Connect with us

Politics

Commentary: Front-runner or flash in the pan? Sizing up Newsom, 2028

Published

on

Commentary: Front-runner or flash in the pan? Sizing up Newsom, 2028

The 2028 presidential election is more than 1,000 days away, but you’d hardly know it from all the speculation and anticipation that’s swirling from Sacramento to the Washington Beltway.

Standing at the center of attention is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, fresh off his big victory on Proposition 50, the backatcha ballot measure that gerrymandered the state’s congressional map to boost Democrats and offset a power grab by Texas Republicans.

Newsom is bidding for the White House, and has been doing so for the better part of a year, though he won’t say so out loud. Is Newsom the Democratic front-runner or a mere flash in the pan?

Times columnists Anita Chabria and Mark Z. Barabak disagree on Newsom’s presidential prospects, and more. Here the two hash out some of their differences.

Advertisement

Barabak: So is the presidential race over, Anita? Should I just spend the next few years backpacking and snowboarding in the Sierra and return in January 2029 to watch Newsom iterate, meet the moment and, with intentionality, be sworn in as our nation’s 48th president?

Chabria: You should definitely spend as much time in the Sierra as possible, but I have no idea if Newsom will be elected president in 2028 or not. That’s about a million light-years away in political terms. But I think he has a shot, and is the front-runner for the nomination right now. He’s set himself up as the quick-to-punch foil to President Trump, and increasingly as the leader of the Democratic Party. Last week, he visited Brazil for a climate summit that Trump ghosted, making Newsom the American presence.

And in a recent (albeit small) poll, in a hypothetical race against JD Vance, the current Republican favorite, Newsom lead by three points. Though, unexpectedly, respondents still picked Kamala Harris as their choice for the nomination.

To me, that shows he’s popular across the country. But you’ve warned that Californians have a tough time pulling voters in other states. Do you think his Golden State roots will kill off his contender status?

Barabak: I make no predictions. I’m smart enough to know that I’m not smart enough to know. And, after 2016 and the election of Trump, the words “can’t,” “not,” “won’t,” “never ever” are permanently stricken from my political vocabulary.

Advertisement

That said, I wouldn’t stake more than a penny — which may eventually be worth something, as they’re phased out of our currency — on Newsom’s chances.

Look, I yield to no one in my love of California. (And I’ve got the Golden State tats to prove it.) But I’m mindful of how the rest of the country views the state and those politicians who bear a California return address. You can be sure whoever runs against Newsom — and I’m talking about his fellow Democrats, not just Republicans — will have a great deal to say about the state’s much-higher-than-elsewhere housing, grocery and gas prices and our shameful rates of poverty and homelessness.

Not a great look for Newsom, especially when affordability is all the political rage these days.

And while I understand the governor’s appeal — Fight! Fight! Fight! — I liken it to the fleeting fancy that, for a time, made attorney, convicted swindler and rhetorical battering ram Michael Avenatti seriously discussed as a Democratic presidential contender. At a certain point — and we’re still years away — people will assess the candidates with their head, not viscera.

As for the polling, ask Edmund Muskie, Gary Hart or Hillary Clinton how much those soundings matter at this exceedingly early stage of a presidential race. Well, you can’t ask Muskie, because the former Maine senator is dead. But all three were early front-runners who failed to win the Democratic nomination.

Advertisement

Chabria: I don’t argue the historical case against the Golden State, but I will argue that these are different days. People don’t vote with their heads. Fight me on that.

They vote on charisma, tribalism, and maybe some hope and fear. They vote on issues as social media explains them. They vote on memes.

There no reality in which our next president is rationally evaluated on their record — our current president has a criminal one and that didn’t make a difference.

But I do think, as we’ve talked about ad nauseam, that democracy is in peril. Trump has threatened to run for a third term and recently lamented that his Cabinet doesn’t show him the same kind of fear that Chinese President Xi Jinping gets from his top advisers. And Vance, should he get the chance to run, has made it clear he’s a Christian nationalist who would like to deport nearly every immigrant he can catch, legal or not.

Being a Californian may not be the drawback it’s historically been, especially if Trump’s authoritarianism continues and this state remains the symbol of resistance.

Advertisement

But our governor does have an immediate scandal to contend with. His former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, was just arrested on federal corruption charges. Do you think that hurts him?

Barabak: It shouldn’t.

There’s no evidence of wrongdoing on Newsom’s part. His opponents will try the guilt-by-association thing. Some already have. But unless something damning surfaces, there’s no reason the governor should be punished for the alleged wrongdoing of Williamson or others charged in the case.

But let’s go back to 2028 and the presidential race. I think one of our fundamental disagreements is that I believe people do very much evaluate a candidate’s ideas and records. Not in granular fashion, or the way some chin-stroking political scientist might. But voters do want to know how and whether a candidate can materially improve their lives.

There are, of course, a great many who’d reflexively support Donald Trump, or Donald Duck for that matter, if he’s the Republican nominee. Same goes for Democrats who’d vote for Gavin Newsom or Gavin Floyd, if either were the party’s nominee. (While Newsom played baseball in college, Floyd pitched 13 seasons in the major leagues, so he’s got that advantage over the governor.)

Advertisement

But I’m talking about those voters who are up for grabs — the ones who decide competitive races — who make a very rational decision based on their lives and livelihoods and which candidate they believe will benefit them most.

Granted, the dynamic is a bit different in a primary contest. But even then, we’ve seen time and again the whole dated/married phenomenon. As in 2004, when a lot of Democrats “dated” Howard Dean early in the primary season but “married” John Kerry. I see electability — as in the perception of which Democrat can win the general election — being right up there alongside affordability when it comes time for primary voters to make their 2028 pick.

Chabria: No doubt affordability will be a huge issue, especially if consumer confidence continues to plummet. And we are sure to hear criticisms of California, many of which are fair, as you point out. Housing costs too much, homelessness remains intractable.

But these are also problems across the United States, and require deeper fixes than even this economically powerful state can handle alone. More than past record, future vision is going to matter. What’s the plan?

It can’t be vague tax credits or even student loan forgiveness. We need a concrete vision for an economy that brings not just more of the basics like homes, but the kind of long-term economic stability — higher wages, good schools, living-wage jobs — that makes the middle class stronger and attainable.

Advertisement

The Democrat who can lay out that vision while simultaneously continuing to battle the authoritarian creep currently eating our democracy will, in my humble opinion, be the one voters choose, regardless of origin story. After all, it was that message of change with hope that gave us President Obama, another candidate many considered a long shot at first.

Mark, are there any 2028 prospects you’re keeping a particularly close eye on?

Barabak: I’m taking things one election at a time, starting with the 2026 midterms, which include an open-seat race for governor here in California. The results in November 2026 will go a long way toward shaping the dynamic in November 2028. That said, there’s no shortage of Democrats eyeing the race — too many to list here. Will the number surpass the 29 major Democrats who ran in 2020? We’ll see.

I do agree with you that, to stand any chance of winning in 2028, whomever Democrats nominate will have to offer some serious and substantive ideas on how to make people’s lives materially better. Imperiled democracy and scary authoritarianism aside, it’s still the economy, stupid.

Which brings us full circle, back to our gallivanting governor. He may be winning fans and building his national fundraising base with his snippy memes and zippy Trump put-downs. But even if he gets past the built-in anti-California bias among so many voters outside our blessed state, he’s not going to snark his way to the White House.

Advertisement

I’d wager more than a penny on that.

Politics

Maryland to study slavery reparations after lawmakers override Dem governor’s veto

Published

on

Maryland to study slavery reparations after lawmakers override Dem governor’s veto

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Maryland General Assembly on Tuesday voted to override Gov. Wes Moore’s veto of a bill creating a reparations commission, clearing the way for the state to begin formally studying how to address the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination.

The Senate voted 31-14 to override the veto, while the House approved the override 93–35, exceeding the three-fifths majorities required in both chambers.

Moore initially vetoed Senate Bill (SB) 587 in May, arguing that Maryland had already conducted extensive studies on the legacy of slavery and should focus instead on policies that directly narrow racial disparities.

In his veto letter to Senate President Bill Ferguson, Moore noted that Maryland has already launched numerous commissions and study groups over the past 25 years, including one examining lynching and the state’s history of slavery.

Advertisement

DEMOCRATS SILENT ON ILLEGAL ALIEN REGISTERED TO VOTE IN BLUE STATE

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore testifies in support of legislation aimed at making housing more affordable and protecting renters during a bill hearing on Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2024, in Annapolis, Md. (AP Photo/Brian Witte)

Del. Matthew Morgan, R–St. Mary’s County, spoke on the House floor Tuesday ahead of the vote, calling out his Democratic colleagues for talking about affordability while preparing to set up a commission for “race-bait handouts.” 

“This bill betrays the original intention, the unifying event of the civil rights movement. It’s immoral and it’s fiscally ruinous to this state and it sends a message to the generations out there now in Maryland that if you’re concerned about fairness, dignity, opportunity in this state — to flee Maryland,” said Morgan.

HOUSE DEMOCRAT TO INTRODUCE REPARATIONS PUSH, DECLARES ‘MORAL OBLIGATION’ TO SEND TRILLIONS TO BLACK AMERICANS

Advertisement

Del. Terri Hill, D–Howard County, urged colleagues to override the veto, calling the creation of the commission a decision “we still feel is the right one.”

Senate members wave to Girl Scouts in the balcony on the last day of the legislative session known as sine die on April 9, 2018. (Katherine Frey/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

With the veto override, SB 587 will now establish a commission to weigh possible forms of reparations, including official statements of apology, monetary compensation, property tax rebates, child-care support, debt forgiveness and higher education tuition waivers and reimbursements.

A preliminary report is due Jan. 1, 2027, with a final report required Nov. 1, 2027. The commission is set to expire in the summer of 2028.

EVANSTON, ILLINOIS FIRST IN US TO PAY REPARATIONS TO BLACK RESIDENTS

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The Legislative Black Caucus of Maryland hailed the override in a statement posted to social media. 

“This landmark action establishes a rigorous and comprehensive plan for reparations and marks Maryland’s first-ever step toward reparations,” the statement read in part. “At a time of growing attacks on diversity and equity, today’s action reaffirms our shared commitment to truth-telling, accountability, and meaningful progress for Black Marylanders.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Warner Bros. rejects Paramount’s hostile bid, accuses Ellison family of failing to put money into the deal

Published

on

Warner Bros. rejects Paramount’s hostile bid, accuses Ellison family of failing to put money into the deal

Warner Bros. Discovery has sharply rejected Paramount’s hostile offer, alleging the $108-billion deal carries substantial risks because the Larry Ellison family has failed to put real money behind its bid for Warner’s legendary movie studio, HBO and CNN.

Paramount “has consistently misled WBD shareholders that its proposed transaction has a ‘full backstop’ from the Ellison family,” Warner Bros. Discovery’s board wrote Wednesday in a letter to its shareholders filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission.

“It does not, and never has,” the Warner board said.

Warner’s board voted unanimously that Paramount’s hostile bid “was not in the best interests” of its shareholders.

For Warner, what was missing was a clear declaration from Paramount that the Ellison family had agreed to commit funding for the deal. Paramount last week told Warner stockholders that it would pay them $30 a share — or $78 billion for the entire company. Paramount also has said it would absorb Warner’s debt, making the overall deal worth $108-billion.

Advertisement

A Paramount representative was not immediately available for comment Wednesday.

The Warner auction has taken several nasty turns. Last week, Paramount launched its hostile takeover campaign for Warner after losing the bidding war to Netflix. Warner board members on Dec. 4 had unanimously approved Netflix’s $82.7-billion deal for the Warner Bros. film and television studios, HBO and HBO Max.

In its letter, the Warner board reaffirmed its support for Netflix’s $27.75 a share proposal, saying it represented the best deal for shareholders. Warner board members urged investors not to tender their shares to Paramount.

Board members said they were concerned that Paramount’s financing appeared shaky and the Ellison family’s assurances were far from ironclad. Instead Paramount’s proposal contained “gaps, loopholes and limitations,” Warner said, including troubling caveats, such as saying in documents that Paramount “reserve[d] the right to amend the offer in any respect.”

The Warner board argued that its shareholders could be left holding the bag.

Advertisement

Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison has argued his $78-billion deal is superior to Netflix’s proposal.

(Evan Agostini / Evan Agostini/invision/ap)

Paramount Chairman David Ellison has championed Paramount’s strength in recent weeks saying his company’s bid for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, which includes HBO, CNN and the Warner Bros. film and television studios, was backed by his wealthy family, headed by his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, one of the world’s richest men.

Ellison sent a letter last week to Warner shareholders, asking for their support. The tech scion wrote his family and RedBird Capital Partners would be strong stewards of Warner’s iconic properties, which include Batman, Harry Potter, Scooby-Doo, “The Lord of the Rings,” and HBO’s “Game of Thrones.”

Advertisement

Ellison wrote that Paramount delivered “an equity commitment from the Ellison family trust, which contains over $250 billion of assets,” including more than 1 billion Oracle shares.

In regulatory filings, Paramount has disclosed that, for the equity portion of the deal, it planned to rely on $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds representing the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi as well as $11.8 billion from the Ellison family (which also holds the controlling shares in Paramount).

This week, President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner’s Affinity Partners private equity firm pulled out of Paramount’s financing team.

Paramount’s bid would also need more than $60 billion in debt financing.

Paramount has made six offers for Warner Bros., and its “most recent proposal includes a $40.65 billion equity commitment, for which there is no Ellison family commitment of any kind,” the Warner board wrote.

Advertisement

“Instead, they propose that [shareholders] rely on an unknown and opaque revocable trust for the certainty of this crucial deal funding,” the board said, noting that a revocable trust could always be changed. “A revocable trust is no replacement for a secured commitment by a controlling stockholder,” the board’s letter said.

Throughout the negotiations, Paramount, which trades under the PSKY ticker, failed to present a solid financing commitment from Larry Ellison — despite Warner’s bankers telling them that one was necessary, the board said.

“Despite … their own ample resources, as well as multiple assurances by PSKY during our strategic review process that such a commitment was forthcoming – the Ellison family has chosen not to backstop the PSKY offer,” Warner’s board wrote.

David Ellison has insisted Paramount’s offer of $30 a share was superior to Netflix’s winning bid.

Paramount wants to buy all of Warner Bros. Discovery, while Netflix has made a deal to take Warner’s studios, its spacious lot in Burbank, HBO and HBO Max streaming service.

Advertisement

Warner plans to spin off its linear cable channels, including CNN, HGTV, Cartoon Network and TBS, early next year.

Paramount’s lawyers have argued that Warner tipped the auction to favor Netflix.

Paramount, which until recently enjoyed warm relations with President Trump, has long argued that its deal represents a more certain path to gain regulatory approvals. Trump’s Department of Justice would consider any anti-trust ramifications of the deal, and in the past, Trump has spoken highly of the Ellisons.

However, Warner’s board argued that Paramount might be providing too rosy a view.

“Despite PSKY’s media statements to the contrary, the Board does not believe there is a material difference in regulatory risk between the PSKY offer and the Netflix merger,” the Warner board wrote. “The Board carefully considered the federal, state, and international regulatory risks for both the Netflix merger and the PSKY offer with its regulatory advisors.”

Advertisement

The board noted that Netflix agreed to pay a record $5.8 billion if its deal fails to clear the regulatory hurdles.

Paramount has offered a $5 billion termination fee.

Should Warner abandon the transaction with Netflix, it would owe Netflix a $2.8 billion break-up fee.

Warner also pointed to Paramount’s promises to Wall Street that it would shave $9 billion in costs from the combined companies. Paramount is in the process of making $3 billion in cuts since the Ellison family and RedBird Capital Partners took the helm of the company in August.

Paramount has promised another $6 billion in cuts should it win Warner Bros.

Advertisement

“These targets are both ambitious from an operational perspective and would make Hollywood weaker, not stronger,” the Warner board wrote.

Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

Published

on

Video: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

new video loaded: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

transcript

transcript

Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

Following classified hearings for all the members of the House and Senate, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined on Tuesday to release the unedited video of a boat attack in September that included a second strike to kill survivors.

“It Is the 22nd bipartisan briefing we’ve had on a highly successful mission to counter designated terrorist organizations, cartels, bringing weapons — weapons, drugs to the American people and poisoning the American people for far too long. So we’re proud of what we’re doing, able to lay it out very directly to these senators and soon to the House. But it’s all classified. We can’t talk about it now. But in keeping with longstanding Department of War policy, Department of Defense policy, of course, we’re not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public. H.A.S.C. and S.A.S.C. and appropriate committees will see it, but not the general public.” “I’ll be introducing a live unanimous consent request to release the video both to the full Congress, but also to the American people. The public should see this, and I hope that we’ll have support to make it public. I found the legal explanations and the strategic explanations incoherent, but I think American people should see this video and all members of Congress should have that opportunity. I certainly want it for myself.”

Advertisement
Following classified hearings for all the members of the House and Senate, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined on Tuesday to release the unedited video of a boat attack in September that included a second strike to kill survivors.

By Meg Felling

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

Trending