Has anyone heard anything interesting out of Loretta Sanchez' camp?

Newsom is barely respected by anyone deeply involved in the political process here in SF; he is all charisma, no depth at all, and his political team appears to be a bunch of assholes seeking to ride him to the governorship.  He doesn't actually like politics -- the mixing it up, power-play, making-it-happen side of politics -- nor is he good at it.  He floats above the city like a shiny balloon, just waiting to pop when heat or conflict comes.  I have no faith in his ability to serve out two successful terms as governor.

I think Jerry Brown at least has the discipline to avoid unforced errors, but that's about all I can say for him.  That and he could probably prevent a Republican's winning.

Villaraigosa had many of the liabilities that Newsom had, right down to the twin affairs.

The only other name (besides Feinstein) I've ever heard on the Democratic side was Loretta Sanchez.  So, anything out of her lately?  Does Villaraigosa's exit renew her interest at all?  

And what do people who watch Congress more closely than I do think of her?

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

---

by: texas dem @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 22:46:16 PM UTC

Seems like she'd be better off waiting for an open Senate seat

I like Loretta Sanchez. She has a moderate profile but actually votes pretty well.

---

by: Johnny Longtorso @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 22:52:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brown or bust methinks

the more I hear about this race the more I think Jerry Brown will be the nominee.  

Check out http://electioninspection.word... for the latest news, election results, poll analysis, and predictions

---

by: skywrnchsr509 @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 22:56:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The LA Times poll was the final nail, AND

interestingly is the final nail in Newsom's coffin too, since most of Villaraigosa's support will go to Brown (if no one else gets in).

It's just a shame though that we can't get a good candidate here.  The party and the country would be so much better off with some prominent, western, national progressive figures, starting with the Governor of California.  Brown won't be in a position to run for president when he's 80.

Th really odd thing is, given the rampant ambition of politicians in general and California specifically, why has no decent "new face, new ideas" candidate some forward?

---

by: tommypaine @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 23:11:40 PM UTC

California is cursed by the

revolving door created by term limits.  Instead of creating room for new blood, everyone just shuffles around.

---

by: wmlawman @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 23:38:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

not anymore

Garamendi is running for Congress...Poizner is a Republican who will get challenged if he doesn't leave his seat open.  The Non partisan school superintendent position is open too.  

Check out http://electioninspection.word... for the latest news, election results, poll analysis, and predictions

---

by: skywrnchsr509 @ Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 23:46:04 PM UTC

Any thoughts?

Who are you planning on supporting in this race? Who do you think will end up winning? Will any other major candidates get in (Westly?, Sanchez as mentioned above, Lockyer? Someone else?), or will it be between the two Bay Area candidates, Brown and Newsom?

---

by: AJBrad @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 00:03:45 AM UTC

I support the Democrat

There, that was easy.  ;-)

But if I was really pushed, I guess Newsom, cause my time in Texas has made me inclined not to trust those people who held political office 20 years ago (Brown) as they tend to be in a club among themselves.

But whatever, I don't vote in Cali.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

---

by: trowaman @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 00:37:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just those two

Loretta was more or less milking the gubernatorial rumors to keep her statewide profile alive; I agree that she's probably looking for a future Senate bid (although who was the last Congress critter to win a Senate election? John Tunney in 1970?  Seems like you need to be a statewide official to become Senator or Governor).  It's amazing how big the field looked even just a year ago: Newsom, Brown, Villaraigosa, Garamendi, Westly, Sanchez, Feinstein, and Jack O'Connell were all mentioned as viable candidates and there was talk of the victor only eking out 15-20% to win the nomination.  Now it's a pretty clear-cut battle between the new school and the old school.  I know a lot of San Francisco progressives hate Newsom, but I think it's erroneous to assume that all of the Latinos will go for Jerry Brown.  Newsom's been pretty pro-immigration in San Fran with its status as a sanctuary city.

Even more amazing to me is that there are no SoCal Republicans in the race.  This is the first time since 1958 that neither party has fielded a candidate from SoCal in even the primaries (2002 LA Mayor Dick Riordan was upset in the GOP contest).  I bet some Orange County GOP bigwigs are flipping out at even the thought of that.  I wonder if it's a bigger trend for the California GOP to move away from the hard-line conservatism of Orange and San Diego Counties.

---

by: DFLer @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 00:44:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Barbara Boxer

was a congresswoman before she was a senator, so it can be done.

---

by: fatcathobbes @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:10:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, there is the question

of why run for governor of California at all.  That's going to be a miserable, do-what-circumstances-force-you-to-do job for at least the next 3-5 years.

The serious political outcome of the '10 election in Cali is probably whether or not Democrats get 2/3 supermajorities together in the legislature.

---

by: Baystater @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 01:22:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Congressman to Senator

DFLer, you're off a bit, but the general idea of going from the House to the Senate has validity.  Actually, Barbara Boxer went from the House to the Senate in 1992. And Dianne Feinstein didn't hold statewide office either, although she certainly was a known commodity..

I don't really like Jerry Brown very much, after his bootcamp idea as Mayor of Oakland. He just seems to me to be quixotic.  There's a reason he was referred to as Governor Moonbeam in the past, and he has held more different elected offices in California than any other politician anywhere that I am aware of.  But, the saving grace for the Democrats may well be that the Republicans opt for someone out of their right wing who has some statewide visibility (Darrell Issa, Tom McClintock and Dan Lungren come to mind).

---

by: rocric @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 05:35:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Anyone but these two clowns.

I don't trust either of them. If I had to choose today I'd probably go with Newsom though, just out of a desire for new blood.

I wish another candidate would get into the race. Loretta Sanchez, Jack O'Connell, Steve Westly, Debra Bowen, John Chiang, Van Jones, anyone but these two (with the exceptions of DiFi and Lockyer).

---

by: Kanamit @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:06:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Newsom doesn't have a chance

Take it from someone who lives just outside San Francisco, if Newsom beats Brown, it's going to be Christmas in July for who ever the Republicans nominate (probably Meg Whitman). I don't disagree with most of Newsom's positions but I don't trust him in the governor's mansion.  

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

---

by: ehstronghold @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:38:29 AM UTC

If Feinstein retires???

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy if Villaraigosa ran against Feinstein in the primary.  Feinstein is really out of touch and the LA mayor did gain his post through a primary challenge so he's no stranger to that route.  And Villaraigosa hasn't been a bad mayor, he's just a behind the scenes guy with a lot on his plate.  I'm willing to bet that by the time 2011/2012 roles around, he'll have a lot to take credit for should he try to take Feinstein on.

http://www.bluearkansasblog.com

---

by: ARDem @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:40:12 AM UTC

Good decision

   No sane person would want to be governor of California.

---

by: Democrat2010 @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 02:54:47 AM UTC

No kidding ...

It's got to be up there with Mayor of Detroit as the most impossible political job in America.

---

by: IndianaProgressive @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 12:15:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But you forget their egos

Every big-shot politico thinks they can handle the problems of California, and the payoff is huge - if you are perceived as a competent governor who "fixed" an unfixable state you're automatically considered Presidential material.  Yet it's a political graveyard - Pat Brown, Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger - for those who try.  Which is why I'm surprised by Brown's entry - it seems more like he's trying to finish what he at first started and burnish his legacy.  

---

by: DFLer @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 15:02:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Jerry Brown for the win!

I'm putting all my chips on Brown
I think he has the best experience out of everyone right now. Newsom is just way too polarizing. The way he gambled on Prop 8 really disappointed me and my friends. I just couldn't find a way to vote for him the general

As for the Latino vote I see Jerry Brown doing more to court them. He's got some powerful friends like Steven Ibarra (who I believe worked on Mark Warner's campaign for Gov)

Male 21 Dem Ca's 1st  

---

by: lordpet8 @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 06:04:45 AM UTC

The reason Sanchez is out

Folks, Loretta might have been a contender, but she is contending with a Ensign-like scandal of her own that is threatening to break into the mainstream media. Until she gets this under control, she can't run for governor or senator, and she'll even have a tough time with Van Tran next year. Her affair with her married military escort has been rumored for a long time. Now it has been brought into the open. Comments like the ones on two Latino politics and OC blogs have recently put the matter into concrete, verifiable terms. See-- http://orangejuiceblog.com/200... AND
http://latinopoliticsblog.com/...

I think this is what has caused her to set aside her governor campaign this year. She won't run and risk the media scrutiny, even though she might have been a strong candidate.

---

by: dogger7 @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 10:19:07 AM UTC

While I dont think its fair...

I think itd be harder for a female politician being involved in an affair (whether shes the one married or not) to be forgiven than a male politician involved in an affair.  

---

by: HarrisCountyBrian @ Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 19:48:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Double standard

You're probably right, but in this case, the affair itself isn't the real ethical problem, as far as I'm concerned. I'm willing to tolerate personal sexual immorality and support a politician who has good public morality. Public morality would involve things like not (in this case, allegedly) steering contracts to lobbyist lovers.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 00:10:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Corruption

Thanks for the links. If the story in the 2nd link is accurate, this may be an even worse scandal than Ensign's, because from what I've read, Ensign merely based employment and firing decisions of staff on an affair, whereas Sanchez may have corrupted the military procurement and budgeting processes, and certainly has created the appearance of impropriety and favoritism - again, if the story is accurate. And if it isn't, she needs to break her silence NOW.

I'd strongly suggest that - again, if the story is accurate - this is exactly the type of dirty politician that all Americans of good faith of whatever party should withdraw support from. And in her case, I find that very disappointing.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  

---

by: Pan @ Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 00:07:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]