Posted on 09/15/2009 4:48:41 PM PDT by Steelfish
Bill Clinton Supports Gavin Newsom For California Governor
September 15, 2009
Seventeen years after Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown clashed in the 1992 race for the White House, the former president made clear today that bygones will not be bygones in the 2010 campaign for California governor: Clinton signed on to support Brown rival Gavin Newsom in the Democratic primary.
It is highly unusual – perhaps unprecedented, according to the San Francisco mayor’s campaign – for a former president to take sides in a California gubernatorial primary. But the bad blood between Clinton and Brown, now state attorney general, runs deep, much as Newsom would like Californians to believe that Clinton’s choice is based on merit alone.
“This is not some kind of payback on Bill Clinton’s part,” Newsom strategist Garry South said. “He doesn’t think that way.”
Tensions in the 1992 race for the Democratic presidential nomination peaked at a debate in Chicago, where Brown accused Clinton of “funneling money to his wife’s law firm for state business.”
“I don’t care what you say about me, but you ought to be ashamed of yourself for jumping on my wife,” Clinton snapped, shaking his finger at Brown. “You’re not worth being on the same platform as my wife.”
Clinton plans two stops with Newsom on Oct. 5 – a public event in East L.A. and a fundraiser in Los Angeles -- with details still to be worked out, South said.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
Gee, who is the most loathsome? Jerry Brown or the charming Gavin?
No , this is about the Clinton’s moving left as they Hillary’s comeback down the road. They will camp for every liberal nut out there.
If it’s a liberal, it’s just more of the same, no matter what name is attached to it.
Bill’s just on board for the tail Newsom will send his way
But he does need to retire though. He's been in public office way too long.
Between the two I would take Brown.
Jerry Brown, when he was running against Clinton in ‘92, made one of his best cracks ever during one debate. It was in this neighborhood.
Jerry came at Clinton, saying Hillary Clinton’s dealings might be a little shady. Bill responded: “She is the most honest person I know.” To which Moonbeam replied: “That’s the problem, you don’t know anybody who is honest.”
Me, too. I don’t think Gay-wad Newsome will win CA.
Calif. has term limits for governor. Jerry Brown already has served two terms as governor. I don’t understand why he can run for governor again. Even if it’s apparently legal for him to do so, it certainly violates the spirit of the law, if not the letter, since he has already served two terms.
Has he ever addressed this issue? Does he just dare anyone to bring it up?
I would back Brown too.
He’s an odd duck (and some of this will come out in interesting ways I’m sure), but he has a good reputation as a conservative, pro-business, pro-development mayor of Oakland.
Odd but true.
Newsom also has a similar reputation strangely enough, but is less inclined to be a maverick, and in office in SF he pretty much coasted. Which is better than the other, plainly disastrous options in SF, but still.
Neither is very liberal in fact. But who knows how either would do in office.
Well, neither is loathsome.
Neither has a reputation for corruption, and both have proven to be very pragmatic in executive office. Brown was quite a good mayor actually.
Neither is Villaraigosa for instance. California could do a lot worse. Small consolation, but its something.
We could certainly use a Republican governor of course.
Neither one will have my vote. So far, I don’t see much on the horizon.
That honor would have to go to Gavin.
The 2 terms limit law went into affect after Brown was governor. Thus is does not apply to him.
This is FreeRepublic. I hope you meant to say;
"We could certainly use a conservative governor, of course".
Neither is very liberal? Depends on the issue of course. But Newsom took the most extreme liberal position on homosexual marriage. His is the most extreme because he misued the powers of his office in what he thought of as civil disobedience. It’s one thing to have a position on an issue, it’s another to abuse your powers and misuse your office in a crusade to fix society.
Exactly, but the people of CA will never figure that out.
They will keep experimently with one liberal after another until they cease to exist.
Newsom was playing to the San Francisco crowd. That was pure politics. He is no crusader, for anything. That bit of rather empty grand-standing is his only really liberal episode.
He isn’t very liberal in any other sense in his administration of San Francisco. He has pretty consistently opposed tax increases, has opposed all the lefty anti-development efforts, has been pro law&order, etc.
There is only so much a somewhat-conservative mayor can do in working against the grain of SF politics, and he has been a rather hands-off administrator, but he has tried, I have to give him that.
We are very, very unlikely to get a conservative governor, this is California. Thats blue moons and flying pigs unlikely.
We could get a Republican at least, with luck.
Neither will have mine either.
There will be a Republican of some sort though. Whether he or she will have a chance is another matter.
We tried that. Remember?
We did indeed - we’re lucky we have him.
We could be in worse trouble now without him - I know thats hard to believe, but from where I sit, dealing with State regs as well as Federal, we are humbly glad for his appointments. We can easily imagine what they could have been.
There is only so much he could do, and many of his plans failed, but what he could, he did.
If a Republican, that's guaranteed. Not because a fiscal/social conservative can't win, but because the California GOP will not allow it. The RNC and the California GOP are certain that a conservative can't win. They'll move heaven and earth to derail a conservative candidacy. Its no surprise that their determination has produced the Austrian and Juan McCain.
Ironically, our best chance may well be a conservative Democrat.
Myopic. What would have happened if Davis finished his term of office and then Republican candidates were vetted through a partisan primary process? I have faith in the Republican trenches. They were purposefully excluded from the ascension of both of the village idiots.
“Not because a fiscal/social conservative can’t win”
Such a candidate can’t win in California. No way on earth, short of a major shift of population.
Maybe if we get 5-10 million more Asian immigrant citizens, and no more Hispanics; they may be persuaded to back such a candidate.
We have a guy running for governor whose sanctuary city policy led to the murders of 3 from one family. He should be bankrupt and in jail for his culpability in the murders. Insetad he’s running for governor. Welcome to Cal.
There just isn’t the population in California that would vote for such a candidate.
The voters of the last century are mostly dead or gone elsewhere; the remainder are outnumbered by people that would have to be dragged to the brink of hell before they would vote for a person who could win the approval of a conservative Republican.
Since Brown’s terms in office are not covered by the term limits that came into effect in 1990, he is not barred from running for Governor again.
Rhat’s just great, 2 queers running against each other!
Jerry probably has the advantage since he’s also a child molestor.
The SF sanctuary policy began long before Newsom got into politics.
“He should be bankrupt and in jail for his culpability”
Every significant politician currently active in San Francisco, plus most of those in retirement, would also be liable if there was such a law.
And you can ay the same redoubled for most of those in Los Angeles, they had a sanctuary thing for even longer, and many, many, many more murders under the same circumstances.
And there are plenty of other California cities in the same boat.
That accounts for pretty much all the players in the California Democratic party, come to think of it. Which is why there is no point picking on Newsom. There really is safety in numbers.
The same thing happened in LA. An illegal alien gangster killed a high school football star one day after he was released from jail insted of being deported. Mayor Villar and the city council blew the parents off when they complained about the policy. The mayor of LA is not running for governor.
My point is there is no shame or honor in politics and the level of arrogance and entitlement is absurd.
Is it any surprise Clinton supports the most liberal socialist in the running? Newsome is certifiable, and if I know my state of California, will probably get elected.
Gosh, how I hate this scum sucking liberal asswipe of a state.
ok, thanks for the info. Jerry Brown is violating the spirit of the term limits law, though not the actual letter of the law.
It would be interesting to see if same-sex marriage is on the ballot again in 2010, and if Newsom is the Dem. nominee for gov. in the same election. The gay groups are planning another ballot initiative on marriage, either in ‘10 or ‘12. As the public face of homosexual marriage, that issue would get dragged into Newsom’s general election campaign.
They may have time to get it on the primary ballot, but it may be too soon since prop was voted down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.