San Francisco Mayor's Race: Up for Grabs?
No one is counting Green Party candidate Matt Gonzalez out of the San Francisco mayor's race. Two good articles in the weekend news on the candidates: San Francisco Chronicle and New York Times.
Gavin Newsom, businessman and candidate for mayor, lives in a large house in the city's fashionable Pacific Heights neighborhood. He is the son of a retired state appeals court judge and owns a wine shop and several other businesses, many of them with the financial backing of a family friend, Gordon P. Getty.
Matt Gonzalez, lawyer and candidate for mayor, shares a rented apartment with a roommate in the city's offbeat Western Addition neighborhood. He boasts in his campaign literature that he was twice jailed for contempt of court when working as a public defender. His father, who sold dental equipment in Texas, never went to college.
Could the coverage sink any lower than this?
A recent article in The San Francisco Chronicle characterized the race as a "babe competition" and described both men as "major hotties." The newspaper whittled the choice to this: Dapper Dan vs. the Socialist Stud.
We asked a couple of male S.F.'s 60's lefties this weekend who they were voting for: They were unenthusiastic but probably going for Newsom. Then we asked a couple of 30-somethings: Definitely Matt Gonzalez.
How different are they?
"It is amazing," Mr. Newsom said. "Only in San Francisco you can be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, anti-death penalty, pro-gun control, pro-rent control and be considered a conservative or moderate. I would be left on any national scale."
Though the mayor's election is nonpartisan, the Democratic Party has pumped money and big-name resources into the race. The state party expects to spend at least $120,000 on Mr. Newsom's behalf, even though he has spent $4 million so far, compared with about $400,000 by Mr. Gonzalez.
If the underdog voters come out, Gonzalez stands a real chance. The election is Tuesday, stay tuned.
< Federal Judge Tosses Charges in Olympics Bribery Case | No to the Victims' Rights Amendment > |