Mayor Newsom to Democrats: Stop Lying To The American People

[ruggerson]

Mayor Gavin Newsom on Gay Marriage

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=281

I recently spoke to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom about the renewed push to outlaw gay marriage. Newsom, of course, made gay weddings a national issue by choosing to marry more than 2,000 same-sex couples at city hall in 2004.

Newsom had strong words for his fellow Democrats: Stop lying to the American people. Newsom claims, based on first hand knowledge, that the “vast majority” of congressional Dems favor gay marriage, but they lack the “moral courage” to say so.

“As long as we allow this to be dangled in front of us because of our unwillingness to say publicly what so many of us are saying privately,” Newsom told me, “it will haunt the Democratic party.”

Read the full interview:

http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=281

[arcane1]

1. they lack the “moral courage” to do quite a few things!

:toast: to my mayor :D

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. You know...

The more I see and hear and read of Newsom, the less it would bother me if he chucked his hat in for 08.

He's got grit and a plain way of speaking. We could do worse.

Hell, we are.

[formernaderite]

52. I'd love to see him replace Feinstein in the Senate

we could use...screw that....The whole country could use a plain talking senator.

[Sapere aude]

3. Dems are so afraid to be progressive it really gets to me.

I remember how the Dems were so afraid to be against the war in Iraq because they were afraid to lose in 2002. If I remember correctly, all anti war Dems were re-elected and some pro war Dems lost.

I wonder what would really happen if the Dems had the nerve to stand for an alternative to the repub machine?

[Ringo84]

4. Good Guy

When I first saw the headline, I thought Oh gee. Not another RWer yelling about how the Democrats need to STFU and bow to Bush. Having read the body of the thread, however, he seems like a good guy.

I agree - I think that keeping people from marrying due to sexual orientation is wrong. We might as well own up to that.
Ringo

[11cents]

5. Certainly it takes guts for the mayor of San Francisco ....

...to speak up for gay marriage.

He's a good mayor, the first such that SF has had in quite awhile, but he'd be in a better position to give lectures on moral courage if he were the mayor of Tuscaloosa and supported gay marriage. As mayor of SF, he'd have taken a much greater political risk if he'd opposed it.

[ruggerson]

12. Nah, you're missing the whole point.

The country as a whole is basically pro choice. But we've elected three ardent anti choice Presidents: Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.

Why? Because they were upfront about their belief, framed it in a positive way ("I believe in life") and most voters respect honesty and conviction in candidates, even if they disagree with them on a few issues. There are a lot of nominally pro choice middle of the roaders who voted for Reagan, Bush and Bush. It was not on the top of their issue list and they appreciated the conviction displayed.

If Democrats would have the balls to frame this as a civil rights issue, simply respond, "I believe in the constitution and I believe in full equality for all citizens", it would become a non issue for those middle of the roaders who don't necessarily support gay marriage, but would support a candidate who did, as long as that candidate was honest and had conviction and authenticity. For those people, gay marriage is not a deal breaker. Democrats lose them because Democrats HEDGE on the issue ("i believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but I support civil unions") and no one believes them. THey think the are straddling out of fear. Which is exactly what they are really doing.

People thirst for authenticity. They will vote for authenticity, even if they disagree with a position or two. What they hate is people who equivocate on issues of right and wrong.

[sandnsea]

6. How's that working for Angelides?

Just askin'.

[11cents]

8. Angelides will probably lose ...

...and the reasons will likely have little to do with gay marriage. Whereas if Newsom were publicly opposed to gay marriage, he'd be political toast. What's safe for him is risky for others and vice versa. Strange, that. San Francisco must be different.

[LeftCoast]

23. Based on recent polling I've seen, I don't think Angelides runs much risk

by coming out in favor of gay marriage. The numbers have been doing a slow, but steady shift in favor of gay marriage for the last five years or so here in CA. Surprisingly, Arnie may lose more by his moderate stance since he stands to alienate more of his base than Angelides does.

[cally]

44. I would like to learn more about what polling you've seen

I know Californians are moving towards acceptance of gay marriage but what's happening with swing voters? Is is just Democrats or is it across the board?

[madfloridian]

7. Well, talk to Bill Clinton.

Talk to him to stop working behind the scenes on this issue.

Look what he did to Dean in the primaries because he had signed the civil unions bill in VT. He said he had forfeited the chance to be president. Clinton also advised Kerry to sign the DOMA, in MA I think. He was butting in.

I am reading the book written during the campaign about Howard Dean by a lot of VT reporters. I wish every person in the GLBT community would read this book. They should know the degradation he suffered, the attacks, the hatred. He still spoke clearly for equal rights for all.

He went to the groups who despised him so much for signing that bill. He talked to them, had town hall meetings.

Then the former president stabbed him in the back and said he would never be president, in effect.

If you want our Democrats to speak out, tell Bill Clinton to hush.

[karynnj]

14. Worse than DOMA, he advised Kerry to endorse all those

gay bashing anti-gay marriage referendums, many of which precluded rights that people already had. Kerry had been the first (or one of the first) Senators to speak for equal rights for gays in the Senate and had always supported all civil rights bills. Here is an example like you are speaking of - I think Kerry would have lost by far more had he done this - partially because it was so out of line with everything Kerry ever said and his votes.

[madfloridian]

15. Thanks for clarifying.

I knew he was pushing him about something.

He needs to stay out of it.

[karynnj]

42. I think he,like any other leader, should give advise PRIVATELY

Base on Clinton's public comments on 2004, I think he is over rated as a political advisor. (I realize that saying that is presumptuousof me, but it seems he was wrong on advising Kerry not to speak of terrorism and the war and the gay rights thing would have been a disaster for Kerry.) My main objection though was that the advise to concentrate on the economy was public and repeated by the Clinton clowns, Carville and Begala - to Kerry's detriment.

As bad was Brazille who complained constantly about the campaign.

[AtomicKitten]

17. I think Clinton was giving the best advice as he knows it.

He comes from a religious background with uptight dogma, which I understand having been raised in that sort of environment. The journey to enlightenment is an individual thing and I try to ascertain where a person is on that journey instead of automatically condemning them if they aren't where I'm at on mine.

Bill Clinton strategizes winning elections and trying to put forward a national campaign that could win across the country, and that's a tough job. To suggest that he butt out when he is by leaps and bounds the top dog in the party is simply not reasonable. It is reasonable to disagree, but not to condemn him for giving campaign advice when that is colored by the disappointment when the candidate does not prevail.

His "don't ask, don't tell" policy has been condemned by many here are at DU, but it was a compromise reached in an adversarial environment with the GOP, and is nirvana compared to the environment today. It's nowhere where what the gay community wants and deserves, but it's not nothing. Any Democrat will be dealing with an overtly hostile environment in a quest to change things, and it would be helpful if people understood that.

I have always like Howard Dean's philosophy of making gay rights a civil rights issue. On that point, and it's important to remain steadfast on that point and not be swayed by the religiosity imposed on the issue, there is no reasonable argument against gay people being afforded the same rights and privileges as straight people. On that specific point, framed in that way, Democrats cannot go wrong. I believe that is the authenticity we should seek to invoke in policy and legislation.

[madfloridian]

18. What he did was wrong. Totally wrong.

He said a fellow Democrat lost the credibility to be president because he signed and stood up for a civil unions bill the courts ordered.

How dare he do that?

[AtomicKitten]

20. I know you vehemently disagree, but he was

giving advice and his opinion. He's a formidable man having won two elections and more significantly the political fight of his life during the impeachment debacle. Clinton is a smart man and I don't think he's unenlightened, I just think he assessed the atmosphere in the country and gave his best advice for victory.

I guess our difference of opinion is that you seem to be attributing a malicious intent and I don't think that is warranted.

I'd have to actually read what you are paraphrasing to comment more specifically, but I will say that it's unfortunate we didn't have the opportunity to find out if Clinton was right or not about Howard Dean. Considering the level of ugliness in the country, I just don't know.

[madfloridian]

27. He was calling people behind the scenes about it.

It was not just something he said. He called financial backers of Dean to say that he had forfeited the right to be president because he signed the civil unions bill.

It was wrong. He told them to back someone else, who was also running as a supporter of civil unions.

Politics? Yes, it is. Wrong? Yes.

It was a huge thing he did. It is not just that he thought he was doing the best he could or something like that.

It was a serious thing.

[AtomicKitten]

30. I'd be interested in reading the book.

Perhaps that's why I'm nowhere in the ballpark of being as pissed off as you are. I am completely in the dark with regard to some of the information you are divulging. I really would like to read it if you'd be so kind as to divulge the title/author.

I am interested in understanding your position.

[madfloridian]

34. It is from two books.

One is written by Howard Dean called You Have the Power. It is for sale in paperback now, it came out in 04.

The other is called Howard Dean: the Citizen's Guide to the Man who Would be President. It came out in 03, and has reporters et al for authors. It is not biased toward him or against him.

It was wrong of Clinton to use that card against Dean.

[AtomicKitten]

35. thanks, and I will do my homework

On a delightfully positive note, my boyfriend, Al Gore, endorsed Howard dean. WooHoo!!!!

[ruggerson]

21. You have to remember what the worst point in BJC's presidency was

other than Monica Lewinsky... it was his first few months when he tried to remove the ban against gays in the military. He ran up against angry, fierce, raw bigotry (so much so that he said at the time to David Mixner: "I didn't realize people hated you guys (gays) so much"). And he caved.

WHat pissed of the media and disappointed the middle of America wasn't ending the ban. It was that our new President didn't have the courage of his convictions.

It took him almost an entire term to recover from that. America watched as he caved to the angry religious rightwingers and that shaped their opinion of him for many, many years.

[AtomicKitten]

22. I don't agree.

I think the truth is he is perceived by the gay community to have caved.

He paid the price for having tried. The compromise infuriated the gay community, and his efforts in the first place infuriated the entire right side of the aisle. A pretty untenable position to be in IMO which is why I put the effort out here to be fair, which I'm sure is not appreciated so I will depart.

Peace.

[LeftCoast]

25. You might have a point, except for DOMA

He sold us down the river on that one too. It still pisses me off to think about it.

[AtomicKitten]

26. He said ...

In a June 1996 interview in The Advocate, Clinton said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."

He was accused upthread of having no convictions, but this seems to indicate he did. However, he signed DOMA during his 1996 campaign as IMO a political dog and pony show.

Interestingly, he did not mention DOMA in his memoirs which leads me to believe he may have had some second thoughts after the fact.

Political opportunist or a man of his convictions? Maybe both. :)

[LeftCoast]

28. That bill was hurtful and so was his signing of it

It is one of the few things that will seriously counter my otherwise great admiration for the man.

[AtomicKitten]

29. I am not gay so I can only imagine the impact on a personal level.

What really bothers me is that he rode on it to victory in 1996. Perhaps that is why he doles out advice thinking that is the key. The Republican Congress dared him not to sign the bill and his political longevity prevailed in his re-election bid. Republicans have a knack of putting Dems' backs up against the wall.

But IMO hate is never right, and I have to agree this particular bill was egregious in its scope. Like I said, he didn't include DOMA in his memoirs, so if it's any consolation, he clearly isn't proud of it.

[LeftCoast]

31. I had this long response written out but I've just realized we've hijaked

this thread. I feel bad now. :(

[Solon]

36. So did Wallace, doesn't mean that it was right. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

37. True, good analogy. n/t

[Solon]

40. In more ways than one...

To be honest, I wouldn't give a shit if the Democratic Party lost elections in the next 40 years over gay marriage if it passed as a nation initiative. Some things, like Civil Rights, are much more important than elections.

[AtomicKitten]

41. America is embarrassingly backward in that regard compared to Europe.

It will require a cosmic revelation or a smack upside the head with a 2 x 4 to those so adamantly opposed, the faux christians, who cling to fire and brimstone folklore. Their influence has infected America's perception of morality with chaotic hatred and fear.

[bobbieinok]

39. IMO it was bad strategy to start with this...

He blew a lot of initial good will.

He should have started with something easier/less controversial. What?? I don't know.

As I recall, he stumbled a lot initially--with this, with some of his cabinet nominees, etc. He should have had good advisors who helped him devise a carefully crafted plan so that his adm could hit the ground running.

However much I intensely dislike bushco, I have to say one thing for them--they knew exactly what they wanted to do and they worked very fast as soon as they got in. Of course, the whole group had been planning for years how to dismantle everything they disliked as quickly as possible.

I'm really tired of nice guys who just wing it on charm and think that's all they'll need. I'm not saying Clinton was really like that but I really don't think he and his advisors realized the level they'd be operating at and how quickly they'd need to get control of the dialogue.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Easy for the Big Dog to compromise on our rights to be equal citizens

while he is chasing young interns and dips his wick in forbidden waters.

[AtomicKitten]

33. I'm beginning to understand why the gay community is harsher on

Clinton for his, um, proclivities than straight folks.

I guess I cut him more slack because the issues are more complex IMO.

[xchrom]

9. it's what people Think/Know about democrats in the first place.

having the blunt courage of your convictions will win votes not lose them.

[high density]

10. Well Democrats can't do shit with the GOP in charge

Oh well.

[SaveElmer]

11. How courageous...

Mayor Newsom calling out other Democrats for not pushing gay marriage. Hardly controversial in San Francisco!

Sorry, I am from red Virginia, and if Jim Webb doesn't make gay marriage a big issue I am not gonna hold it against him. If he did, he would lose by 30 points...that is a fact!

[FreeStateDemocrat]

13. I'm from blue Maryland and supporting gay marriage means you lose big.

Everything indicates to me that the average American voter is not tolerate or supportive of gay marriage and the Democratic party will go down in flames trying to shove it down their throats. I personally don't care since I'm against all marriage having paid both through the nose and out the ass for my own matrimonial mistake. Good luck, but you're kicking a live rattlesnake that will kill the party and not change one damn thing in helping minority rights.

[brentspeak]

50. The same would go for here in NJ

The usually Democratic voters of NJ don't want gay marriage, either. Newsom is a complete idiot.

[AtomicKitten]

16. plus he's good-looking

[Vidar]

19. Politicians, moral courage? Only by fortunate accident.

[LeftCoast]

24. He's earned my vote when he runs for re-election

I'll be honest, I didn't vote for him the first time. I didn't trust him, but I'm glad to see I was wrong. I have been very happy with Newsom as mayor and not just about the issues that make national news like gay marriage and health care for all. He's really been making efforts to make SF more livable for all it's residents. For the first time in years, we have someone in the mayor's office who actually cares about the job of being mayor.

[dsc]

38. I think alot of people don't understand his point

He isn't saying gay marriage is the popular option but that people think Democrats support that anyway but are lying. In short, they are taking the hit but by not admitting their support they aren't garnering the benefit.

[cally]

43. I hope Gavin Newsom keeps speaking out

and I hope he wins statewide office. Thank you Mayor Newsom.

[brentspeak]

51. Newsome is an idiot who doesn't speak on behalf of the majority

of Democrats in the nation. He should stop pretending that he does.

[paulk]

45. "moral courage" doesn't win elections

and that's the first job of a politician

[alvarezadams]

47. Bull

The first role of a politician in an authoritarian, socially-Darwinistic regime is indeed to win elections.

In a democracy it is to represent the people and to uphold the highest democratic values.

So there you have it - a plutocracy or a democracy. As far as I'm concerned, the GOP stands for the former, I stand for the latter. If the DNC coincides with my POV I'll vote for Dems.

If not, they're the enemy as much as the GOP.

IPSO DIXIT

[paulk]

48. LOL

if you don't get elected, you aren't going to be representing anybody, "authoritarian, socially-Darwinistic regime" or not.

There are plenty of places in this country where the sort of "moral courage" Mayor Newsome extols will result in losing the election. That's a fact of life here in these United States.

[alvarezadams]

46. Rall

http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/2006/07/13/

Says it all.

[brentspeak]

49. Newsom is dumber than a box of rocks

He has absolutely no clue what the "vast majority" of congressional Democrats or rank-and-file Democrats think. Polls taken in fairly liberal/moderate places like Oregon and New York state showed that even so-called "blue states" don't want gay marriage.

[ruggerson]

53. A poll taken in April '06 shows you are factually incorrect

The numbers are 53 - 38 in NY State in favor of legal gay marriage.


New York City) The majority of people across New York State support same-sex marriage according to a new poll released Monday.

The survey shows that 53 percent of prospective voters support marriage equality for gays and lesbians, while 38 percent do not.


http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/04/041006nyMarr.htm

[brentspeak]

54. Bzzz! Wrong.

You're quoting a poll conducted by a gay magazine, hardly an unbiased source in this matter.

This is from the New York Times:

Gay Ruling Shows New York Is Less Liberal Than It (and the U.S.) Thinks

New York is undoubtedly more liberal, or more tolerant, than many other places. But even in New York City, according a New York Times poll last year, only 35 percent of those surveyed favored gay marriage (the figure is 32 percent statewide and 23 percent nationally).

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/10/nyregion/10gotham.html

And that's just in New York City.

"Liberal" Oregon voted to amend their state constitution to ban gay marriage, 1,028,546 votes in favor, and 787,556 votes against.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Ballot_Measure_36_%282004%29

[ruggerson]

55. Uh, you're wrong again

The poll was not conducted by "a gay magazine" but was conducted by Global Strategy Group, a very reputable, communications firm which does work for a number of corporate and political candidates.

http://www.globalstrategygroup.com/

Not a gay magazine nor a gay organization.

Use facts before you spew your bigotry.

[brentspeak]

56. "The poll was conducted by..."

"...Global Strategy Group in March for Empire State Pride Agenda, the state's largest LGBT civil rights organization and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percent."

Calling people "bigots" for absolutely no reason isn't going to make your arguments any stronger, either.

[ruggerson]

57. Lying about facts isn't going to help you either

a) you were wrong in that a "magazine" didn't conduct the poll.

b) you were wrong in your post where you maintained that polls in NY state showed no majority for gay marriage

c) you are wrong in trying to conflate the "Empire State Pride Agenda" with the group that actually conducted the poll: The Global Strategy Group.

Your inference is that gay groups are going to commission a poll and then somehow cook the results in their favor.

That's offensive and ridiculous and echoes a lot of the rhetoric of the religious rightwing.

[brentspeak]

59. There's a misunderstanding

By default, I don't trust polls or research conducted on behalf of any group that has a vested interest in the results. If a professional poll was commissioned by the American Right-To-Not-Wear-Motorcycle-Helmets Association on the issue of eradicating all helmet laws, my attitude would be the same.

[jonnyblitz]

58. so you think Global Strategy Group slanted the polls somehow

to give the gay group that hired them the answer they wanted? do you have proof of this or do you just make bullshit up as you go along?

and if you don't want to be called a bigot you might want to stop sounding like one.