Don’t worry, this article is not going to be about our purpose on earth or any existential crisis I may be having; but, rather, about when it comes to politicians and the voting process, what really matters.
The fallout from the Gavin Newsom affair has made me really think about the damage that this will do to his political career. Or will it? Do people forgive and forget? Or do they see the good in him and forgive if they are already a supporter, but if they are a critic, does it give people just another reason to criticize? And, in the end, does it really matter?
Do a politician’s mistakes in their personal life matter when they make decisions for a city? Does someone who makes bad decisions when it comes to relationships necessarily make bad decisions across the board in their life? Many politicians who had extramarital affairs (John F Kennedy, FDR) are revered as some of our greatest presidents. But is that always the case? Is it just the fact that what they did in office was so great, it overshadowed their supposed shortcomings?
At the local level, we’ve seen Ron Gonzales have an affair. Does that count as a bad decision and did that carry over to his decisions about NorCal? Or does one have nothing to do with the other?
This all brings up the issue about who we are voting for when we put people in office. We are voting for the people, but also for the ideals and morals that we stand for and that we see in these candidates. So when that person we want to represent us shows questionable morals and ideals, then it makes us question their abilities—right or wrong.
That can be a dangerous way to look at politics because we are playing with fire. If we put these people up on a pedestal, are we bound to be disappointed? Or should we hold them to a higher standard, no matter what?
What really matters is how a person responds to “gottcha”. Newsom acknowledged the affair, apologized and moved on. Gonzales denied, denied, denied – even to his own staff. An affair may be a private matter, but when an elected official lies about it, it becomes a public matter.
I wish we could get off the Gavin Newsom thing. The judgement should be, is he effective as the Mayor of San Francisco?
I wonder how we can trust a politician who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution when he/she doesn’t take seriously the marriage vows.
Generally speaking, those who break their vows will take a bribe, steal public funds and forget their position to represent the voters and not their own pocket books, among the other things…
Rather than going to “rehab,” they should go to their priest and learn a little about honesty, truthfulness, civility, loyality, not to forget God, Duty, and Country.
Jerry
I have a thesis on this very subject. If a politician or public official “cheats or lies” to his or her spouse they will probably have no compunction about lying or cheating the people that they are supposed to serve. After all, they have taken vows to love and honor the offended spouse. We would have to be very pollyanna (ish) to believe that they would treat us differently.
REEDITE ALERT, REEDITE ALERT
someone is being critical of the Mayor.
She must be a communist!!!
FROM THE MERCURY NEWS
Cut a consultant to maintain pool
So San Jose has $115,000 to study retirees on disability and untold millions to fund studies and land acquisition for a ballpark no one has voted for, but we don’t have money to maintain an inner-city pool for children (Page 1B, Feb. 8)? Ryland pool and the children’s wading pool that my neighborhood worked to renovate in the 1980s should be ready for our children when school is out in June.
If we have to cut a consultant to pay for it, then let’s do it. No more excuses and no more talk about closing the pool. Downtown kids need this pool, and my family is willing to give up grandiose ballparks and aquatic centers to keep it.
Lenora Porcella
San Jose
February primary is bad policy
Very few care who Gavin Newsom and Ron Gonzales or other politicians sleep with unless
1) violate accepted and legal workplace behavior norms and create potential hostile workplace They both were in a position of power and used their position to pressure or encourage a emotionally unstable or youthful subordinate to sleep with them which created hostile workplace for subordinate or other employees. The actual use or appearance of favoritism or discrimination based on who does or does not sleep with the boss is illegal and violates many workplace accepted norms
Why do elected officials think they are above normal workplace behavior standards or other laws, and should have different behavior standards than everyone else, or should be excused because of elected position?
They subjected themselves to both civil and criminal penalties and the city government to lawsuits
2) violating personal friendship and political trust with a trusted subordinate by sleeping with their husband or wife who is a subordinate and possible using their knowledge of unstable emotional condition, troubled marriage or youth to sleep with them,
What is the result of this illegal and unacceptable workplace and personal and political betrayal?
Many people will never trust either Gavin or Ron again, prefer not to work with them or be associated with them as Jude Barry did with Ron Gonzales after Ron lied to everyone about his relationship with a youthful, impressionable and very ambitious subordinate
Trusted advisers will leave like Jude, it will be difficult to attract good people and staff while political advisers will be reluctant to tell the Mayor he is making bad decisions which in San Jose resulted in his indictment and other political allies defeated at polls
I may not be current but last I checked he no longer had a spouse, she did. Still, a friend and campaign manager…wow, but not lying about it seems me what matters. As to the above ‘thesis’, you’d need a lot of objective, scientific data showing that result for me to believe it and I am no Polyanna. I know several (but not yet statistically significant sample) of extremely religious people who took their vows (before a priest/man of cloth v. a civil ceremony) only to end up breaking them. Would they have been corrupt politicians as a result? That may be worth studying.
Single Gal, are you on drugs?
Very simply put: elected people are “bosses” designated to oversee the hired hands who do the work as public servants. Elected officials are NOT public servants. They represent those who elected them…
Bosses set examples. If they lie, cheat or steal, their employees will do the same. Is that what we want?
One does not need scientific studies to know right from wrong!
Jerry
Didn’t Chuck take an oath to complete his term on the City Council???
Oh, I forgot it is REED IS OK YEAR
SG, I just don’t think there are people out there anymore that maintain the higher standards we all used to expect from our leaders.
I don’t think if someone breaks marriage vows that means they are going to lie and take bribes! There are too many ins and outs when it comes to affairs that I don’t think you can make a blank judgement like that…
Gavin was still married with his wife living in New York when he slept with his friend’s wife in 2005
Was that the cause of his divorced?
There are those of us still here who were raised by Victorian parents, taught by Victorian school teachers, preached to by Victorian clergy, and lectured by likes of Douglas MacArthur. We know right from wrong. We know
Honor, God, and Country. Do you have morals and ethics? If you give your word, can it be counted on? That is what we ask of those we elect.
We also expect that staff behave in the same way. If the policy makers misbehave, can we hope that their staff will stay on the straight and narrow?
I must presume that those of you who do not believe that we SHOULD hold our elected representatives to a higher standard also do not believe that there should be ANY standards of behavior.
Just remember, right wrongs nobody!
I must not have anything to do today!
Jerry
SG – “If we put these people up on a pedestal, are we bound to be disappointed? Or should we hold them to a higher standard, no matter what?”
Very good questions SG. The bottom line for me is that we are, above all, human beings who are far from perfect. There isn’t anyone alive that hasn’t done something we wished we hadn’t. As they say, “Hind sight is 20/20.”
I think the real concern I have in the way public figures conduct themselves is that children are watching, and learning from them too. It’s pretty frightening to see who children, and teens are patterening themselves after these days. And because our society has really loosened up on holding public figures accountable, I think we are sending a very bad message to our kids.
For example, it seems that everytime a public figure cheats, lies, steals etc., all they have to do is go on TV, or to the press and say ,”I’m sorry.” Well, okay, that helps, but rarely is that the last time these figures blow it. I feel we’re sending a message to our children, our future leaders, that all you have to do is say you’re sorry, and lie low til things blow over, and if they screw up again, well, that’s okay. I think that’s a bad message to send them.
I think people are their principles. I think children need to understand that marriage is a life long commitment, and not a game. I think we need to instill in them a sense of integrity, honor, and hard work. Yes, we need to let them know that mistakes are forgivable, but we also need to teach them that, “I’m sorry,” isn’t enough to replace trust, and betrayal. It is hard work, and a sincere effort to NEVER do it again, that must be taught.
I just turned 50, and one of the many things I’ve learned is this, if you really pay attention to people, they are telling you exactly who they are. That is if you’re really paying attention.
If a politican lies during a campaign, or flip flops on issues, believe me, that is who he/she is in their personal life. If someone sleeps with a friends spouse, keep them a way from yours, as that is who they are. And if they tell you they aren’t speaking to someone they’re angry at, believe me, they’ll avoid you, if they get angry at you.
So in answer to your questions SG, yes, I think we need to stop placing so much trust in silver toungued devils, who often times are very attractive, and/or charismatic. I think we need to insist that they behave in a respectful, decent manner, or get out of office. “No lying, no cheating, no stealing, and NO tolerating anyone who is!”
Dear Single Gal:
I always thought Gavin Newsom was more of a game show host than a leader. And I always thought of Gonzales as a former mayor of Sunnyvale who thought he could use our city as a vehicle for self-promotion. He almost got away with it.
I believe that the Gonzales Administration will be remembered not just for its corruption, but also for its incompetence. San Jose’s financial picture is somewhat bleak thanks to eight years of mismanagement. Our city government is a case study in how local government should not work.
I fear that everyone in this city is waiting for the new mayor to pull a magic trick and get the city back on track. It’s going to be very difficult, and it won’t be done overnight. The citizens of San Jose have got to assume responsibility for their own governance.
Pete Campbell
p.s. On the recent Grand Prix coverage. .. We still have only half of the needed information. How much did the race promoters make on the deal!!! If you want a public subsidy, show us your books!!!!
First off, there can be no disputing that Gavin Newsom is an effective mayor, provided one defines effective as putting on a good show. Newsom possesses the two skills that in this culture allows one to master the herd or sell a Hollywood movie: the ability to create an appealing image and the willingness to give the public the fantasy it craves.
The Image: Handsome, youthful, vigorous. Small wonder that Single Gal referenced JFK. Newsom looks good on camera, exudes confidence, and has become a ubiquitous presence in the city. Credit him for his natural gifts and having the political savvy to fill the city’s other high-profile offices (positions traditionally held by formidable, decisive men) with wallflower females incapable of upstaging him.
Newsom’s image is so powerful that for many, if not the majority, all that was required of him to undo the damage of his political malfeasance and personal betrayal was to simply admit it. To the public, his admission that “Everything you heard is true,” may have validated all those damaging rumors, but to his spellbound admirers his admission was heroic, reaffirming him once again as a political icon.
After creating enough heartbreak and ruin to fill a novel, Gavin Newsom was able to extricate himself with five sorrowful little words delivered under a perfect hairdo. Wow! San Francisco hasn’t witnessed brain-muddling charisma of that caliber since Jim Jones.
The Fantasy: Style over substance; sound bites over sound policies. So what if entire neighborhoods are surrendered and murders go unsolved? The national-level buzz created by elevating an office coat rack to the position of chief of police was well worth it. So what if the chief reacts and leads with all the confidence of a deer in the headlights, or if the head of emergency management has no qualifications. Who cares if the fire chief is too young, too inexperienced, too disrespected? When the mayor stands next to the chubby little fire chief it makes it possible for voters to imagine him actually doing something manly, like holding a wrench.
I guess the trio might’ve been known as Gavin’s Angels had he not been far and away the prettiest of the bunch.
And then there’s the football team. How dare those ingrates! How could they not share the mayor’s vision of a great stadium/shopping complex snuggled right up to a gangland battleground? Why couldn’t they embrace his fantasy of solving ghetto problems without demanding of its residents effort or personal accountability? How is it they couldn’t envision the upscale crowds rubbing shoulders with grateful Crips and boisterous Bloods? Shopping and dining just like at Santana Row—if Santana Row had been built in the prison yard at Pelican Bay.
Adios, Forty-Niners.
It was a year ago today that headlines were again grabbed, this time by the mayor surrounding himself with gay couples so mesmerized by the fantasy he offered that they didn’t notice that they were mere pawns surrounding a would-be king. Mayor Newsom would’ve agreed to the marriage of sixth graders had he thought it would get him national exposure and a chance to posture like a great civil rights hero.
A year later Gavin’s pet marriages have all vaporized, as did another that belonged to a friend.
Gavin Newsom will retain his image and keep on selling his fantasy because San Francisco voters embrace image and fantasy. They reject the substance that protects our shores and freedoms, just as they reject the rule of law that imposes civility. It is a spoiled, childish city, governed by a spoiled, childish mayor. Admire him if you wish, but I suggest you do so from afar.
Some of the more waggish types around here would suggest that Newsome’s extracurricular activities would actually serve as an additional job qualification to be mayor of SFO, and I would find it very hard to logically oppose that POV.
Marital fidelity does not necessarily translate into good political leadership. BillyJeff was an absolute horndog, but a decent president. Carter was, by all accounts, a straight arrow on the fidelity angle but an absolutely abysmal President. Truman was a stand-up guy toward Bess, and a pretty damn decent POTUS. Dubya has been a stand-up guy toward Laura, and a large segment of this nation would say he’s been a trainwreck of a POTUS. No direct-line relation can really be found.
I suppose it’s about picking your poison. People knew BillyJeff was a horndog when he was elected, and especially when he was re-elected. Much the same was suspected (although not reported upon) about Kennedy in 1960. Had the level of personal life reportage going today on political figures been present in 1959 and 1960, JFK would never have gotten anywhere near the White House, and Scuba Teddy probably would have long since been tossed out of office.
My bottom line – If you’re a dog, and you’re called on it, admit to being a dog, and let the voters decide on the matter. But don’t hide behind ‘rehab’, don’t lie, don’t dissemble, and for all that is Holy, don’t dip your wick in the frackin’ company ink.
Chicks dig power. Certain men in power dig chicks who dig power. It’s kinda tough to keep them separate, ya know?
16—Good point about the Grand Prix. And we still don’t know how much actually went to cancer research—remember, that was how the whole deal got sold in the first place.
There are no perfect people running for public office. Nor are there any perfect voters participating in elections.
The difference is, we get to see all the warts of those who engage in public service. Hypocritically we judge them based on our own flawed standards of conduct.
In the end, however, most people are forgiving of an error in judgement. Chuck Reed’s handling of taxpayer money, for instance.
But if the problem repeats or there is subseqent lapse in judgement the public becomes less forgiving.
Ron’s biggest mistake was calling the Mercury News irrelevant.
The lapses in judgement were gleefully exposed in the “irrelevant” newspaper. All of his serious mistakes were based on arrogance. In the words of Richard Nixon, he gave his opponents a knife and they twisted it.
Few people remember that Ron Gonzales served on the Sunnyvale City Council when it was hailed as a model of good government.
The man did not change, the times did. The errors in judgement were not criminal, despite the creative lawyering of a certain assistant District Attorney.
The DA has already offered to drop the charges if Ron pleads guilty to a misdeamenor. He can’t and won’t. He will be exonerated, but at a heavy financial cost to himself an the taxpayers.
But, I digress, the point is no politician is perfect. No individual can sustain the harsh light of public scrutiny for a significant length of time, whether they be a politician, janitor or religious leader.
In the end, we must accept that all of our politicians are flawed, that they make mistakes—and who among us has not?
So let he who is without sin cast the first vote against any politician based on their moral lapses, better yet—let them run for office and see how whether they can withstand the public scrutiny and live by their own self-rightious values.
Jerry Rosenthal’s comments at #3 were completely to the point:
“I wonder how we can trust a politician who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution when he/she doesn’t take seriously the marriage vows.
Generally speaking, those who break their vows will take a bribe, steal public funds and forget their position to represent the voters and not their own pocket books, among the other things.”
San Jose leaders regularly wink at oath-breaking and the Mercury News doesn’t disclose who breaks the election & office-taking oaths. Any hypothetical candidate for city council in 2004 took two oaths that he or she would serve out his or her complete term. One oath is sworn to at the time of filing papers to run, and the other is sworn to at the time of taking office.
Should we be concerned that this double oath was broken? What does it tell about the candidate who easily violated those oaths? Will it point to a willingness to lie and break promises? We’ll know soon enough.
I predict that Jerry Rosenthal told more truth than he may have realized:
“Generally speaking, those who break their vows will take a bribe, steal public funds and forget their position to represent the voters and not their own pocket books, among the other things.”
While I don’t disagree with everything written in #20’s post, I do have to take issue with his statement that “Ron’s biggest mistake was calling the Mercury News irrelevant.” Ron had a long list of mistakes so it’s difficult to single any one of them out as his biggest one, but calling the Merc irrelevant hardly seems like the biggest.
Ron suffered from arrogance and surrounded himself with equally arrogant staff—a sure recipe for disaster. A newspaper doesn’t do its job just because some thug politician calls them irrelevant. A newspaper does its job because the public needs to know about their government—the good and the bad—regardless of what names they are called, whether by Gonzales, Nixon, or any other cornered politician hoping to deflect attention from their wrongdoings.
It is nice to know JD, after he stumbles into a sports bar, still refers to women as chicks.
Well, speaking for my sisters, we can let you know that, of course, JD stumbles out of the sports bar, alone.
Get some respect, mullet head.
We are all just human. Temptation will always be a part of our lives. Everyone has their price or moral standards; some high, and some not so high. “When the right salesman comes knocking, your price will be revealed”
Straight-arrow politicians are a rare breed anymore. If you’re a dynamic person, you’ve probably done a few things in the past that you now regret but that doesn’t diminsh your leadership capacity. The citizens of SJ had a couple of charismatic and capable options on the ballot for mayor but opted for the biggest nerd in the field of candidates. Sometimes having the pendulum swing so far in the other direction isn’t the best resolution. Wake me up in 2010 because with Reed in charge I’ll be sleeping through SJ politics until then.
Reed does have one thing in common with Newsom. They both need new hair stylists.
#14 states:
I must presume that those of you who do not believe that we SHOULD hold our elected representatives to a higher standard also do not believe that there should be ANY standards of behavior.
That is a very incorrect, and stupid, assumption. To suggest that if one expects politicians to be normal (intelligent, hard-working, honest, and fair) then that justifies any type of criminal, or anti-social, behavior by that politician is one of the most ridiculous non sequiturs I have heard or read in quite a while.
Why should politicians be held to a higher, unrealistic standard than anyone else? As Honest Abe said, we have a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.
The last thing I want, or need, in a politician is a holier-than-thou fanatic.
Mark T is so right and so on target. He is a good observer. Reed would put a nuclear explosion to sleep.
As Mr. “Chicks” no wonder JD spends most of his time looking for quarters for the video machines.
JD would know a lot about “chicks digging powerful dudes” it is the excuse we give a slob like him when we leave with one.
Powerful dudes have another thing, JD “Mr. Chicks” does not have
class
After the recent City Hall Scandals – Cisco, Garbage, Terry Gregory – I think Reed is a breath of fresh air. He is action oriented, and so far, has involved the public in everything he has done. If you want something to talk about, how about that guy who dumped a bucket of… liquid… on the podium, followed by a vulgar speech.
#30
“If you want something to talk about, how about that guy who dumped a bucket of… liquid… on the podium, followed by a vulgar speech. ”
Okay, but how about some background. What are you talking about? I do not remember any Murky News article dealing with liquids and vulgarities.
#25, #28, #29 – sometimes, when discussing politicians, and the sexual adventures that can occasionally follow them, a sense of humor is essential.
I would advise you to get one, otherwise you will end up like JC Rowen, taking up multiple posts on the same thread complaining about what other people did that offend you in the slightest, but which are really not germane to the topic being discussed.
Oh…
Actually, I think that just saying that one is sorry is somewhat dated. That action used to work pretty well, but lately we have those in the public eye taking a little different approach. First, the individual apologizes… next, he or she infers that the sin or crime was a result of alcohol or drug addiction, indirectly soliciting the pity of the people. Kinda’ looks like Gavin may pulled it off.
#31- At this Tuesday’s Council Meeting, William Garbett, who always says he’s speaking ” On behalf the people,” only at Tuesday’s Council Meeting, it was, “On behalf of myself,” literally dropped a dirty pot/bucket on the speakers podium, after stating, “I’ve brought you a pot to piss in,” referring to Council. He picked it up, dropped it again splattering a bunch of debris everywhere. He claimed Police helicopters were the cause of mold, dirt bugs, and etc., dropping on his home.
Mayor Reed was visibly angered and called Security to remove Garbett, and the pot/bucket filled with God knows what. Mayor Reed told the always-delusional Garbett, he better never do that again. He then instructed maintenance staff to clean it up, and took a short 3-minute break, before the Council Meeting resumed.
I’ll tell you, Garbett is pretty frightening. Like postal frightening! He looks like a time bomb waiting to go off. And the other 3 Gad Flies with him that preach the Bible, and read incoherent poems of mass destruction, make me momentarily regret “The Right To Free Speech!”
Does that mean, you do not get any at all?
In my book, a liar is a liar. If they lie about an affair, they will lie about a business deal. If they cheat their wife, they will cheat a friend or a fellow citizen.
Let’s face it; there is only one thing that really matters.
Starbucks has not and is not pulling out of San Jose.