Oh no! He didn't "Mount Kilauea" or "Scale Diamond Head" did he? I seriously hope he's not stuck his penis in the pu pu platter cause aside for the odd behavior of recent, I like the guy. Plus he's hot as far as mayors are concerned.
What people have to realize is that Gavin has gotten by his whole life on his looks and his social connections. While not wealthy himself, he grew up pals with the Getty boys, neither of whom speak to him now. Gordon Getty, their father, supported Gavin's political aspirations in the beginning and even financed his first big house in SF--but that support, too, is now weak and for the first time Gavin has to GROW UP and quit acting like the little bitch punk he's always been under that smooth exterior. He doesn't have the kind of money to life the lifestyle that he was raised around so he figured politics & power would get it for him--wrong! I used to love the guy, but now I can't stand his petty gutless immaturity.
@yojeezy: His courageous support of LGBT rights/same-sex marriage and his efforts (failed) to solve SF's huge homeless problem made him a very attractive mayor at first. SF hadn't had a decent mayor since Feinstein went to Washington, so Gavin looked pretty good there for a while. Too good to be true in fact.
@swedishcouscous: Most of the people in a position to know have claimed that Gordon Getty favored Gavin--personally and financially--over his own sons, especially Billy who has always been his father's favorite son and also his biggest disappointment. Billy and Gavin bought some property together with support from Gordon, Billy changed his mind and wanted out, but his father sided with Gavin and all but wiped-out Billy's investment. I think Billy knows he's just a fuck-up in his father's eyes and finally snapped jealousy over Gavin's relationship with his dad.
@Swifter: Speaking of which, does Ms. Palin realize that the definition of rogue is "a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel"? Or is she just too mavericky to need a dictionary?
The opening is so bizarre. Plante asks him where he's been and he immediately responds "$522.2 million shortfall." The whole thing is nearly that weird. Does he get the hiccups in the middle? Newsom has always denied the coke rumors, but this interview certainly raises questions again.
I'm tired of defending Newsom, but Plante was badgering him pretty badly- bringing up an ugly cartoon of Newsom as a squalling baby? Really, you want him to comment on that?
Our own Dear Mayor jets off to his houses in the Carribean and London for days at a time every month, fiercely tells reporters his 4 day weekends are none of the press's business. There's no story here, and I look forward to the next SF mayor where the bitching will begin all over again, whomever it is.
@Baroness: That's not the point. The issue was how Newsom handled that particular line of questioning. Those questions will always be asked, fair or not, and he knows that. Why he decided to act like a petulant prick in front of a news camera is beyond me.
@pepelicious: So in other words, the media exists only to force politicians to demonstrate their fitness in dodging media questions? Sounds like a great purpose for existing!
I don't know what ill will people from SF do (or don't) harbor for Newsom, but I gotta say, I feel sorry for him after seeing this. The interviewer clearly knew he was digging for something beyond the public interest here. And I think it's a savvy move on Newsom's part. Give the media blueballs and then get all the empty questions out of the way in a single interview, instead of answering inane questions about "how it feels to lose" for months. As awkward as it might seem, he probably "won" this moment, because it turns out there's nothing particularly suspicious about his absence (or even "absent" about his absence, really), and he's made it clear that he won't deal with any more questions about it.
@skt.smth: No, but that is a part of how the press and politicians keep each other honest. We wouldn't have known about Gavin's disappearance unless it was reported by the press. It definitely wouldn't be an issue.
So why would the press latch on to this non-story? I don't know the details, but it seems like a great way to get Newsom's attention (and let him know we are certainly paying attention to him).
It might not mean much to someone who doesn't live in SF, but there's zero leadership right now.
@pepelicious: I think that, in this case, there's a clear discrepancy between the public interest and the media interest. They didn't get their saucy little "story" after Newsom withdrew from the gubernatorial race (in other words, he ignored them), so they trumped up this myth about him not appearing in public and going off to Hawaii in order to sob about his failed campaign. Sure, he didn't give them anything better to work with, but if it's true that he was at 60-something public events over the last 3 weeks (as he said in the video), and that he only went to Hawaii for 2 days, with his family, it seems pretty clear to me that the media circus surrounding his "seclusion" is simply fabricated. It would seem that the media knew Newsom hadn't "disappeared," and yet they played up that angle because they were pissed about not getting him on the record about being a loser. I don't think that a media vendetta qualifies as "in the public interest" here.
@skt.smth: Sound bites, my friend. How difficult would it have been for Newsom to toss off a few pithy remarks to keep the scribes at bay? Yet he cries because someone took his toys away. And we find out who Newsom really is.. a little boy finding out that he's playing a man's game.
I think it's funny that you downplay the power of myth in the public eye. How do you think Newsom got elected in the first place?
@pepelicious: Here's my point. I think it's great when "the scribes" are persistent about covering things that are of public interest. That's their role. But the legitimate media cheapens itself--becomes no better than the tabloids--when it obviously chases a story out of spite, and then hides behind its watchdog status in order to justify that. I wouldn't even particularly care if they'd just been up front about it, but I find it laughable that they'd even attempt to paint this as a simple public interest story.
Yes, you're correct. This is "how it works" with the media. Sure. But there's a difference between noting how the system functions, and making justifications for it functioning that way. I'm not denying that the media works this way. I'm criticizing those who think that this reality is its own justification.
Best line - "GK: ...based around storytelling. It's poetry... you got situations where you bump into a pregnant girl, but she's so pretty, and you wish you could have her, but she's pregnant and she's married."
Love it - so if she was just pregnant, or just married, go for it! But pregnant and married, whoa, slow down...
That's funny, because I heard some of the leaked tracks and was getting more of a "was thinking about the implications of our consumer culture for this earth, our island home, then had a fifth birthday party for my daughter and maybe the pony ride concessioneer was looking pretty foxy, and then the pony got loose and trampled the $1500 cake my wife had picked out, and then like a month before that I had a dream where I was getting it on with a pony smeared in cake" sort of feel to it. I think the word I'm looking for is "whimsical".
04:12 PM
[www.sfgate.com]
11/23/09
11/23/09
Their slogan: We're totlly clueless but look great on TV.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
what caused the break up with the getty family?
02:49 AM
09:47 AM
[www.sfgate.com]
12:32 PM
#tips
12:39 PM
#tips
03:31 PM
thanks for the replies.
restating the obvious: family and money - deadly combo
05:55 PM
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
12:14 AM
11/23/09
11/23/09
Our own Dear Mayor jets off to his houses in the Carribean and London for days at a time every month, fiercely tells reporters his 4 day weekends are none of the press's business. There's no story here, and I look forward to the next SF mayor where the bitching will begin all over again, whomever it is.
11/23/09
11/23/09
I don't know what ill will people from SF do (or don't) harbor for Newsom, but I gotta say, I feel sorry for him after seeing this. The interviewer clearly knew he was digging for something beyond the public interest here. And I think it's a savvy move on Newsom's part. Give the media blueballs and then get all the empty questions out of the way in a single interview, instead of answering inane questions about "how it feels to lose" for months. As awkward as it might seem, he probably "won" this moment, because it turns out there's nothing particularly suspicious about his absence (or even "absent" about his absence, really), and he's made it clear that he won't deal with any more questions about it.
11/23/09
So why would the press latch on to this non-story? I don't know the details, but it seems like a great way to get Newsom's attention (and let him know we are certainly paying attention to him).
It might not mean much to someone who doesn't live in SF, but there's zero leadership right now.
11/23/09
03:22 AM
I think it's funny that you downplay the power of myth in the public eye. How do you think Newsom got elected in the first place?
04:29 AM
Yes, you're correct. This is "how it works" with the media. Sure. But there's a difference between noting how the system functions, and making justifications for it functioning that way. I'm not denying that the media works this way. I'm criticizing those who think that this reality is its own justification.
10/05/09
Love it - so if she was just pregnant, or just married, go for it! But pregnant and married, whoa, slow down...
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09
10/05/09