Thoughts on Gonzalez Not Running for Mayor (edit this)
It was interesting to see how the story of Matt Gonzalez not running unfolded.
When Gonzalez ran for Mayor in 2003, he announced it to the SF Examiner who had the story as the lead story.
When Gonzalez decided to step down from electoral office in 2004, he announced it to the SF Examiner six days before his biggest fundraiser to pay off his mayoral election debt and during the state national Green Party convention in San Francisco. Many within the Green Party felt betrayed when they read the news in the Examiner rather than hearing it from Gonzalez himself that weekend.
Yesterday, Gonzalez noted the news that he was not running in an editorial meeting of the Chronicle. And the Chronicle posted the story under the death of Bill Walsh and other news in the lower front page of their website and then the story has slipped to the bottom of the page of their website. SF Chronicle’s Story on Matt Gonzalez Not Running for Mayor In other words, the story has lost its impact over the last four years.
Gonzalez made rumblings that he was going to run for Mayor in the early spring. He had his posse organized meetings of the loyalists to see if he should run for Mayor. The answer as you suspect from loyalists was an overwhelming yes. But Gonzalez did another thing that surprise those who knew him-he did or look at a poll. Gonzalez’s usual method of operation was to dive into something with just a few calls rather than wait for a poll.
And those who are supposedly nearest and dearest to him reported that Gonzalez had trouble raising money. The capital that Gonzalez had found easily at the beginning of his first race had evaporated.
As the FogCity Journal pointed out in a blind item about Gonzalez, this is 2007 and lots of things have changed.
In 2004, there was a cadre of rich, young people who had made money on the dot boom. They had time on their hands-either being between job or having lots of vacation time accrued for hours that they spent in front of a computer.
The headquarters for the Gonzalez campaign during the runoff became a place for young people to hang out with other like-minded young people-a MySpace in actual reality.
But it’s 2007. Those young people have moved on to another job or have gotten responsibilities such as a spouse and/or family. Those who were young and single have found it difficulty to find housing within their budget in San Francisco.
And Gonzalez for the most part, has dropped out of the political scene. Oh, he has had art shows of his collages-but he collected all of the funds and didn’t use it for any type of fundraising or community building.
He helped the campaigns of Chris Daly and Jane Kim.
But the list of the events that he didn’t showed up for and the campaigns that he didn’t work on for the last three years is a lot longer. For example, Gonzalez didn’t bother to show up to the Harvey Milk Memorial celebration which he had helped to reignite and then Gonzelez walked away from. Gonzalez didn’t bother to attend any of the peace rallies, the rallies for affordable housing, the meetings on public safety or all of the other “must do, must be seen” events that is needed to keep yourself in the public eye in terms of poltiics.
Gonzalez even avoided the meetings where he would have been surrounded by friends and supporters. Gonzalez has only gone to one Green Party meeting in the last three years (and the topic of that meeting was solely about Matt and what Matt wanted to do)-and he only briefly showed up at the state Green Party convention that was held in San Francisco-in part because that’s where two of the state party’s brightest stars, Ross Mirkarimi and Matt Gonzalez live.
It doesn’t mean that Gonzalez can’t run for another office. But it does mean that by staying out of the public eye and not working on political causes or community issues, Gonzalez will have rebuild his support base and recarve himself in the miinds of voters in order to become viable as a candidate for a future race.
UPDATE (by Sasha): I am closing comments on this post. While we encourage free discussion in our comments, this thread has left the topic too far behind, as well as getting overly personal.

July 31st, 2007 at 9:45 am e
Just a hunch, but I think Gonzalez’s heart isn’t in politics. He’s obviously an extremely talented individual and very smart. I think he feels he can do better work on his own terms as a progressive lawyer. The petty details of politics bore him.
Again, this is just a hunch. Noticing how he has distanced himself from the Green Party, I wonder if he regrets joining it. He would be Mayor of SF now if he hadn’t joined the Greens on a whim back in 2000.
July 31st, 2007 at 12:21 pm e
Gonzalez took the situation very seriously. He spent quite a bit of time on research on the possibilities for victory for the progressives. Before, and while that was going on too many people complained he hadn’t been visible “politically” which your post continues.
Remember, when Gonzalez was in office he seldom attended dinners where the typical politician feigns interest and glad hands. That was never his style; he drew all the support he did because he put forward good progressive legislation and could explain and defend it to the average voter.
He has, since leaving office, been one of the most politically engaged people around, writing numerous op eds, speaking at colleges and law schools, hosting radio programs, helping candidates get started. He has never left. The judgement that he is not attended those “must attend meetings” does not take into consideration the things he has been doing, the amount of effort it takes to start a progressive law firm, and the broadening of his base which would have had to occur for a victory.
It’s too bad that progressives have such a fixed litmus test. Perhaps, if those who are so critical had been more generous with encouragement and respect for the tremendous contributions he has made we wouldn’t be looking at King Gavin getting coronated.
It is axiomatic that some people make great candidates, some people do great work as political party wonks, and very few overlap and do both. Most of the successful Green Party candidates have been to very very few Green Party meetings.
July 31st, 2007 at 4:24 pm e
So Hamlet has finally decided to step off the fence?
I agree, Gonzalez is too smart to be a politician.
He doesn’t grab for the pathos jugular when he makes speeches. He feels uncomfortable around political wonks. Let’s face it, most of the wonks and bloggers out there are too obsessed with the analytics to do any of the dirty grunt work, the volunteer work, it gets things done–whether in politics or in charity for your fellow man (the two are contradictory). He never felt very comfortable around the politicos.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:10 pm e
He never felt very comfortable around the people who do the dirty grunt work, the volunteer work that gets things done — whether in politics or in charity for one’s fellow humans– either. So that’s a lot of discomfort. On the other hand, he never met a media type he didn’t like. At first.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:32 am e
Matt Gonzalez did everything that he had to do over the past four years in order to diminish his appeal and narrow his base.
He apparently expected for everyone to feel the same way about him in August 2007 as they felt in December 2003.
As many of us have learned, there is more to politics than showing up with good ideas, a fine academic pedigree and a command of the language.
Politicians need to be sharks, not in the sense of eating machines, but in the sense of always having to move forward just to stay alive.
Not only did Matt not keep moving, he systematically fired nuclear weapons into his base apparently for shits and grins.
Care and feeding of the base is a requirement for any politician. If your base is wobbly, then you’ve got nothing to stand on from which to make the jump to a majority.
The sad thing here is that thousands of people invested Matt Gonzalez with immeasurable amounts of political capital. His response was to piss it away in narcissistic pursuits supporting such male luminaries as Calvin Louie, Gerardo Sandoval for Assessor, Todd Chretien, Peter Camejo, Carlos Petroni and his Left Party.
Had Matt filed a lawsuit challenging Herrera’s dismissal of the BV/HP referendum, then perhaps he might have made himself relevant. But winning a case or two enforcing minimum wage is good, but it doesn’t quite cut it as a public interest lawyer, what, with Herrera on a right wing rampage.
Further, Matt surrounded himself with the most obsequious, servile, fawning men who took their role as members of his “inner circle” as a license to be prime assholes, often drunk and physically abusive, bordering on violent and assaultive, in the political realm. This “choice of men” further diminished Gonzalez credibility amongst his base.
A credible source long affiliated with the Milk Club told me that Gonzalez lied when he said variously that he joined the Green Party because of its stance on same sex marriage or the death penalty. No, apparently Matt was convinced by Todd Chretien of the ISO and Carlos Petroni to join the Green Party at an ISO socialist conference in 2000.
If this is indeed true, then one could see how the trotskyite ISO would want to sabotage the Green Party, because they all know that success in reformist politics are impossible, indeed are a distraction from and a hindrance to revolution.
That would go a long way towards explaining the destructive swath Gonzalez has cut over the past few years.
I’m glad that Matt ran in 2003, and I think many of us grew from that experience. But then was then and now is now. That window is now closed.
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 6:49 am e
One final thought.
The nail in the coffin is that Matt played coy all spring and into the summer. Nothing changed for him between the time that he began making noises about running in February and when he announced he would not run.
Matt reveled in milking the speculation and anti-spotlight as long as he possibly could, which sucked all of the air out of the room, suffocating any potential progressive challengers to Newsom whose campaigns might have enjoyed more VIABILITY than Matt’s aborted effort.
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 7:00 am e
Jim, you and I will disagree on what “politically engaged” means.
To me, politically engaged does not mean going to law schools throughout the Bay Area so you can help your new law firm get their name know and get accolades from your fellow lawyers. Being politically engaged does not mean that you write two op-eds for the Bay Guardian.
Politically engaged means walking precincts for the Alliance for Better California to stop the Governor from taking voters’ rights. Politically engaged means walking the picket line (and maybe making the headlines with other activitists in getting arrested) for the sisters and brothers in Local 2. Politically engaged means testifying for more affordable housing, more money for health services and mental health services and more funds for public schools. Politically engaged means that you use those parties at your law office to raise money for the Day Labor Program or any other number of outstanding programs.
I agree with Carling. Gonzalez never did the dirty work. He also never did the easy work-like calling people, hosting benefits or even testifying on any legislation.
I was going to a meeting that Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi called at the African-American Cultural Center to talk about the school closures in District 5 with 100 of his constituents. As I was riding on the bus, I found a Western Addition newspaper that wrote a story about a job fair that District 5 companies and CBO’s had put together for the unemployed youth of D-5 to stop the violence.
The organizer was reported to be delightfully flabbergasted that not only did Mirkarimi come-but he actually worked with the organizers and the job seekers to help them their resumes into the City’s system at 33 Gough. She made it very clear that that would never happened on Gonzalez’s watch.
As Marc pointed out, you can tell alot about someone by the company that he keeps. But you can also tell a lot about a man by the way he is or isn’t there when there is work that needs to be done.
And for the last three years (and some would say for the four prior years as well), Gonzalez only appeared when there are cameras in the room and if he felt like being there. But history is made by people who roll up their sleeves and work till the job is completed, even without camera or accolades.
Perhaps Gonzalez will learn that. And perhaps not.
But meanwhile, other people are making history.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:18 am e
One could imagine that in an environment where there had been a challenger to Newsom earlier on, say April, that the dynamic around the budget would not have been so hopeless for progressives.
Many supervisors, tilting to the winds, tilted rightwards as it appeared that Newsom was the only game in town.
That created the conditions where Chris Daly stood up to Newsom but absent any fortitude amongst his colleagues to cover his back.
Gonzalez seemed enjoy the squeeze play of the “lesser evil” card, assuming that progressives had nowhere else to go than him. And he nursed that for months to the probably detriment of progressives.
It is interesting that Gonzalez’ allies in the Green Party stake their claim on opposing “lesser evilism” when Democrats do it, but when their champion does it, apparently it is okay.
Now that Matt’s asshole has grown politically cold, we can expect for Gonzalez sycophants like Jim Dorenkott to sidle up to such third rate political celebrities like Cindy Sheehan to get all up inside her backside.
As they say in the world of mutual funds, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. None of us are guaranteed that our investments of political capital will play out over the long term. Ammiano’s friends learned that and have adapted to the changed circumstance.
I don’t think that Gonzalez’ crowd has that kind of grounding yet. Maybe they will some day, but not today.
We all get a big write off on our political taxes this year for a significant capital loss.
-marc
August 1st, 2007 at 8:58 am e
that’s a great story and post kim. why isn’t ross running?
August 1st, 2007 at 8:41 pm e
How sad Kim Knox that your commentary is basically generalized, and anecdotal and in its sweepingness is only exceeded by Marc Salomon’s foul, excretory rantings that should be saved for serious enemies.
This unfortunately is now the language of the progressives and what used to be contained on the Green Party action list is now in the public. Good work. They will definitely want us to govern.
You cite Matt’s inaction; far from true. He worked 24-7. If you ever spent any significant amount of time in city hall you would know it is triage in terms of helping people. There isn’t enough staff to get everything done. Politics is trade-offs. Want to trade IRV, Minimum Wage with adjustment for inflation built in, and neighborhood control over whether chain stores move in exchange for a few more hours of community service. It is a sad reality more people are screwed everyday by the swells and their hacks than can be helped by the people who try to do good work at city hall, and that will only change when supervisors can have more paid staff. On the whole, I think a lot of people are very happy with the legislative advances that Matt championed, and probably wouldn’t trade them
Wow! So your anecdotal writer was angry Matt didn’t show up and from that you project he was maybe missing in action for 7 years? Just to put it in perspective - every supervisor gets on average: invitations to 5-10 events a day, and probably if there are no committee or board meetings that night can make it to 3-5, and still create legislation. So who knows what events he was at the night that he didn’t make it to the event the writer wanted him to attend.
I do know that he attended many events throughout the district including the those at Ella Hill Hutch Center, forums put on by Western Addition churches and he also worked on getting a violence prevention program funded
But Matt never stood around waiting for a photographer to take a picture of him with a shovel in his hand. I think you have him mixed up with a different supervisor. That you would say that is a real insult; Matt was never that type of public official.
In addition, just because we hear that Ross let people down in District 5 and the Bayview with his votes doesn’t move us to write about it. We don’t pile on; we defend fellow progressives, and talk about it privately. We try to avoid feeding the Newsom team systematically destroying the progressive movement.
Speaking of company you keep I would be careful about quoting Marc Salomon he is developing a real reputation as someone who is often inaccurate and unnecessarily nasty when making a political point.
By the way, interesting that you sought Matt Gonzalez’s endorsement, and got it at a time when many other Greens spoke actively against you.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:32 pm e
We should all be grateful to Tom for his run in 1999; and Matt’s run in 2003. Since then, nothing has been the same for big business in this town.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:57 am e
James, you need to ask Ross. It may be that he figures (just like Aaron and others) that it’s much easier to run in an open field and without an incumbent who has at his disposal as Mayor, his own public relations corps on the second floor of City Hall.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:14 am e
Richard is right on that score. I still have a Gonzalez 2003 bumper sticker on my bike because that time was one of the greatest growth for progressives in San Francisco that I’ve ever seen. Ammiano’s campaign before that bootstrapped the jump to district elections.
But the ruling class is playing “end game” against progressives now, sick and tired of having to shell out significant boatloads of cash all the time to fight us, they are trying to build us out of our city and pick off our leaders one by one.
They got McGoldrick–who voted for the 2:1 affordable to market resolution for the Eastern Neighborhoods, and then for 3400 and against affordability–this week, after taking money from developers.
That we do not have a progressive mayoral candidate in play today does not help us to fight back to stop their “end game.” Had Matt not asserted that he was going to run if nobody filed by the deadline, then perhaps another could have put together what was required. Who knows what Ross would have done had Matt not been the shadow behind the stage for the past 9 months?
We can go through all sorts of alternative time lines which would have leveraged Newsom’s weaknesses from earlier this year into bootstrapping a progressive mayoral campaign, which would have provided cover to progressive supervisors, so that none of them were out there alone to be picked off by Newsom’s publicity machine.
With Gonzalez, what one hand giveth, the other taketh away. In this case, arguably more was taken away than was given.
Jim demonstrates a central problem here as to why Matt did not get traction amongst many who had supported him strongly previously, in that as a member of Matt’s closed small circle, any challenge to their groupthink is dismissed as “excretory.” I think that polling demonstrated what the voters think is “excretory,” and Matt’s 2007 prospects were so deemed.
-marc
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:56 am e
There must be some virus in the air of San Francisco, that’s causing all of this infighting to occur amongst progressives. Stop, one and all and take a deep breath, look at what can be done to forward the progressive movement, instead of fractioning it. Its time to forgive and forget, San Francisco has the potential of being a great progressive city, if we all work together.
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:05 am e
Our opponents have money as the glue that holds them together. Progressives are either blessed or cursed that we don’t.
Progressives are unified by principles and values and are porous when compared to corporate politicos. This is also a blessing and a curse.
Since we don’t unify around money, when individuals go self-centered instead of other-centered, that upsets the balance.
This year, self-centeredness has been the bane of SF progressives. Nobody is so important as to be unassailable or not expendable if their egos trump the greater good.
This year, Gonzalez’ ego forclosed viable options for progressives. Now that he’s taken his name out of consideration, there is no damage done in conducting a frank post-mortem unless, of course, your bread and butter is provided by Matt like Jim’s are.
-marc
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:44 pm e
First you complain that he might run, and you don’t want him to. Then no one else wants to run. Then you complain when he doesn’t run, either.
There’s no pleasing some people. And there’s no way around it, part of his decision not to run had to be based on the fact that people within the same progressive movement had their sites aimed directly at his head. No need to conduct a Post Mortem on what is clearly a case of death by “friendly fire”.
August 2nd, 2007 at 2:19 pm e
The only friendly fire to take Gonzalez down was his own fire at his own base. After he spend 3 years in the ultraleftist pursuit of proving how far to the left he was over all others, he’d drained his base of political support.
If one ran close last time, and one threatens to run this time, then that will serve to discourage others who might consider mounting a campaign.
Instead of running a poll and deciding two weeks before the filing deadline, he should have run one last fall and made his decision with respect for others in mind.
But that would involve caring about others as much as about oneself.
-marc
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm e
Often it seems to me that persons self-declare themselves “important”, or “the base”, or whatever, such that anyone who has slighted them, for whatever reason, therefore has slighted “the left”, or “doesn’t care about the the left”. It is rarely useful to engage someone with thie mindset. Too frequently one gets little more than slogans and, as Genex notes, the kind of self-serving analysis that comes to the same conclusion regardless of the facts.
Marc’s claim Gonzalez “foreclosed” others entry is nonsense, but nothing new, sadly.
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:30 am e
Nice try, Whit, but if it were just me, I’d have sucked it in and done what it took. But I think that you and Matt know that like Tom Ammiano four years before him, after the 2003 campaign, Matt had closed in his circle and drawn lines for and against, in and out to the same effect.
The polling data suggest that Matt’s base was not with him on a run this year irrespective of how you would want to personalize it to me.
If there is one thing progressives can learn from mayoral politics over the past eight years is that if a candidate comes close, then they need to consolidate the progressive base and expand it in order to have a prayer.
Given Matt’s political choices over the past few years, I’ve got to wonder why he can’t count on the mighty ISO, Kevin Zeese, Ralph Nader, Peter Camejo and his clique in the Green Party, David Sloane (he who drunkenly groped Michelle Mongan at a party last month) and Jim Dorenkott (he who drunkenly assaulted me in Ross’ office earlier this year) to carry him into the winners circle?
I personally believe that Matt is ISO and that he really believes in the pointlessness of reform through the electoral process and that he is doing his best to sabotage the viability of the Green Party so that people see that revolution is the only possibility.
You’re one of the few sane folks in that crowd.
Did Matt lay down the line to others saying “I’m in, you’re out of the race?” Of course not, he didn’t need to do that. But in saying that he would run if nobody else would, he implicitly telegraphed enough to scare off potential challengers.
There was at least one seasoned leader in the second tier who approached Matt about running over the past few months, and whom he discouraged. That, Whit, is seriously fucked up shit.
The potential changed timelines based on Matt’s impersonation of dead Elvis on the toilet were myriad. The progressive response after Newsom’s implosion earlier this year could have been stronger had there not been a shadow candidate. The budget would have worked out differently had there been an opening for another contender not scared off by Matt’s backstage presence who could have provided progressive supervisors with an alternative power source to stand up to Newsom.
Nah, Whit, Matt likes to play Mystery Political Science Kabuki Theatre 2007, saying and not saying enough to keep the mystique swirling around, his name in the papers and people guessing. Hope biz at G&L is up for all the buzz, maybe you all will take on Dennis Herrera as he channels Jim Sutton one of these days.
All it would have taken for Matt to have revived his viability was to for you all to have sued Herrera over his tossing the Bayview Redevelopment referendum. You wouldn’t have had to win, but just taking that stand would have reversed Matt’s statement that “we spent too many resources in D10 because nobody votes there.”
All of that comes at a cost, and the cost is borne by progressives and ultimately by Matt whose political capital account is deep in the red, not Green.
-marc
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:23 am e
It is interesting to note that the Examiner nor Fog City Journal never ran the story about Matt not running. FCJ always ran photos of Gonzalez whenever they have a chance. So I wonder why they didn’t bother to release the story that Gonzalez isn’t running for Mayor.
SFist who has fawned over Matt in the past, just ran two lines. For awhile about a year ago, they were printing a fawning story about Matt every other day. (They even ran a story with him with wet hair.) His appeal seems to have dimmed in their eyes. Nor did the story get its own listing in SFJunto.
It appears that Gonzalez’s ability to gather media coverage has dimmed.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:27 am e
And that sound you hear is the sound of our political capital being pissed down the drain.
Glug glug glug.
-marc
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:56 am e
It looks from the size of his war chest that we may not have to live with Gavin as mayor much longer, he’s obviously positioning himself for Congress, the Senate, or one of California’s statewide offices.
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:16 pm e
So let me see if I have this straight.
Last fall, Matt said he wasn’t interested in running for mayor. In the intervening months, Newsom had a meltdown, and no other “progressive” candidate stood up to mount a campaign. Somehow this is Matt’s fault because - what? He didn’t issue a Sherman Statement? He said he would consider running if no one else stepped up - and publicly encouraged other people to step up? I don’t see the machiavellian aspects that marc sees, that somehow the “backstage presense” of gonzalez scared off all the other progressives.
If all other potential progressives could be “scared off” by some shadowy backstage presence, who publicly encouraged them to run, then maybe they weren’t really Mayoral material in the first place, which makes that whole argument moot.
The fact is that no one else stepped forward. Trying to blame Gonzalez for that is like trying to blame the dead rosebush for the fact that no one among dozens of people with watering cans ever bothered to water it.
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:50 pm e
Many of us read Gonzalez’ meeting at the Green Party last fall as Gonzalez intention to clear the field in his usual cryptic way with intent to consolidate support within the party.
He said that if progressive was running by the filing deadline, that he’d run. Slapping Daly in the face by blowing off the progressive convention didn’t help matters either.
Gonzalez held meetings to set up a campaign since at least March, the last as recent as a month ago. Matt intended to run but got dashed by polls. Apparently if the polling showed
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:59 pm e
if the polling showed…. what?
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:51 pm e
Sorry about that. The post must gotten cut off.
There are conflicting reports as to what the polling showed and what the threshold was. Some say the threshold was met, others not.
I wonder if Matt Gonzalez will ever own up to any errors in how he carried himself over the past nine months?
What happened in the garden was that people were trying to fill up the watering cans in order to water the rose, but Matt had kinked the hose closer to the spigot and was mocking their efforts. Add to that these small green worms devouring the leaves from the underside, and the roses are struggling through drought and pests this growing season.
-marc
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:17 pm e
I don’t understand your scenario. Are you saying that Gonzalez is so powerful that he was pulling all the strings behind the scenes? That no other potential candidate could have just taken him at his word that he would only run if no one else stepped forward, and stood up to him and simply said, “Hey Matt, guess what I’m going to run, so take this off your radar.” This isn’t Oz, there aren’t any flying monkeys, and your “man behind the curtain” doesn’t hold all the cards.
If you’re suggesting that Gonzalez is so powerful that just the hint that he might run scared off any and all other potential serious progressive challengers, I don’t understand who, exactly, could have run a successful campaign. IF they couldn’t stand up to the man behind the curtain, in your scenario, and gotten past Gonzalez, what chance would they have had of getting past incumbent Newsom?
August 4th, 2007 at 7:45 am e
Gonzalez intimated that if nobody else were to run, that he would run.
Other candidates, Matt out of the picture, could have launched some kind of campaign that would have appeared at first as hopeless as Ammiano 99 or Gonzalez 03.
But for some reason, Gonzalez abandoned the standards he used to support divisive quixotic candidates in the Green Party–we need to run to send a message–and kept on trying to put together a campaign from at least March to just a few weeks ago.
His standard now is that there has to be a chance to win.
Combine the damage done to the Green Party by quixotic partisan freakaziods whom Matt supported in their sectarian and divisive campaigns, with the damage done to the local progressive movement by Matt sucking up all the oxygen in the room for nine months, and you’ve got a record of wreckage stretching back four years.
All the cat does after wrecking the fine china is to walk away nonchalantly.
-marc
August 4th, 2007 at 8:06 am e
Marc I can sympathize that Matt’s dececision not to run will make it difficult for you to criticize how he runs his 2007 campaign, but this is getting ridiculous. If this is about your continued displeasure with his ability to get along with Ralph Nader or Greens you don’t like, fine. But trying to at the same time criticize him for not building his base — just because he is unwilling to excommunicate folks because you want him to, is incongruous, to put it mildly. I
And as someone who knows how much time Matt put into talking to others who might run, and in actively trying to recruit others — this on top of working a full schedule — your need to blame him for somehow blocking others from running strikes me as a stretch - an ill-considered and tendentious one at that. Mocking their efforts? Whose efforts? The unnammed “second tier” candidates you claim wanted to run? Because you don’t identify the person, I can’t evaluate what you mean. And because you have already, in my opinion, demonstrated a remarkable willingness to stretch and distort facts of which you are uninformed to make arguments that fit into a point you seem to have decided to make ahead of time, (witness your comments about what “The polling data suggests” - polls you later admit you never saw) I certainly can’t give you the benefit of the doubt.
I will leave it to others to judge who has personalized this discussion. But I think you have done a convincing job of answering that question. Will Matt ever “own up” to the various slights you perceive he has directed your way? I don’t know. Probably not likely, if he disagrees with you about the facts and issues. But a better question, to my mind, is whether you ever will own up to the fact that (1) your disagreement with Matt about his willingness to speak to Green party members you don’t like has never justified your conduct over the last months, and that (2) your abiding anger about that dispute has distorted your viewpoint.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:03 am e
Whit, Matt’s inability to consolidate and expand his base meant that individuals such as Dorenkott and Sloane were just that much more prominent, and just as Amy Laitinen had to recover everyone who Dorenkott scared away from room 282, there was nobody there to catch those allies who those two belligerent drunk males alienated.
As far as Ralph Nader, just days after he spoke at the Roxie, as Matt was trying to prove his star magnetism, Nader went off in the progressive press and dissed Medea Benjamin, still holding grudges from his humiliation in the non-election of 2004. Just as Camejo and Chretien went off in the progressive press against the SFGP for not supporting divisive candidates who could not win, yet who Matt supported.
And for Matt to all of a sudden decide that the numbers were not going his way after supporting divisive candidates who ran to in spite of having imperceptible poll numbers in races much more hopeless than this, although sad for local politics, might hold a more optimistic note for the future, that is if the Green Party survives the divisiveness instigated by the sectarian men Matt has previously supported.
Now, since Matt judges he can’t win, he’s not going to run “all out” against the Democrats. Chretien, Nader, Zeese and Camejo all dissed those of us who did not support their vanity campaigns as “demogreens,” because they believed that we were backroom supporters of the Democrats because we declined to support weak challenges.
By the standards he has historically supported, Matt now himself a “demogreen,” pure and simple.
Whit, one feature or bug of our current system is that individuals stand as candidates and power centers. To deny the role that individuals play is to prohibit honest assessment of what transpired.
You’re an attorney and you have qualms about “distorting and stretching” (read: “speaking the unspeakable”) the facts on the table to best make your case? Gimme a break and go on about the angelic Yalie choirboys.
My intent here is to burn an engram into the collective progressive consciousness as to the follies demonstrated by Tom and Matt after him of how avoid consolidating a base between also-runs by drawing the circle in tighter and declining to make legitimate overtures to swing constituencies, all while the engram burning adrenaline is pumping.
To that extent, this is not about personalities, but about closing off a dead-end alley that we’ve been led down twice over the past five years. Maybe if we find our selves in the same position EIGHT YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, we can point to this as an object lesson.
-marc
August 4th, 2007 at 11:12 am e
Not about personalities? Earlier in your post you make it sound like it is all about personalities - who chased off whom, who didn’t chase off someone else, how individuals must stand as candidates, etc. On the one hand, you seem to say that you didn’t want Gonzalez to run at all, that he should have stepped aside; on the other, you seem to suggest that he SHOULD have run, to satisfy some Green ideology about mounting ‘also ran’ campaigns. It begins to sound like nothing Gonzalez could have done, or not done, would have been satisfactory to you, which lends credence to Whitney’s characterization that this is some kind of grudge.
I am curious to know what you think should have occurred here that would have satisfied you.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:19 am e
Marc, shorter posts get read and you are going over the same points that you posted with at least two posts. Whit is Gonzalez’s partner/friend and designated mouthpiece to defend Gonzalez, because Gonzalez appears to think that it is unseemingly to defend himself. Jim Dorenkott has the same job. But for the record, I think that Whit does it better than Jim. (Might want to make a note of that, Matt.)
Bml is right. If anyone was discouraged by Matt Gonzalez from running or didn’t get in the race because Matt Gonzalez might get into the race, they weren’t the stuff of victors. Gonzalez got into the mayoral race even though Tom was in it. Ross got in the supervisoral race even though Gonzalez had endorsed Lisa Feinstein. (And than Matt switch his endorsement to Ross at a pique against Lisa. But that’s another story.)
Note that for the first time in his life, Gonzalez looked at a poll and said “I am not running.” His heart wasn’t in it. The Matt that we knew in 2003 didn’t bother to look at polls when he entered the race against Newsom. He didn’t look at the polls when he ran against Hallinan for DA. He didn’t look at the polls when he ran against Juanita Owens for supervisor.
And do we really want a candidate that doesn’t want to run? Who didn’t even bother to work the “silent primary” and get out among the voters, work for the underrepresented (and Yalies aren’t underrepresented), walk the picket lines for Local 2, fight for LGBT rights (or at least show up to a Gay Pride Parade and/or the celebration on the Milk Memorial), hold rallies to get jobs for our City’s underemployed youth (or maybe employ one at his own law firm), and/or testify against the inaction of the police about the shootings a block from his own door?
No. That’s not my kind of candidate.
And that’s why we need to work to find those types of candidates for supervisor NOW. And those types of candidates for Mayor for 2011 NOW-and build support and raise a warchest when it’s an open field. So we can win-and the City can win.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:01 pm e
“The Matt that we knew in 2003 didn’t bother to look at polls when he entered the race against Newsom.”
I don’t know if that’s entirely accurate, or fair. Didn’t Gonzalez decide enter the 2003 race because he saw a poll that showed he had a BETTER chance to win than the other progressive candidates who were already in the race? Wasn’t that the whole point of his entering that race? To suggest he operated in some kind of blind vacuum without using basic tools such as polls when it came to making political choices seems to be useful for your argument and characterization of the man, but may not based in reality.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:07 pm e
People’s political choices include the people they empower in their political ventures. Matt’s decision to all but announce in November and unannounce at the last minute carries consequences.
I want progressive electeds and candidates that relate to their grassroots bases in a healthy rather than pathological way both during and between elections. For all Ross’ and Chris’ issues, they relate to their bases on the healthy side of the line.
We’re poised to put our energies into positive campaigns like the MUNI Charter Reform, and to go negative on the Parking Eats Your Neighborhood measure. There are points to be made on exposing the WiFi initiative for the scam it is, and good reasons to oppose Elsbernd’s hearing for ballot measures CA.
Absent a mayoral campaign, we have good ways to buff our political muscles even if we can’t take the grand prize.
-marc
August 4th, 2007 at 12:46 pm e
“The Matt that we knew in 2003 didn’t bother to look at polls when he entered the race against Newsom.”
Here’s some evidence from the SFWeekly, back at the time of the 2003 campaign, that the statement above is inaccurate.
http://www.sfweekly.com/2003-08-20/news/the-chick-factor/
“”How it went down was, there was a growing sense among progressive members of the Board of Supervisors — Chris Daly, Aaron Peskin, and myself — that this mayor’s race was looking more and more like we were just going to hand the Mayor’s Office to Gavin Newsom,” said Gonzalez …
No shirker, Peskin three weeks ago commissioned a random poll of 600 San Franciscans asking how various S.F. politicos would fare against the current mayoral field. A mere 18 percent of respondents supported Peskin — about the same as Ammiano and Alioto are polling now. Daly drew 20 percent. Popular City Attorney Dennis Herrera and equally popular Public Defender Jeff Adachi — neither of whom has expressed interest in running — polled in the low 30s.
And sleepy-eyed Matt Gonzalez, bless his soul, polled at 36 percent, a figure that suggested his group of admirers might be wider than he’d dreamed of.
“It was the first time I’d given [a mayoral candidacy] any thought at all; I’d always said it wasn’t going to happen. “
August 4th, 2007 at 12:57 pm e
Kim - I think you know me well enough to know that I speak for myself only, unless I say otherwise. I wouldn’t speculate about whether Matt deems it undignified or whatever to participate in a chatboard - I’ve never talked to him about this conversation or what anyone has posted here.
But what I’m really surprised about is your apparent apointemnt of yourself to cite the list of anecdotal “must dos” someone needed to have done to run for mayor. You are speaking from a dramatic level of ignorance. “work the silent primary”? What’s that? Who didn’t even bother to work the “silent primary” “Work for the underrepresented”? Matt works for more “underrepresented” people in a week then you will all year. Your claim that Matt doesn’t work for LGBT rights suggests you know nothing about what he dooes (unless its attending something you deem the right event), and don’t care about the facts.
No, he didn’t get a photo op for himself picketing for hotel workers. But he is largely responsible for the increase in wages they will continue to receive - doing more for their quality of life than a news broadcast will afford them. He also has, as a lawyer, sued successfully for hotel workers. In fact, Matt has obtained unpaid wages under the minimum wage law for more people than all other attorneys, includng the City Attorney, combined. for local 2? Why don’t you ask the hotel workers what they think matters. Hell, why don’t you ask the hotel owners or restaurateurs who has done the most for service workers. You know the answer.
And he’s faulted for not holding a rally? What are you talking about? You certainly don’t know who we have employed, and I can’t imagine why you feel it necessary to speculate about how many underprivileged kids we have helped. Its so stupid I could spit.
Do you have any clue how many hours Matt has devoted to representing the poor, or the victims of police brutality, for free? No, you don’t.
You are wrong when you say that Matt didn’t look at the polls or demographics in previous races. Here again, you simply don’t know what you are talking about.
To sum it up, Kim, you seem to have gone off on a tangent comprised of anecdotal obligations, based on largely fictitous or just plain wrong facts and assumptions.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:57 pm e
2003 was what that was, and 2007 is what it is.
-marc
August 4th, 2007 at 12:58 pm e
So the “Matt we knew” didn’t look at polls? Maybe you didn’t really know him. The Matt you talk about seems to have been mythologized and rewritten in your history beyond recognition.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:24 pm e
It was widely known that Matt saw Aaron’s poll in 2003 and that was the major contributing factor to his decision to run.
This year Matt telegraphed his rationale for running early on, tried to put together a team since earlier this year and saved the polling for last.
Whether or not he read the polling the same as 2003 is not widely known.
But the difference between 2003 and 2007 is that this year, he spent resources organizing a campaign absent polling intelligence and used polling info to pull the plug on his efforts at the last minute.
-marc
August 4th, 2007 at 5:00 pm e
Actually, I did and do know Matt. And we had talks about what he believed in and what he didn’t. I was there on the first day that he announced-and I was at the meetings where he created his platform.
And I was there when he lost.
But it appears that you have mythized him, bml. I will leave you and others to continue the myth of Gonzalez and to live in the past and the promise of 2003.
I rather focus on 2007.
Today, there are people who need affordable housing, children who need a good education, neighborhoods that need to be free from the threat of violence and workers who need a future for themselves and their families.
And there are people who are working with the impacted communities to solve these and other challenges. Now in 2007, I will continue to work besides them for a better San Francisco.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:07 am e
I “mythized” him? Funny. I quoted something he stated on the record, about polls in 2003, which refuted your assertion that he never looked at polls, yet I’m the one “mythizing”? (The term I used was “mythologizing” btw).
You say you were there the day he announced, you were there for the campaign, and you were there at the end, you had long discussions with him, yet somehow you managed to miss the first major article written about the campaign, and miss the very basic fact, which marc points out is common knowledge, that he entered that 2003 race BECAUSE OF A POLL. I wasn’t there for all those things you list, but even I knew that. How am I supposed to take your assessment of what happened in 2007 seriously when your recollection of 2003 - in which you say you were deeply involved - is so faulty? Instead of admitting a factual error, you accuse me of being the one who is “mythizing”.
You seem to suggest that you will be there working for the disadvantaged, while Gonzalez will not… meanwhile ignoring all the work he does do, pro bono, which his partner pointed out. He can point to actual results in helping people. You only point to the fact that he defended some Yalies (no law firm can do all that pro bono work without SOME paying clients) to suggest that he has somehow abandoned other causes. You point to the fact that he hasn’t attended every event you’ve attended to suggest that he isn’t “politically engaged.” Maybe there are other ways to be politically engaged, and get results, than attending every rally or event in town. It’s great that you are so involved in the community, but there is more than one way to be politically engaged.
After reading through your comments again, I find your overall characterization of Gonzalez distasteful and sad. It’s one thing to disagree with his political strategy vis a vis the current Mayor’s race. It’s fair to disagree with someone’s strategy or suggest how it could have been done better. It’s quite another to attempt to diminish and demean his whole body of work, and his character, in the process.
And this is someone who endorsed your Green candidacy despite what you’ve said about him. That speaks more to his character than anything you’ve said.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:03 am e
What we have here is what happens when lawyers try to be lawyerly when they participate in progressive, grassroots politics.
As if demolishing every error in posting here on the party those criticizing Gonzalez using the techniques of cross examination is going to change the fundamentals of how we got here and Matt’s need to take “personal responsibility” for it.
Kim Knox and I don’t see eye to eye very often these days.
But we agree that Matt Gonzalez has cultivated a cult of personality around himself, and that the acolytes in that closed circle have elevated Matt to a political being of mythical stature.
The spell is broken, the facade is tumbling down, and we realize that Matt’s “special powers” are useless here because they’ve not been nurtured to do anything but bask in the glow of his adoring acolytes and pets.
I was there on August 8th, 2003, in Randy Knox’ truck with h. Brown and Matt, heading down from Hayes Valley on a beautiful sun drenched day, rendezvouing with John Henry Pearce at Civic Center who had just returned from Mission Bank via BART with the filing fee check to file at 4:30PM. I was also there on Wednesday December 10th to clean up the headquarters after we barely lost.
You see, what Matt and his entourage don’t get is that 2003 was not about Matt just as 1999 was not about Tom.
The energy created by those campaigns was not created by the candidate, rather the candidate served as a focal point around which grassroots energy congregated and magnified.
So long as candidates who are able to serve in that role come away from it under the misapprehension that it was the grassroots base rather than they who were expendable, we will see progressives led down the garden path time and again.
-marc
August 5th, 2007 at 8:34 pm e
marc and kim,
sorry, but it seems like you guys just have severe personal issues with matt, and that reads very clearly in the comments above. you misread and misrepresent almost everything that has to do with matt or his actions - because those personal issues are the lenses thru which you are looking. somehow all dysfunction in local progressive politics, and i guess it seems along with all evil in the world, could somehow be traced back to matt. (or maybe camejo/cretian?)
i am flabbergasted by the long list i could write of factual errors above, many of which i know you know are false. you are both smart and dedicated people. you don’t like matt, which is fine. everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions.
ah, this kind of senseless eating of our own that progressivess seem to not be able to stop ourselves from doing. you are doing this to someone who has never said a single negative thing about you in public and who has contributed in his own way an incalucable amount to the green party and to progressives. you fault him for spending a lot of time and emotional energy looking at a race. there probably would be no path that would have made you happy, no doubt. it was not an easy path to navigate and all someone can do is do what s/he believes to be right, prudent, etc. um, which is what happened.
i have never posted anything personal publicly like this, and i am sorry for calling you two out here, but i am fed up with reading wrong and mean things over and over and over. and it’s just so damn lame and petty.
anyway, this bullsh*t above is why i have decided, after being in the green party for 10 years, to change my registration to DTS. so much of what goes on is negative, actually not just negative but downright petty and mean. i will vote for green candidates still because those are my values, but i have lost interest in the rest.
-cat
August 6th, 2007 at 12:44 am e
Now look what you’ve done.
“I was there on August 8th, 2003, in Randy Knox’ truck with h. Brown and Matt, heading down from Hayes Valley on a beautiful sun drenched day, rendezvouing with John Henry Pearce at Civic Center who had just returned from Mission Bank via BART with the filing fee check to file at 4:30PM. I was also there on Wednesday December 10th to clean up the headquarters after we barely lost. You see, what Matt and his entourage don’t get is that 2003 was not about Matt just as 1999 was not about Tom. ”
Yes, that’s right. It wasn’t about Matt. It was about YOU. Now it all makes sense.
“The energy created by those campaigns was not created by the candidate, rather the candidate served as a focal point around which grassroots energy congregated and magnified.”
Congregated and magnified and pretty well crushed his chance of winning. He almost won because he generated enthusiasm among his supporters and won people over with his integrity and energy. He almost won despite the disarray and disorganization. No doubt, without the time and energy put in by volunteers and dedicated staff, the campaign would not have moved forward and gained momentum - but a lot of that momentum was unharnessed and unfocused. And to suggest that without the candidate, the “grassroots” would have had any soil in which to grow, is both ridiculous and blind. He was the right candidate at the right moment, and was outspent and outmaneuvered and out-organized by more saavy, organized operatives on the other side. To suggest that he was merely the tool of the grassroots movement - or which you seem to have appointed yourself the head — is the worst kind of fable.
August 6th, 2007 at 5:08 am e
“He was the right candidate at the right moment.”
But that moment has passed.
And most of us have gone on to a better future in 2007 by working with community leaders who have continued to work on issues that impact the City and its residents-affordable housing, reduction of violence in the streets, bridging the achievement gap, economic justice and so much more.
The purpose of politics is not to say “what might have been”, but to use the power of the people to create a better future for all of us.
August 6th, 2007 at 6:53 am e
Try as you might to personalize this, that’s about all you all have left, but as public response (or lack thereof) has shown, only the few of you all felt strongly that Matt was the right person for 2007; the rest of the city and progressivedom responded with a big fat “blah.”
You all can’t have it both ways, either we’re ignorant or informed, if we’re ignorant, then you all are right, if we are informed from personal experience than it is all about us.
Take this lazy lawyering into court and try to win something for the commmunity, okay, because there is no preponderance of the evidence standard that will win this one for you.
There are no singluar objective “truths” in politics. Everyone’s memory is diaphanous. It is the coalescence of these subjective interpretations that forms the basis for common ground and collaboration when you don’t have money and power as the glue.
The hint that something was awry came for me in December, 2003, when Matt was asked if he would start a group to keep the energy going.
Matt’s response was that he didn’t want to create a group that he’d have to fight in the future.
That pretty much encapsulates it all, when a progressive leader views grassroots organizations as something he has to fight, rather than a source of power which can be worked with, we know we’ve taken a wrong turn.
Right now, there are fundamental issues of land use and housing that are critical to San Francisco remaining a place where the undesirables from around the country and world can seek refuge which are under fire in an “end game” by the ruling class.
The last thing we need to be wasting our time on is salving the bruised egos of last cycle’s also rans and disappointed members of their entourages, entourages who have been conspicuously absent from the major campaigns of the day: 3400 Cesar Chavez, WiFi, parking and Bayview Asbestos.
-marc
August 6th, 2007 at 7:19 am e
thx, especialy to marc for even more spot-on analysis & humility. good luck to you guys.
cat
August 6th, 2007 at 7:43 am e
Please, take Jim Dorenkott with you.
-marc
August 6th, 2007 at 8:11 am e
Now here’s someone doing something useful with his day….
http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/bcn_daly_toxic_hot_spots_tour_070805.shtml
Daly to tour air pollution hot spots
of Southeast San Francisco
Supervisor Chris Daly is scheduled to tour pollution hots spots in Southeast San Francisco Monday, it was announced today.
-marc
August 6th, 2007 at 9:43 am e
“You all can’t have it both ways, either we’re ignorant or informed, if we’re ignorant, then you all are right, if we are informed from personal experience than it is all about us.” - marc
Marc, let’s be clear. These concepts really are not that difficult. One displays “ignorance”, or acts from an “uninformed” point of view, when he or she asserts facts he or she doesn’t know, and which are false. You have done that here on multiple occasions.
On the other hand, one can be faulted for unduly personalizing a discussion when he or she allows personal slights — as in, for example, Matt’s refusal to accede to your demand that he only speak to the people you deemed worthy — to justify not only spewing facts of which you don’t know, but worse still, to flat out make shit up, out of the recesses of your mind.
These are two different concepts, Marc, and they are not exclusive. Thus, the dichotomy you suggest is, like much of what you have said here, false; something you made up.
You remind me of the title of an 80s John Cusack movie: “Say Anything.”
August 6th, 2007 at 10:21 am e
Whit, absent frank discussion on Matt’s part on these issues over the past few years, we are left but to try to interpert the semantics of a deliberately vaguely danced kabuki. That is the flipside of trying to keep your political options open by avoiding firm positions.
The effort here was to claim that since Kim Knox was unclear on Matt’s 2003 polling that she was incorrect on the broader political analysis, or that since I mentioned that Matt’s choice of men alienated many progressives and named names doing it, that the matter was personal rather than political.
The fact remains that Matt and his clique have managed to dig themselves into a hole and are now blaming those of us who have not spent the past 3.5 years digging ourselves in deeper for the fact that you all are in a hole and we are only soiled from the shovelfuls of soil that you’ve heaved up and out at us.
One example of digging the hole deeper was in March. There was an antiwar rally at which Matt and Camejo spoke. Dorenkott was on the committee organizing the event. A flyer was produced that had only men, no women on it, even though there were women on the bill. As I arrived at Ross office for a party, h. brown showed me the flyer and I said “yeah, that’s the flyer with no women on it.” Dorenkott, already drunk, turned around, came across the room and got in my face and began to berate me as if I’d said a word to him.
I told him to get his fingers out of my face, and his response was “oh, yeah, what are you going to do about it?” That is assault. My response was not to break his jaw, although I could have gotten away with it, rather to say “I’m going to get on that telephone, call the deputy Sheriff and have your ass thrown out on the sidewalk.” After 30 min or so and three more drunken in-your-face episodes, Dorenkott calmed down.
The next Monday, I’m suffering gout in my foot, my bike is under repair in SOMA, and I’m hobbling across Civic Center Plaza towards City Hall. I see Gonzalez, Sloane and Dorenkott coming my way, and all I’m doing is focusing in on the gold lettering over the doorway and visualizing myself entering and them ignoring me.
Gonzalez calls me over and they begin to triple team me. Brushing that effort aside to focus on one subject rather than three in rapid fire, we “discuss” the previous Friday’s events. Sloane asserts that Jim did nothing actionable. Gonzalez asserts that it was my fault that Dorenkott assaulted me.
What happened here was that Gonzalez blamed the victim of an assault for being assaulted because he called the assaulter on his sexism.
That really encapsulates why you all are where you are.
The verdict is in and Matt has come up short. You can try to blame the jury, or go further into the depths of denial, anger and bargaining, but that won’t get you very far until you pass through depression and embrace acceptance.
-marc
August 6th, 2007 at 12:10 pm e
Marc - if you can’t read your last post and see (as I am confident most others can) that you are so irretrievably aborbed by perceived slights during random events to sanely comment on these issues, there isn’t a whole lot I can do for you.
August 6th, 2007 at 12:16 pm e
The only slights here have been perceived by progressives as a consequence of Matt’s conduct, who have declined to rally around him, and by members of Gonzalez inner circle who are miffed at such insolence.
Either it is all personal with me or Kim is wrong on one thing so wrong on everything.
Note how Matt’s inner circle always places blame outside the clique.
-marc
August 6th, 2007 at 12:38 pm e
There seems to be 2 points of contention here:
Did Matt ever in the last 8 months promise anyone anytime that he would run under certain circumstances? The answer is NO.
He said he would “look at it” at the Green Party meeting. He did not go any further than that; he did not promise them anything. He encouraged publicly there and elsewhere Ross, Chris and Agnos. His interview with David Sloane in Beyond Chron back on May 25 details his position. http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=4554
He did the due diligence and research to see if there was any possibility of his winning. He concluded not and announced so; it is all on the public record.
It is not up to him to quote Ross run “a sacrificial lamb” campaign. He doesn’t owe the progressive movement anything. He delivered in his short 4 years IRV, highest minimum wage in the country and neighborhood democratic control over whether chain stores would drive out the mom and pops.
The second point of contention is whether he has been politically engaged. Misinformation here that Matt hasn’t done the work. He has walked numerous precincts and always encourages others to do so for other candidates. He has recruited and counseled numerous successful candidates now elected. When Daly was in trouble in D6 he was out at 7 in the morning and after work handing out flyers.
In addition to that he has done additional political work in his speaking engagements; he has brought the Green Party to the airwaves through the KPFA Sunday Salon, Willie Brown quakeradio appearances and commentaries. Why should non-candidates have to make certain appearances? This is such regimented thinking. The people who should have been there are the ones who wanted to run. Matt didn’t want to run and he was very public and clear about that.
August 6th, 2007 at 12:46 pm e
Matt telegraphed that he would run of nobody else did and he organized between March and last week to run.
Matt’s apparently intentional lack of clarity combined with his holding meetings indicated he would run.
Only in a world where principals are relieved of responsibility for their actions could it be construed that everyone else was mistaken and Matt was correct.
We have work ahead of us, work that few in Matt’s inner circle seem to care about. Instead of defending the indefensible, let’s defend Bayview and Hunters Point against asbestos poisoning and the Western Addition against gun related lead poisoning.
-marc
August 6th, 2007 at 1:00 pm e
So marc is reduced to mystical “telegraphing” and smoke signals. The reality is that Matt was clear, and more clear than you like. He deferred his decision as he said he would.
Matt also worked as did a number of us down at city hall to help the people of Bayview and Hunters Point stop the incursion by Lennar. We didn’t succeed, but we tried. Don’t think this battle began with you.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:08 pm e
Absent clarity in language, which Matt is supremely capable of, we are left but to read the tea leaves and divine semantics by inference.
Matt’s commentary to mesha on 2003 was that he should not have allocated resources to BV/HP because nobody votes there.
It is actions such as this, as well as his defense of your sexism and violence, which devalued his currency amongst the progressive base.
Vague assurances that Matt did work that only you saw on the issues involving the poisoning of Bayview and Hunters Point are as realiable as Matt’s vague assurances on his electoral intent.
Try as you would to focus the spotlight on me for Matt’s errors, or to retroactively invest in me the power to swing the world against Matt, but the responsibility rests with he who broke into a sweat to take serial destructive actions, each of which diminished his political appeal.
-marc
August 6th, 2007 at 1:32 pm e
Marc, it has just been brought to my attention of your todays post August 6th 2007 at 10:21 am. I just read it, an I must state its an incomplete version of what occurred between us many months ago.
Yes Matt did call you over and discussed the event that occurred between you and Dorenkott at the art party, as it seemed that you were both upset with each other, Matt tried to act as a mediator and get Dorenkott and you,to handle your differences even saying that its not OK for two progressives not to handle their disagreements, and he even went as far as to say is there a way for the both of you to bury the hatchet,you refused the suggestion to bury the hatchet and walked away.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:58 pm e
Nice to see you taking a break from your busy schedule of drunkenly fondling women at political events to take some time to defend Matt. I heard reports that the vomit came out of your nostrils on the streets after h. brown called you on your shit.
But as in the softball interview you did with Matt in beyondchron.org, let it suffice to say that your perspectives on what happened at Civic Center Plaza are contingent upon your proximity to Gonzalez.
Sorry, “progressive” apologists for violence and sexism are not the people with whom I’d bury the hatchet.
-marc
August 6th, 2007 at 2:16 pm e
marc wrote
“It is actions such as this, as well as his defense of your sexism and violence, which devalued his currency amongst the progressive base.”
“your” I assume is Dorenkott’s sexism.
Name my sexism. With whom and when.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:32 pm e
Your sexism involved being on the coordinating committee for an antiwar demonstration and not ensuring that women were represented on the speakers list or the flyer.
Your violence involved assaulting me for calling you on that.
Matt suggested that I was at fault for your violence and sexism.
-marc
August 6th, 2007 at 3:04 pm e
Hey, can we try to avoid the personal attacks? And stay on topic?
Thanks.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:11 pm e
Yeah, Sasha, I agree that devaluing 1/2 of the species is poor form no matter how you slice it.
-marc
August 6th, 2007 at 5:12 pm e
Hey Marc,
Given that the stated values of the party like social justice, environmental sustainability, etc. don’t seem to fully capture the values i have been sensing, I took the liberty of drafting the following list of proposed values to add to the list. Perhaps you can propose discussing and voting on these at the next general membership meeting?
I enjoyed writing these. My favorite is the last, inspired by your email to me today.
-cat
1. Hold grudges about things about which you don’t even remember the facts correctly anymore. Or don’t bother to remember. Repeat grudges to anyone who will listen. Your interpretation of events must be known and believed.
2. Nothing short of perfection is allowed. Must put party first before all other interests, campaigns, careers, etc. Unlike other political parties that don’t cast members out for just being members because of sharing the party’s values, members in this party must attend all party events and give a sh*t about any and all petty infighting that might (ok, will) occur.
3. Agreement with values of party is not enough. You must be ready to present well-documented “grassroots” credentials to whichever judgment passing member requests them.
4. It’s definitely not cool to be white, well-educated or young. And forget attractive. Attractiveness and normalcy are essentially signs that you aren’t a true enough believer. You are not welcome.
5. When you are interested in attacking fellow party members, overuse phrases like “sexist” “cult of personality” “sycophantic followers” etc.
6. Appeal to outsiders? Huh? Don’t bother trying to make the party appeal to others. They are not worthy anyway. This unique manifestation of a political party is not about inclusion, party-building and all that normal political party baloney.
7. Hold a firm belief that the party doesn’t need to appeal to more than a handful of people because the party focuses on issues and campaigns du jour, not on a long term strategic approach to building third party and progressive power. Assume that will happen on its own, as it has clearly done in recent years.
8. Once in power, if a member leaves that position to do anything else, no matter how noble or progressive (or, uh, damn, just NORMAL), no matter how s/he has contributed to party, the member is to be labeled as an egomaniacal deserter and detested. That person is shunned for wanting his/her own life and for letting the party down, no matter who replaces him/her in power. Anyone who still hangs out with that person is also to be shunned. Use “cult of personality” type attacks described above. Rewrite history to make it seem like that person in power was never the real deal anyway, and any accomplishments of the deserter now are to be completely the work of the collective people.
9. However, once out of power, members, although shunned and detested, must continue to “work the base” relentlessly. Even tho s/he might be fully involved in something else and perhaps tired of the political clusterfuck of egos. If there is even a 5% chance s/he might run for office again someday, s/he is required to be just as active as elected officials.
10. Must enjoy bloodsport. Anger and bile (not community or relevance or movement-building) is the currency of most value.
11. Once in power in the party, for example as a member of the county council, never ever leave. Run every time. Keep others from running by fully embracing your holier-than-thou personality and turning them off. That whole thing about new blood, new ideas, etc. being good for an organization is total right-wing bullshit meant to keep us out of power!!!
12. Assume no one else understands the holy grassroots struggle (well, don’t give them a chance to anyway) or could possibly have the slightest idea of what could be done to build the party and achieve new victories in ways not currently envisioned. Keep on the current path, which is clearly working out.
13. Hold vendettas to the death over whatever small things you want in order to cover up the party’s own structural and capacity deficiencies, and perhaps your role in this situation by turning people off left and right.
14. Take full credit for the electoral victories of people in the party, not just the real amount of credit due the party. Assume that large electoral victories by people who are party members have everything to do with the party, and little to do with the candidates’ skills/heart/appeal/etc or the people who believe in them and do the campaign work.
15. Get pissy about Camejo or some shit and bring the dysfunction of other parts of the party into the local situation at every possible opportunity. Divide! Divide!
16. Cultivate smugness and doublestandards.
17. Forget the positive things other party members have done for you in the past (endorsements, appointments to commissions, legitimizing the party,.. hell, even friendship) if you want to later attack them. The past doesn’t matter when it doesn’t fit into your current agenda.
18. When attacking someone, do it in the most public way possible and take advantage of your apparently unlimited online leisure time. Repeat attacks again and again, on blog after blog and message board after message board, until it hopefully sticks. Believe that volume will eventually prevail over truth.
19. Make the party just about as unpalatable as possible. Once a member decides to leave, send her an email and tell her that a lot of people in the party wil be happy to hear she is leaving. ;)
meow.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:22 pm e
Funny.
A shorter version of the list might be what I learned as a beauty school dropout:
1. Lather
2. Rise
3. Repeat
August 6th, 2007 at 11:22 pm e
Funny.
A shorter version of the list might be what I learned as a beauty school dropout:
1. Lather
2. Rinse
3. Repeat
August 7th, 2007 at 5:50 am e
It’s interesting that all of Matt’s hangers-on read Leftinsf. And Cathy’s and David’s posts are examples of self-absorbed twaddle.
The purpose of politics is to serve the people.
And if you want to stay in progressive politics and have people support you and your issues, then you need to listen to the voters and work with them to create a difference.
Which is why Ammiano is a shoo-in for Aseembly. Which is why Leno is giving Migden a run for her money. Which is why Mirkarimi is being touted for Mayor in 2011. Which is why Bill Sorro (and Guiliana) were honored as part of the commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the closing of the I-Hotel.
They all have realized that politics isn’t all about them-it’s all about serving the people.
And when you began thinking that it’s all about you and forget that it’s all about the people, you lose their support. As was reflected in the polls that Matt said that he read in 2007.
(And for the record, I didn’t ask for Matt’s endorsement. Matt called me, offering his endorsement. I was too worried that Matt’s endorsement would hurt my chances with getting SEIU, due to his work against them. And I wanted and was very honored to eventually get SEIU’s endorsement, since their membership have been tireless in working for economic justice as well as for the students at SFUSD.)
August 7th, 2007 at 7:25 am e
Looks like this kitty has teeth and claws and it pisses and poops!
I might have my shit, but I admit I have my shit and I am trying to deal with it. Contrast this to the wall of denial effusing out of Matt’s circle.
It is not like I pretended that I was running for Mayor, pretended that I was not going to run again and pretended like I was never seriously considering it.
How would you know anything of local Green issues Cat? Like Matt, you’ve not participated any any grassroots politics to my knowledge since I’ve known you, most certainly not with the Green Party, except when you all wanted our endorsement.
Seriously, consider the hilarity and antics of dealing with Matt’s buddy Carlos Petroni and his Left Party who set up shop in the SFGP. Matt knew about the shit Petroni was causing and essentially laughed at us as we were dealing with it. Matt then took the same posture with the GPCA, leading it to a state of paralysis.
It is always easier to snipe from the sideline than to make yourself useful on a campaign team that wins.
Apparently, according to mutual friends, in confidence you agree with me on most of these issues concerning the viability of Matt’s pretend run for Mayor. But in public, the story is very different.
Look, it is not possible to erase four years of AWOL and negativity Matt’s part with some snap negotiation in Civic Center Plaza while I’m drugged up for gout pain. How would that go down? Matt would say some magic words and I’d say, “Of course, you were right all along?”
Matt misrepresented himself to his base and unless the base is stupid, why would they come running back to someone who abused them? Why would anyone run back to someone whom they trusted and abused that trust?
If Matt 2004-2007 had been Matt 2001-2003, then maybe he’d be viable now. The truth is that the latter snapped from the former as if he were a different person.
Are you saying that that I should keep myself beholden to a person forever when they do me a favor even when they go off the deep end politically? How do you derive that from Green Values?
The truth is that Matt, Camejo, Chretien and their allies have done their best to sabotage the Green Party at every level at which they participated.
I am calling Matt on his shit, as well as Sloane, Camejo, Chretien and Dorenkott, rather than Cat or the anonymous ones, because they are the political actors.
Matt sends out his minions to attack whenever he seems slighted. This is clearly an effort on your part to avoid taking any personal responsibility for the consequences of your actions
The fact is that through his own actions, Matt has relegated himself to the rear view mirror of San Francisco politics and through his own inactions just might have relegated the SF progressive movement to a premature demise.
Matt took steps to hire consultants, hold focus groups and do the due diligence required of a run. Having seen polling results similar to 2003, he took a pass. Don’t give me this line that Matt didn’t try to run a campaign and then bail. That is nothing but a lie.
Some of us are trying to take the initiative back and fight the worst of what the ruling class has to throw at us with no help from any of you all. You all just capitulated and are now attacking anyone who calls your bullshit for what it is.
If you’re going to vehemently defend Matt 2004-2007, then perhaps a completely irrelevant party such as the Peace and Freedom Party should be the party you might consider.
“1. Lather
2. Rinse
3. Repeat”
We’re talking about Matt Gonzalez, right?
-marc