Connect with us

Politics

Commentary: The candidates for California governor are a mystery. What voters want is not

Published

on

Commentary: The candidates for California governor are a mystery. What voters want is not

Michael Duncan was adjusting the screen on his front door when he paused recently to consider what he wants from California’s next governor.

Duncan admittedly hadn’t given the matter much thought. But when you get down to it, he said, the answer is fairly straightforward: Do the basics.

Fight crime. Fix the state’s washboard roads. Address the perennial homelessness problem. And do a better job, to the extent a governor can, preventing wildfires like the inferno that decimated wide swaths of Southern California.

“I just roll my eyes,” said Duncan, who logs about 120 miles round trip from his home in Fairfield to his environmental analyst job in Livermore — and who knows exactly where to swerve to avoid the worst potholes along the way. “Why does it take so long to do simple things?”

The answer is complicated, but that won’t necessarily mollify a California electorate that seems anxious, aggrieved and out of sorts — especially as regards the state’s current chief executive.

Advertisement

More than a half-dozen candidates are bidding to succeed Gavin Newsom. Some have pursued the job for well over a year now, eyeing the day, in January 2027, when term limits force the Democrat from office. You wouldn’t know that, however, talking to a wide assortment of Californians — many of whom hadn’t the slightest clue who’s running.

In conversations last week with nearly three dozen voters, from the outskirts of the San Francisco Bay Area through Sacramento to the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, not a handful could name a single one of the declared candidates.

“That guy in Riverside, the sheriff,” said Zach House, 31, referring to Republican Chad Bianco. Outside his door, an 8-by-12-foot American flag snapped loudly in the wind whipping through his Dixon neighborhood, down streets named Songbird, Honeybee and Blossom. “Right now,” House said, “that’s the only person I know that interests me.”

“The Mexican American gentleman,” Brenda Turley volunteered outside the post office in Rosemont, meaning Antonio Villaraigosa. “Wasn’t he the mayor of Los Angeles?” (He was.)

Admittedly, it’s relatively early in the gubernatorial contest. And it’s not as though events — the fiery apocalypse in Southern California, Hurricane Trump — haven’t been fairly all-consuming.

Advertisement

But if voters seem to be paying little attention to the race, most echoed Duncan’s call for a focus on fundamentals, expressing a strong desire the next governor be wholly invested in the job and not view it as a mere placeholder or steppingstone to higher office.

“I feel like [Newsom] spent more time trying to campaign to be president for the next go-round than working on the state itself,” said Duncan, 37, who described himself as a moderate who tends to vote against whichever party holds the White House, to check their power.

Michael Duncan wants California’s next governor to focus on basics, not running for president.

(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

That all-in commitment is something Kamala Harris may wish to consider as she weighs a campaign for governor — and something she’ll no doubt have to address, in the event she does run.

The former vice president, now dividing her time between an apartment in New York City and her home in Brentwood, remains every bit as polarizing as she was during her truncated White House campaign.

Turley, a retired state worker, said she’ll get behind Harris without question if she runs. “Go for it,” the 80-something Democrat urged. “Why not? She has the experience. Look at her political background. She was [California] attorney general. She worked in the Senate.”

Peter Kay, 75, a fellow Democrat, agreed. “She’s better qualified than about 90% of the people that run for any office in this country,” said Kay, who lives in Suisun City. (The retired insurance underwriter, just returned from the car wash, was buffing a few water spots off his black Tesla and had this to say about the company’s CEO: “If he wasn’t Elon Musk, he would be in some institution, probably sharing a wing with Trump.”)

The conservative sentiment toward Harris was summed up by Lori Smith, 66, a dental hygienist in Gold River, who responded to the mention of her name with a combination wail and snort.

Advertisement

“Oh, God! Oh, my God!” Smith exclaimed, vowing to leave California if Harris is elected governor. “I could never see her being president. We dodged a bullet there. I think she just needs to live her little life in some little town somewhere and go away.”

There is, of course, no pleasing everyone, even with the sky a brilliant blue and the hills a shimmering green, thanks to a blessedly wet Northern California winter.

Some griped about overly stringent environmental regulations. Other said more needs to be done to protect fish and wildlife. Some said more water needs to go to farmers. Others said, no, city dwellers deserve a bigger share.

Some complained about homeless people commandeering shared public spaces. Amanda Castillo, who lives in her car, called for greater compassion and understanding.

The 26-year-old works full time at a retail job in Vacaville and still can’t afford a place of her own, so she beds down in a silver GMC Yukon with her boyfriend and his mother, who were inside the public library charging their electronic devices. “I consider myself to be lucky,” Castillo said, “because if I wasn’t sleeping in the car I’d either be on the street or in a cardboard box.”

Advertisement

Hanging over every conversation — like the big, puffy clouds above, but much less enchanting — was President Trump.

Most partisans differed, as one would expect, on how California should deal with the president and his battering-ram administration.

“Anybody who has a platform should be speaking out,” fighting Trump in the courts and resisting any way possible, said Eunice Kim, 42, a Sacramento physician and professed liberal, who paused outside the library in El Dorado Hills as her boys, 5 and 8, roughhoused on the front lawn.

Tanya Pavlus, a 35-year-old stay-at-home mom, disagreed. The Rancho Cordova Republican voted for Trump and cited a litany of ills plaguing the state, among them high gas prices and the steep cost of living. Anyone serving as California governor “could use all the advice [they] can get from the president,” Pavlus said, “because the situation speaks for itself.”

But not everyone retreated to the expected corners.

Advertisement

Ray Charan, 39, a Sacramento Democrat who works for the state in information technology, said, like it or not, Trump is president, “so you have to come to some sort of professional arrangement. You may not agree with all the policies and everything, all the headlines and the personality stuff, but if you can somehow come together and work for the betterment of the state, then I’m all for it.”

Ray Charan of Sacramento.

Ray Charan says fellow Democrats need to find ways to work with President Trump.

(Mark Z. Barabak / Los Angeles Times)

Sean Coley, a Trump voter, was similarly matter-of-fact.

“There’s no fighting Trump. We’ve seen that,” said the 36-year-old Rancho Cordova Republican, a background investigator and part-time wedding photographer. “If you want federal funding, if you want progress, you have to work with those who are on a different side of the table, especially when they’re as aggressive as Trump is.

Advertisement

“I would get a Venn diagram. Figure out what he’s for, what you’re for,” Coley suggested. “Figure out what’s in the middle, and tackle that hard.”

Pragmatism of that sort may not summon great political passions. But practicality seems to be what many Californians are looking for in their next governor.

Politics

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

Published

on

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

transcript

transcript

Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”

Advertisement
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

January 8, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

Published

on

Trump calls for .5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s budget. 

“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening. 

“This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.” 

The president said he came up with the number after tariff revenues created a surplus of cash. He claimed the levies were bringing in enough money to pay for both a major boost to the defense budget “easily,” pay down the national debt, which is over $38 trillion, and offer “a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots.”

Advertisement

SENATE SENDS $901B DEFENSE BILL TO TRUMP AFTER CLASHES OVER BOAT STRIKE, DC AIRSPACE

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s record budget.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the increased budget would cost about $5 trillion from 2027 to 2035, or $5.7 trillion with interest. Tariff revenues, the group found, would cover about half the cost – $2.5 trillion or $3 trillion with interest. 

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major case Friday that will determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy.

Advertisement

CONGRESS UNVEILS $900B DEFENSE BILL TARGETING CHINA WITH TECH BANS, INVESTMENT CRACKDOWN, US TROOP PAY RAISE

This year the defense budget is expected to breach $1 trillion for the first time thanks to a $150 billion reconciliation bill Congress passed to boost the expected $900 billion defense spending legislation for fiscal year 2026. Congress has yet to pass a full-year defense budget for 2026.

Some Republicans have long called for a major increase to defense spending to bring the topline total to 5% of GDP, as the $1.5 trillion budget would do, up from the current 3.5%.

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships. (Lockheed Martin via Reuters)

Trump has ramped up pressure on Europe to increase its national security spending to 5% of GDP – 3.5% on core military requirements and 1.5% on defense-related areas like cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.

Advertisement

Trump’s budget announcement came hours after defense stocks took a dip when he condemned the performance rates of major defense contractors. In a separate Truth Social post he announced he would not allow defense firms to buy back their own stocks, offer large salaries to executives or issue dividends to shareholders. 

“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he said. 

“​Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly.”

U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023.  (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)

He said that executives would not be allowed to make above $5 million until they build new production plants.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation are generally governed by securities law, state corporate law and private contracts, and cannot be broadly restricted without congressional action.

An executive order the White House released Wednesday frames the restrictions as conditions on future defense contracts, rather than a blanket prohibition. The order directs the secretary of war to ensure that new contracts include provisions barring stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance or inadequate production, as determined by the Pentagon.

Continue Reading

Politics

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Published

on

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.

The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.

“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”

Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.

The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.

Advertisement

The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.

“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.

“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”

The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.

“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending