Connect with us

Politics

Newsom calls the Democratic brand 'toxic' as he defends his podcast

Published

on

Newsom calls the Democratic brand 'toxic' as he defends his podcast

Since his podcast debuted in March, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California has flummoxed Democrats who fear that the politician they considered a liberal prizefighter is turning MAGA-friendly.

The rap against “This Is Gavin Newsom,” in which the governor spoke out against trans athletes competing in women’s sports and disavowed the gender-inclusive term “Latinx,” is that he doesn’t sound like the Newsom they know at all.

“What in God’s name is going on with Gavin Newsom?” asked CNN anchor Erin Burnett, quoting a headline criticizing the podcast, during a recent segment ripping the governor’s apparent shift.

“The country is trying to figure out how he went from progressive hero and governor of the most liberal state in the country to interviewing and spending time with MAGA favorites like Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk.”

Advertisement

The Democratic governor was also surprised, but by the response.

“I did what I said I was going to do. I mean, when I launched this, I said I was going to have, not debates with people I disagree with, I said we’re gonna have people on we disagree and agree with to have civil conversations to try to understand each other at this time of such polarization,” Newsom said in an interview with The Times on Friday. “And I said I was going to specifically meet with members of the MAGA movement. And then we did it and people were shocked.”

A common takeaway from the podcast is that Newsom is attempting to shape-shift into a moderate as he gears up to run for president in the aftermath of the Democratic Party’s disastrous 2024 election.

Newsom disputed that “exhausting” assumption, which he said others have attributed to actions for more than two decades. The governor offered his own blistering critique of his party to explain why he’s sitting down with controversial GOP figures now.

“Because our party’s getting our ass kicked,” Newsom said. “Because the Democratic Party brand is toxic. Because people don’t think we make any damn sense. They think we make noise. They don’t think we support them. You fill in the generic them. They don’t think we have their values. They think we’re elite. We talk down to people. We talk past people. They think we just think we’re smarter than other people, that we’re so judgmental and full of ourselves.”

Advertisement

The governor paused to say he loves his party, but “we’ve lost our way” and he wants people to know he hears it.

“I think you do that by having people you disagree with [on the podcast] without being disagreeable.”

It’s not the first time the governor has disagreed with his fellow Democrats.

As speculation mounted about whether then-President Biden was fit to run for president last summer, Newsom called the chatter from his own party “unhelpful” and “unnecessary” as he encouraged Democrats to back the president. A year earlier, he scolded the Democratic Party for its passive response to Republicans and for its lack of an offensive political playbook.

Newsom created headlines across the country in the premiere episode of his podcast when he told Kirk, a conservative activist and Trump loyalist, that allowing transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports is “deeply unfair.” Newsom’s comments represented a clear break from progressives.

Advertisement

The backlash from the left was swift. Newsom was accused of deserting his core LGBTQ+ constituency and flip-flopping after old social media posts surfaced with him expressing support for the California law signed by former Gov. Jerry Brown that gave trans students more rights in public schools, including the ability to compete in sports and use bathrooms based on their gender preference.

Newsom’s position aligned with 66% of American adults, who in a Pew Research survey in February said trans athletes should be required to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth.

The governor also was criticized for suggesting, in his podcast with Kirk, that no one in his office used the term “Latinx,” a gender neutral term, to describe Latinos, despite direct quotes of the governor that prove otherwise. A Pew poll from 2024 found that only 4% of Latinos describe themselves as “Latinx.”

Eric Jaye, the chief consultant for Newsom’s 2003 mayoral campaign, said the governor is an astute politician, though he disagreed with his decision to speak out against transgender athletes.

“San Francisco has produced many extraordinary politicians — Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Willie Brown, Kamala Harris — but in terms of the ability to adapt to changing political times and climes, Gavin Newsom’s head and shoulders above all of them,” Jaye said. “He’s deeply, deeply attuned to which way the political wind is blowing and he has so far shown an extraordinary ability to navigate changing political weather.”

Advertisement

“Now the challenge is, the question will be, at what point does that stop seeming like someone adapted to changing times and start seeming inauthentic, if not outright fake?”

On Friday, Newsom said he understood why people might view his podcast as a departure from his liberal image, shaped largely by his groundbreaking support for gay marriage as mayor of San Francisco and as an advocate for universal healthcare.

But the governor said his politics has never fit into an “ideological prism.”

Anyone who knows him, he said, remembers when he was the “small business supervisor” in San Francisco, raging against the board for raising fees on business owners and championing “Care Not Cash,” a policy to take welfare checks from homeless people and use the savings to pay for treatment options.

“I’m open to argument,” Newsom said. “I’m interested in evidence. I have very strong values. I’m a progressive but I’m a pragmatic one, and that’s something that anyone who has followed me knows, and people that don’t, they’re learning a little bit about that now.”

Advertisement

Still, Newsom always has been the main architect of his public image.

A wine entrepreneur allied with the business community, he ran as a moderate to win the mayor’s office in 2003 against a Green Party candidate. “Care Not Cash” was widely panned by progressives but helped seal his victory.

When Newsom set his sights on the biggest political prize in California in the 2018 governor’s race, he ran as a progressive advocate for single-payer healthcare and pledged to build more affordable housing.

Yet even as he effused his liberal platform, Newsom couldn’t shake criticism from his opponents that his positions were a mirage.

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a moderate Democrat, accused Newsom of selling “snake oil” with his support for single-payer healthcare in order to win over the nurses union and progressives.

Advertisement

Newsom delivered some of his campaign pledges in his first term as governor. He successfully advocated for universal preschool and state-sponsored healthcare coverage to all income-eligible Californians regardless of immigration status. He also paused death row executions.

The governor, who has a close relationship with the tech industry and counts Google founder Sergey Brin and Salesforce Chief Executive Marc Benioff as his friends, has shown more of his moderate side in his second term.

He drew criticism from truck drivers for rejecting their push to require more regulation of autonomous big rigs. He vetoed a marquee bill last year that would have required artificial intelligence developers to put safeguards on the technology. Newsom rebuffed Hollywood unions when he rejected a bill that would have allowed workers to receive unemployment benefits when on strike.

He made a show this year of saying he would veto a bill for a second time that sought to restrict the state prison system’s ability to coordinate with federal immigration authorities attempting to deport felons. He’s also rejected proposals to allow immigrants who are in the country illegally to participate in a subsidized home loan program and to allow undocumented students to work at public universities.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, said she wasn’t shocked to see Newsom appear more moderate on the podcast.

Advertisement

“He has always been more or less a tech bro from Northern California with the same kind of politics as we thought,” Gonzalez said.

Perhaps, she said, “He’s done playing liberal and now he’s just going to be himself.”

Steve Kawa, Newsom’s chief of staff as mayor, scoffed at the idea that Newsom has changed. He said the governor has always been interested in speaking to people on all sides of a policy idea. Politicians, like regular people, aren’t one-dimensional.

“Maybe he’s moderate on this issue,” Kawa said. “Maybe he’s progressive on this issue. I don’t think he looks at it in terms of under what column is this solution to make life better for the public and I can only be in this column.”

To criticism that he appears too comfortable talking to Bannon, a Trump campaign architect, and Kirk one day and Democrats such as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and commentator Ezra Klein the next, Newsom said he meets with people he disagrees with all the time. He mentioned his 90-minute sit-down with Trump in the Oval Office.

Advertisement

“That’s called life,” Newsom said. “I don’t decide who my friends are on the basis of their politics. I’d never met Charlie Kirk. I’d never met Bannon, but I know people that think like them and they’re good parents and they’re good people, and I vehemently disagree with their politics and they’re Trumpers.”

The amicability he displayed in the podcast toward Republican figures whom Democrats perceive as villains doesn’t come as a surprise to people who have closely followed his career.

“He sounds evenhanded about the views of people that you would think he would find an anathema to his being. That’s because of how he is on a path of existence beyond politics and I think that’s reflected in the podcast,” said David McCuan, a professor of political science at Sonoma State University.

“He’s always lived a charmed life in terms of politics, but there’s also been more to him.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

'Failure's not an option': Trump budget bill will be 'big' help for seniors, top House tax-writer says

Published

on

'Failure's not an option': Trump budget bill will be 'big' help for seniors, top House tax-writer says

EXCLUSIVE: The top tax-writer in the House of Representatives is arguing that President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” will be “big” for American taxpayers as well – including seniors.

House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., and other Republicans on the panel spent months negotiating behind closed doors on how to enact Trump’s tax policies.

Among those is an added $4,000 deduction for Americans aged 65 or older. Seniors with income of less than $75,000 as single filers, and less than $150,000 as joint filers, would be eligible for the full deduction, which then would begin to phase out.

“So, that’s on top of their guaranteed deduction, and that’s per person . . . anyone who has total earnings of $75,000 a year or less is going to be made completely whole, so all the low-income and middle-income seniors on Social Security will be paying zero on Social Security in the long run,” Smith told Fox News Digital, while adding of others, “most of them will be paying much less.”

ANTI-ABORTION PROVIDER MEASURE IN TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ COULD SPARK HOUSE GOP REBELLION

Advertisement

President Donald Trump is pushing Republicans to pass his “big, beautiful bill” (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

Republicans are using the budget reconciliation process, which lowers the Senate’s threshold for passage from 60 votes to 51 for certain pieces of fiscal legislation, to advance a vast bill full of Trump’s priorities on taxes, immigration, energy, defense and the national debt.

Because the House already operates under a simple majority, reconciliation allows the party in power to pass sweeping legislation while sidelining the other side, in this case, Democrats.

Trump has directed congressional Republicans to permanently extend his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), as well as implement new policies eliminating taxes on tips, overtime pay and retirees’ Social Security.

But the law that established the reconciliation process, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, also specifically forbade direct changes to Social Security via the process.

Advertisement

Smith said Republicans’ had added $4,000 tax deduction as a way to make them “completely whole.”

BROWN UNIVERSITY IN GOP CROSSHAIRS AFTER STUDENT’S DOGE-LIKE EMAIL KICKS OFF FRENZY

Jason Smith of Missouri

House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., is helping craft the tax portion of the bill. (Tom Williams)

Rather than seeing that tax relief month-to-month, however, Smith said it would come in people’s yearly tax returns.

He argued that it was more beneficial for lower-income seniors as well, giving added relief to those whose incomes were too low to pay Social Security taxes in the first place.

“Under the rules of reconciliation, you cannot touch Social Security directly. What we did is to make sure that they get . . . tax relief for any senior who makes less than $75,000 per year,” Smith said. “It’s not that we didn’t want to do it, it’s that it cannot be done under the rules of reconciliation, or you wouldn’t qualify for the 51-vote threshold over in the United States Senate.”

Advertisement

“But the tax relief they will receive is an added tax cut, and that will make up for what they have paid in Social Security tax.”

The White House also endorsed Smith’s plan despite its departure from Trump’s initial campaign pitch.

“The one, big, beautiful bill not only delivers permanent tax cuts and bigger paychecks, but it secures a historic tax break for seniors on Social Security,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said. “This is another promise made, promise kept to our seniors who deserve much-needed tax relief after four years of suffering under Bidenflation.”

The $4,000 tax deduction, which would be in effect from the 2025 through 2028 tax years, would be on top of the higher standard deduction that people above age 65 already receive. 

Advertisement

It would not be a tax credit, reducing tax liability directly regardless of tax brackets. A deduction reduces taxable income and is dependent on the taxpayer’s rate.

But for single seniors making up to $75,000, and married seniors making less than $150,000, qualifying for the $4,000 deduction, it would likely provide some relief for millions of taxpayers across the country.

“It’ll be a wash of what their Social Security tax would’ve been,” Smith said, adding later in the interview: “Failure’s not an option. We’re going to get this done.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court rebukes Texas judges, backs hearing before deportation for detained Venezuelans

Published

on

Supreme Court rebukes Texas judges, backs hearing before deportation for detained Venezuelans

The Supreme Court on Friday told conservative judges in Texas they must offer a hearing to detained Venezuelans whom the Trump administration wants to send to a prison in El Salvador.

The justices, over two dissents, rebuked Texas judges and Trump administration lawyers for moving quickly on a weekend in mid-April to put these men on planes.

That led to a post-midnight order from the high court that told the administration it may “not remove any member of the putative class of detainees.” The administration had argued it had the authority to deport the men as “alien enemies” under a wartime law adopted in 1798.

On Friday, the court issued an unusual eight-page order to explain their earlier decision. In doing so, the justices faulted a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for taking no action to protect the due process rights of the detained men.

The ruling noted that the government “may remove the named plaintiffs or putative class members under other lawful authorities.”

Advertisement

The order carries a clear message that the justices are troubled by the Trump administration’s pressure to fast-track deportations and by the unwillingness of some judges to protect the rights to due process of law.

After the ruling was issued, President Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday: “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY.” He added in a second post: “This decision will let more CRIMINALS pour into our Country, doing great harm to our cherished American public.”

Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead counsel, said in a statement: “The court’s decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government’s attempt to hurry people away to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador. The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance.”

On a Saturday in mid-March, Trump’s immigration officials sent three planeloads of detainees from Texas to the maximum-security prison in El Salvador before a federal judge in Washington could intervene. The prisoners included Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who had an immigration order that was supposed to protect him from being sent back to his native El Salvador.

Afterward, Trump officials said the detained men, including Abrego Garcia, could not be returned to this country. They did so even though the Supreme Court had said they had a duty to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return.

Advertisement

The same scenario was nearly repeated in mid-April, but from a different prison in Texas.

ACLU lawyers rushed to file an emergency appeal with U.S. District Judge James Hendrix. They said some of the detained men were on buses headed for the airport. They argued they deserved a hearing because many of them said they were not members of a crime gang.

The judge denied the appeals for all but two of the detained men.

The 5th Circuit upheld the judge’s lack of action and blamed the detainees, saying they gave the judge “only 42 minutes to act.”

The Supreme Court disagreed with both on Friday and overturned a decision of the 5th Circuit.

Advertisement

“A district court’s inaction in the face of extreme urgency and a high risk of ‘serious, perhaps irreparable’ consequences” left the detained men with no options, the court said. “Here, the district court’s inaction — not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes — had the practical effect of refusing an injunction to detainees facing an imminent threat of severe, irreparable harm,” the justices wrote.

“The 5th Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings. Procedural due process rules are meant to protect” against “the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property,” the majority said. “We have long held that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.”

Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissented last month, and they did the same on Friday.

Friday’s ruling doesn’t affect the status of the men who were already sent to El Salvador.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Former FBI Director James Comey meets with Secret Service after controversial '86 47' post

Published

on

Former FBI Director James Comey meets with Secret Service after controversial '86 47' post

Former FBI Director James Comey is expected to meet face to face with U.S. Secret Service officials in Washington, D.C. for an interview about his “86 47” post, two sources briefed on the meeting told Fox News.

Comey is under investigation for an Instagram post showing seashells arranged on a beach to read “86 47.”

“Cool shell formation on my beach walk,” he wrote in the since-deleted post. Some have interpreted the post to mean “86” – get rid of –  “47” – Donald Trump, the 47th president.  

Former FBI Director James Comey is expected to meet face to face with U.S. Secret Service officials in Washington, D.C. for an interview about his “86 47” post, two sources briefed on the meeting told Fox News. (Mark Reinstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

Advertisement

The U.S. Secret Service is leading the investigation at this point, but the FBI and Department of Justice could take a larger role if necessary, Fox News is told.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending