30 pm | Tim Redmond |

(7)

Hold off on the celibrating -- or commiserating

The rumors that Newsom is going to announce imminently that he’s running for Lt. Governor turned out to be a bit premature.

But I am still hearing from very solid sources that he’s seriously considering jumping into the race -- and while the San Francisco left didn’t back his run for governor, this would be a very different campaign. The Lt. Gov. isn’t really in charge of anything, but has a certain amount of power, not just from the platform and the ability to issue press statements (one of Newsom’s favorite hobbies), but because that person gets a seat on the state Lands Commission (offshore oil drilling) and the U.C. Regents (education cuts). Newsom would most likely be fine on both issues.

And the truth is, we all know Newsom doesn’t really want to be a wine clerk.

And lieutenant governors are often well positioned to move on to higher offices it worked for John Kerry, for example (and for Gray Davis, if you call that working). I think Newsom would love to position himself to run for U.S. Senate when Dianne Feinstein, who will be 79 when her current term expires in 2012, decides to retire.

And, of course, from the perspective of progressives infuriated with what he’s done as mayor, it would get him out of town a year early, and let this district-elected board appoint a new chief executive.

That’s got all sorts of talk started, with the typical Chronicle-style “Oh My God Aaron Peskin could be mayor” stuff (and let’s be serious -- Peskin would be a way better mayor than the current occupant of Room 200) to serious discussion about how this will affect the 2011 mayor’s race.

If any of the current contenders could round up six votes, it would be a major boost; that person could then run as an incumbent.

I don’t think this board would ever choose state Sen. Leland Yee, who is positioning himself for the run. City Attorney Dennis Herrera? Maybe -- but given how pissed some of the progressives are about the Sanctuary Ordiance, it would be a stretch.

Sfist is running a poll, and right now it looks like the readers like Ross Mirkarimi but think Peskin or David Chiu is a more likely winner.

And trust me, even the thought of Gavin leading town has that scramble already heating up.

Newsom

Comments

censorship?

are these comments edited? for some reason i can't see my comment once i posted.

Posted by jean on Feb. 16, 2010 @ 3:44 pm

No censorship

Hey Jean,

It's taking a little while for comments to post today, we're working on it . We don't censor people

You can read about our comment policy here:

http://www.sfbg.com/2010/02/08/welcome-new-sfbgcom

Posted by marke on Feb. 16, 2010 @ 4:45 pm

Herrera's office responds

I have no interest in questioning the political punditry about possible
mayoral successors should Gavin Newsom be elected Lieutenant Governor of
California in 2010. But I can't let the notion go unchallenged that the
Board's decision to choose someone other than City Attorney Dennis Herrera
would somehow owe to "how pissed some of the progressives are about the
Sanctuary Ordinance."

It is true that a handful of activists have aggressively pushed the City
Attorney to abandon his ethical duty as the City's lawyer, and alter his
legal advice about the potential risks of the recently-enacted amendment to
our Sanctuary Ordinance. (Herrera played no role, incidentally, in making
that confidential advice public.)

It is also true that Herrera has responded, repeatedly and in extensive
detail...

a) That all lawyers, including the City Attorney, have a legal and ethical
duty to provide impartial advice to their clients;

b) That the City Attorney has no authority to issue the directives to City
departments that these activists are apparently demanding;

c) That the City Attorney and his office have worked tirelessly to give the
fullest possible force and effect of law to San Francisco's Sanctuary
Ordinance, even committing to pursue an affirmative lawsuit against the
federal government if that's what it takes; and

d) That the City Attorney is continuing to work with legal advocates to
examine how City policies might be modified within the parameters of state
and federal law.

Now, is it possible that some activists are *still* pissed? This being San
Francisco, "Yes" would be a safe bet.

But I'm not aware of a single member of the Board of Supervisors who has
criticized the City Attorney for fulfilling his duty under the Charter to
advise them candidly about legal risks -- whether it's on Sanctuary or any
other duly enacted measure. Neither am I aware of a single member of the
Board who has seriously questioned the amount of work that City Attorney
Herrera and his staff have committed to the effort.

Don't get me wrong: there are plenty of good choices to lead San Francisco
besides Herrera, and it's the Board's prerogative to choose a qualified
mayoral successor should one be needed. But I somehow doubt Board members
would fulfill their own Charter duties while being "pissed" at the City
Attorney for fulfilling his.

MATT DORSEY
City Attorney Communications Director

Posted by matt Dorsey on Feb. 16, 2010 @ 7:56 pm

Herrera's Gutting of the U.S. Consitution in Bayview Case

Interesting Matt.

Why don't we discuss the fact that when the Bayview Hunters Point got 33,000 signatures to take a ballot vote on whether to allow the toxic gentrifier, Lennar corporation to continue to gut that neighborhood of people of color and low income residents and poison those remaining with asbestos an other toxins; Herrera threw out those signatures on the ridiculous, totally unconstitutional argument that each signature gatherer should have been carrying the entire area project plan (a tome the size of a phone book) to show voters.

Luckily, that precedent just got strongly questioned by the overturning of a similar decision in the South Bay. But Bayview got screwed, and people will be getting sick and dying because of it.

Herrera shouldn't be made Mayor of his own shoe closet, let alone San Francisco.

Posted by Constitution Defender on Feb. 16, 2010 @ 10:25 pm

THE EMPEROR WEARS NO CLOTHES!

Jason Grant Garza here ... interesting that Matt Dorsey said "That all lawyers, including the City Attorney, have a legal and ethical duty to provide impartial advice to their clients." Type my name into a google search engine and read how SF broke the law, testilied in federal court to have my case thrown out and then signed a confession admiting fault and guilt. This was after pointing out to the city attorney and the federal court judge the lies and spins being used. Where is the ethical duty since after signing the confession ... NO ONE HAS EXPLAINED THE FRAUD AND PERJURY IN FEDERAL COURT, NO ONE HAS INVESTIGATED, NO ONE HAS ASKED TO CHECK THE PROFESSIONALISM AND ETHICS OF THE COURT (it's judge, the city attorney, etc.) Now they will say (City Attorney) that I had my chance; however, I was gagged in federal court, not allowed to speak against their expert witness (who I forewarned about the lies and rigged method to deny me due process) and NOW when BUSTED ... they will NOT do the right thing, do an investigation as to how this could happen and how many others it has happened to ... and the ILLUSION continues. Where are the ETHICS and MORALS of a department that won't even come clean ... oh yeah, it is right up there next to the Mayor's and the BOS ... all of which I have been to and LEFT FOR DEAD. Yet they continue to lie (say they care), are responsible (only if they can spin their way out of it later on ... that's not what I said ... misspeak) and that their time is NOT UP and they will continue to ride this GAME into the ground as long as they get theirs and retire and live the good life ... THEY HAVE LEFT ME FOR DEAD ... since CONTRITION. RESTITUTION, and HUMANITY would require something they are not interested in ... THE TRUTH, HONOR and HUMANITY. WHAT A BUNCH OF PHONIES!

Posted by Jason Grant Garza on Feb. 17, 2010 @ 7:00 am

Everyone needs to calm down.

Everyone needs to calm down. This is going to be one of the best elections California has seen. California is on the brink of ruin and the last thing anyone is going to let happen is Gavin Newsom hold another office. I personally know enough of his record regarding his dealings in San Francisco to assist in his political defeat. A little town like San Francisco is $500 million dollars in debt again and its land use issues are another subject. California is on the brink of financial and educational ruin. Gavin Newsom is running a city where over 50% of the high school children don't recieve a diploma. (Board of Regents my tush) Let's focus on finding talented fresh faces with solid ideas for innovation and progress instead of regurgitating and dining on the old waste that was.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 18, 2010 @ 11:52 am

@Constitution Defender

Gentrification is the best thing that can happen to the Bayview. I know because I live in the neighborhood.

Posted by Guest on Apr. 01, 2010 @ 8:51 pm