"I hate the idea of the Republicans redrawing the district lines in Texas, as much as I hate what the Californians are trying to do. But I’m thinking now about California..."

"...and about the people of California. I promised them that we are going to create a commission that would be independent of the politicians, and there will be an independent citizens commission drawing the lines. So I’m not going to go back on my promise. I’m going to fight for my promise."

Said Arnold Schwarzenegger, quoted in "Newsom’s Gerrymander of California Has a Formidable Foe: Schwarzenegger/The actor-turned-governor helped overhaul how California draws political maps. In an interview with The New York Times, he said he would fight to preserve that legacy" (NYT).

Now, Mr. Newsom is asking voters to set the independent commission’s work aside for the next three elections in favor of a map drawn to help elect more Democrats.... Exactly how Mr. Schwarzenegger plans to wage this battle is still taking shape. It started with him asking an aide to design the T-shirt, which he wore to the gym Friday morning and then donned as he rode his electric bike to breakfast. As Mr. Schwarzenegger sat down in a private dining room filled with potted plants, a waiter brought him a dish of walnuts and raisins, and poured him a glass of watermelon juice....

If Arnold Schwarzenegger is eating walnuts and raisins and drinking watermelon juice, that's already part of the battle. It's a referendum. The people will vote. All either man can do is to advise the people how to vote. Arnold Schwarzenegger being Arnold Schwarzenegger and eating walnuts and raisins and drinking watermelon juice... that's persuasive!

"In truth, Republicans may have more cards to play in an all-out redistricting war in 2026 than Democrats do."

The NYT concedes in "California Democrats Look to Redraw House Map to Counter Texas G.O.P./As a Texas senator summoned the F.B.I. to round up Democrats, the redistricting war that began in Texas was spreading, with California aiming at five Republican House seats."

... House maps and redistricting laws in Democratic states present significant hurdles. Illinois, for instance, is already so skewed to Democrats that flipping even one of the three Republican seats left would be extremely difficult for mapmakers.

That's a funny use of the passive voice: "is already so skewed." In other words, Democrats have already done what they could to advantage themselves in Illinois. They've already used the practice they now want to condemn as nefarious.

Illinois governor JB Pritzker is quoted saying: "If they’re going to cheat, then all of us have to take a hard look at what the effect of that cheating is on democracy. That means we all have to stand up and do the right thing. So, as far as I’m concerned, everything is on the table."

"If they’re going to cheat..." — as if the Republicans started it. You've just accused your own party of cheating. What is the "right thing" — cancelling the other side's cheating? You are essentially crediting your adversaries with doing the "right thing."

Meanwhile, in California, Gavin Newsom is also talking about the "right thing":

Unlike in Texas, where politicians control the process, California’s congressional districts have been set by an independent commission that is not allowed to consider partisanship in drawing the lines. Mr. Newsom has proposed putting that system on hold for the next three elections to help Democrats counter the Republican plan in Texas. He wants the California plan to contain a provision saying that it goes into effect only if Texas approves new maps mid-decade.

“It’s triggered on the basis of what occurs or doesn’t occur in Texas,” Mr. Newsom told reporters on Monday. “I hope they do the right thing, and if they do the right thing, then there’ll be no cause for us to have to move forward.”'

But if they don't do "the right thing," then Newsom is ready to do the wrong thing. But can he? The system he is talking about putting on hold is a matter of state constitutional law. To amend it, he would be asking the people to vote on a ballot initiative to undo the reform they voted for in 2008 and 2010. 

Imagine the campaign against that reform, so recently touted as the right thing to do in California: We're doing it right, but if Texas is doing it wrong, we've got to seize the power to do it wrong like the way we did in the bad old days.

"[Governor Greg] Abbott could not remove [the quorum-avoidant Democratic] lawmakers on his own and would need the courts to go along with his plan..."

"... according to University of Notre Dame law professor Derek Muller. While Abbott and other Republicans could argue that the Democrats had abandoned their duties, those lawmakers would have a chance to make the case that they were representing their constituents by denying the majority the quorum it needs to operate, he added.... 'Even if you go to a court, you’re going to have to make a showing that I think it’s going be tough to make.' Samuel Issacharoff, a professor at New York University School of Law who has observed Texas redistricting battles for more than 30 years, said the governor’s authority to order legislators to be arrested or to remove them from office, 'is at best, unclear.'"

From "Texas House Republicans vote to issue civil arrest warrants for fleeing Democrats/The Texas state House reconvened Monday without dozens of Democrats who left the state to try to stop the GOP from moving ahead with enacting a new congressional map that would give them five more safe seats" (WaPo)(free-access link).

57 of the Texas Democrats have absconded to Chicago, Boston, or Albany. It takes 51 to deny the Republicans a quorum. When is interfering with democracy characterizable as a form of democracy? Whenever the constituents you were elected to represent oppose what they majority elected to the legislature is trying to do?

ADDED: “Schwarzenegger ready to fight Newsom on redistricting/The Republican who helped pass California’s independent line-drawing commission wants to defend his legacy” (Politico).

"The idea of high-speed rail has a nearly erotic appeal to progressives, who love communal trains over individualized autos..."

"... and think cars are destroying the planet whereas trains can save it. High-speed rail is to transit what windmills are to energy — an environmentally correct, futuristic technology that will always under-deliver.... The current focus is a line between Merced (pop. 93,000) and Bakersfield (413,000).... The original estimated $33 billion cost is now $35 billion for just the scaled-back line, and more than $100 billion and counting for the whole shebang. There is no reason that the feds should pour good money after bad supporting a preposterous project that doesn’t have any national significance. California governor Gavin Newsom — too embarrassed to admit failure or too drunk on visions of European-style rail — remains fully committed. In a statement, he said Trump’s defunding decision is a 'gift to China,' as if Beijing cares whether people get to Bakersfield by car, plane or high-speed rail...."

Writes Rich Lowry, in "Behind the ‘boondoggle’ of Gavin Newsom’s high-speed rail dream" (NY Post).

Why don't people who care about the environment simply stop traveling? Even if the line did connect L.A. to San Francisco, as it was originally sold, what is the need to go back and forth between these 2 cities... or any 2 cities in America? The high-tech solution is not high-speed rail. It's virtual connection. The amorphous interest in appearing somewhere in the flesh does not deserve a taxpayer subsidy. 

How is Gavin Newsom in debates?

I wondered, reading this quote from Newsom: "Since you’re so eager to talk about me, how about saying it to my face. Let’s debate. Time and place?"

He wrote that on X, and I'm reading it this morning in "Vance Blames L.A. Violence on California Democrats and Disparages Padilla/Vice President JD Vance said during a Los Angeles stop that Gov. Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass had encouraged protesters to engage in violence. He also criticized Senator Alex Padilla and called him by the wrong name" (NYT).

Maybe Vance should take Newsom up on that offer. It would focus attention on the administration's arguments. It's not as if the Vice President would have to go on to other debates with other other opponents on all sorts of issues. This is the Governor of California, and immigration enforcement and opposition to it are centered in California. This could be a unique debate.

How would the debate go? I asked Grok to compare the debating skill of the 2 men and to predict the outcome: here. (NOTE: bad link is fixed).

Please think it through before taking my poll:

Should Vance take up Newsom's challenge and debate?

Yes

No

 

pollcode.com free polls

"You called on Americans to stand up to Trump right now. And you even suggest that to not stand up to Trump is to be complicit. And I wonder what situation that puts you in."

"It seems like a potentially tricky one, right? I mean, you want protestors to be peaceful. You want those who commit violence to be prosecuted. You're now simultaneously asking people to fight back against Trump, presumably in places like L.A. but perhaps not just L.A. perhaps in Chicago, San Antonio, New York, on and on. Are those messages in conflict?"

Michael Barbaro confronts Gavin Newsom, at 00:18:04, in today's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast (audio and transcript, at Podscribe, here).

Newsom does not answer the question asked. He says a bunch of things, e.g., "People care about their kids and grandkids, or dare I say, people care about the constitution of the United States and the rule of law."

And good for Barbaro. He follows up:

"Shortly after President Trump praised the National Guard for their work in Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass reminded residents that the troops had not arrived."

"'Just to be clear, the National Guard has not been deployed in the City of Los Angeles,' she said on social media."

Written in the NYT, 3 hours ago.

More detail, again from the NYT, published 3 hours ago:

National Guard troops will arrive in Los Angeles County within the next 24 hours, the Trump administration’s top law enforcement official in Southern California said, to quell protests over immigration enforcement that are “out of control.”

Bilal A. “Bill” Essayli, the interim U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, said in an interview on Saturday night that the 2,000 troops were needed to keep the peace in the sprawling region.... "They threw rocks at the officers,” Mr. Essayli said. “We had Molotov cocktails thrown. We had all kinds of assaults on agents. The state has an obligation to maintain order and maintain public safety, and they’re unable to do that right now in Los Angeles. So the federal government will send in resources to regain order.”...

Gov. Gavin Newsom pushed back against the president’s order, calling it “purposefully inflammatory.” Mr. Trump had federalized the National Guard “not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle,” Mr. Newsom said.

“The governor doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” said Mr. Essayli, a former Republican state legislator who before his federal appointment in April was a frequent critic of Mr. Newsom, a Democrat.

"Everybody, don't worry about it. Don't panic. You're gonna be on that island as a tourist for decades and decades to come."

"I mean, you gotta be kidding me. This is going nowhere. This is distraction day in the United States of America."

Says Gavin Newsom — yes, he still has a podcast — addressing Trump's plan/"plan" to turn Alcatraz back into a prison, in "And, This is Escape From Alcatraz" (Podscribe, transcript + audio).

"A million plus people, I think it's 1.2 million last year came to Alcatraz and the island. I think the Park service that runs it generates $60 million a year in revenue. Back to my Doge point, this would cost tens of millions of dollars. You have to bring people onto the island, the workforce and everything else. [Trump] specifically directed his Department of Justice and, and he directed Secretary Burgum to start to put together a plan of action on this. I mean, I pray that they're focused on other things and not focused on the folly of this latest distraction...."

"Do you think, do you think... when you don your tinfoil hat and and velcro, the chinstrap... that this is a grand plan to destroy civilization?"

Joe Rogan asks Tim Dillon:

Dillon says he doesn't know if there's "a grand plan," but, he says, there are "two things that are happening simultaneously." First, there are "people that believe in like nothing," "like empty suit Gavin Newsom types." And second, there are "the craziest people in the world that somehow have gotten hold of a ton of money and a ton of influence on social media." It's a terribly destructive combination:

"At some point, we gotta be upset about this," says Ezra Klein, nervously chuckling.

Yeah? What point?!

Ezra Klein explains how it feels to be a Democrat in under 30 seconds:
Ezra Klein: "The stimulus bill under Obama, that had 3 big headline projects for reinvestment.
High speed rail, smart grid, a nation wide system of interoperable health records. 0 for 3"
Gavin Newsom: "I… pic.twitter.com/Rlq1z8fGRb

— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) March 26, 2025

Via Ed Driscoll, at Instapundit, who's put together a nice series of clips and quotes on the theme "The Democratic brand is toxic right now."

This is a theme that gets my tag "Democratic Party in Trumpland."

BUT: Really, the problem Klein chuckles over pre-dates the Trump era. It's the failure of the Obama agenda:  "The stimulus bill under Obama — that had 3 big headline projects for reinvestment. It had high speed rail. It had smart grid. And it had a nation wide system of inter-operable health records.... 0 for 3."

Gavinx.

THIS IS BRUTAL! Gavin Newsom claimed on his podcast that no one in his office ever used the word "Latinx" to describe Latinos, so CNN aired a compilation of Newsom himself saying it REPEATEDLY.

It's amazing to see leftists tearing themselves apart.

Newsom: "By the way, not one… pic.twitter.com/jM1YxiWxeC

— George (@BehizyTweets) March 21, 2025

If you want to get excited about 2028, here are the names that have emerged thus far: Walz, Buttigieg, and Pritzker.

Yikes!

I'm reading "Buttigieg, Walz and Other Democrats Start the 2028 Chatter Early/Pete Buttigieg says he’s keeping his options open. Tim Walz went to Iowa. JB Pritzker’s off to New Hampshire. It’s too early to run for president, but some Democrats seem to be exploring the idea" (NYT).

Also mentioned in the article: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rahm Emanuel, Josh Shapiro, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan Andy Beshear, and Gavin Newsom.

Newsom just started a podcast, and he had Steve Bannon as a guest. Frankly, I think Newsom should use Bannon as an adviser. I see things like "Gavin Newsom draws Democratic ire for hosting Steve Bannon on his podcast/‘I don’t think we should give him oxygen on any platform, ever, anywhere,’ Kentucky governor Andy Beshear says" (The Guardian). But Bannon asserts that he's a Democrat, criticizes the Democratic Party for becoming the party of the elite, and earnestly and continually argues that government should operate for the benefit of the working class.

"I was open to the idea behind Gavin Newsom’s new podcast, in which the California governor has been breaking out of his political bubble..."

"... to talk at length with right-wing media stars such as Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon. Democrats need to get better at speaking to people who don’t share their assumptions and at long-form conversations requiring improvisation and spontaneity.... Trying to leverage Kirk and Bannon’s notoriety to reach new audiences could have been an interesting experiment. Instead, it’s a protracted exercise in self-harm for both Newsom and any liberal who decides to listen to him. That’s because the governor frequently seems less interested in arguing than in finding common ground, assuming the good faith of people who have next to none. He leaves wild right-wing claims unchallenged and repeatedly concedes Republican premises. When Bannon described rebuilding his movement after what he claimed was the stolen 2020 election, Newsom’s response was, 'Well, I appreciate the notion of agency.'"

Writes Michelle Goldberg, in "What on Earth Is Gavin Newsom Doing?" (NYT).

He's cool — he's podcasting.

I'm launching a NEW PODCAST. We need to change the conversation.

I'm talking directly with people I disagree with, people I look up to, and you -- the listeners.

Egg prices? Tariffs? DOGE? We're tackling all your big questions.

This is Gavin Newsom. Subscribe now ➡️… pic.twitter.com/WdzGeqdvZ4

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) February 26, 2025

"How's everything going? Good? Everybody happy? You're getting a little bit more access to your President than you did the last time. Slightly. Like by about 5,000 percent."

Our tireless President, on Air Force One last night:

 

It's hard to listen through the plane noise, but let me pick out a few things. Responding to a comment that he'd been "so nice" to Governor Newsom ("you know, 'Governor Newscum,'" he said:

I decided to be nice. It was nice that he came to the plane, honestly... and in the end you know we have the same goal. We want to take that catastrophe and make it as good as possible. We disagree on some things I guess he's not so set on water. I like water for putting out fires. I find it to be extremely good. A little old fashioned, but about the best thing that God has ever created for putting out fires....

Asked about the First Lady, who "seems to be taking a more public facing role," he said:

She felt badly about North Carolina. She felt very badly about California. Los Angeles. Got a lot of friends. I have a lot of friends in North Carolina and both, and she has a lot of friends in California, so she wanted to be with me.

 About TikTok:

As you know, I have the right to sell it or close it depending on what I think is best for the country....

Pushed on "a report... that you are putting together a deal with Oracle and outside investors to help them buy TikTok," he said:

Governor Newsom's seesawing shoulders inject horror into the phrase "some ideas around some land use concerns... around speculators coming in."

NO FU*KING WAY.

"I was just talking to Josh Green, the governor down in Hawaii, who had some ideas around some land use concerns he has around speculators coming in, buying up properties.

So we're already working with our legal teams to to move those things forward and we'll… pic.twitter.com/ed1Msb8O0v

— HustleBitch (@HustleBitch_) January 13, 2025

Discussed at X, here.

How do you read that body language (and facial expression)? I'm seeing knowledge that speculators have already outrun him and cannot be stopped. What do you think?

That shoulder action seems to say: Everyone has always found me so cute, so I'll try being extra cute. It's all I've got.

ADDED: If Newsom had controlled his body language, I would have been inclined to think that he was getting ahead of the problem and that talking to the Governor of Hawaii — who dealt with the aftermath of the Maui fires — made a lot of sense.

"The fires are still raging in L.A. The incompetent pols have no idea how to put them out. Thousands of magnificent houses are gone..."

"... and many more will soon be lost. There is death all over the place. This is one of the worst catastrophes in the history of our Country. They just can’t put out the fires. What’s wrong with them?"

Trump wrote on Truth Social 3 hours ago (that is to say, in the middle of the night).

And, here, the NYT got a guy to write a whole article about it in the middle of the night: "Trump Calls Officials Handling Los Angeles Wildfires ‘Incompetent’/Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles County authorities have invited President-elect Donald J. Trump to tour the devastation, but he has not publicly responded."

Published at 4:37 a.m. Ah, but I clicked on the reporter's name — Mike Ives — and I see he's "based in Seoul." It was 6:37 p.m. — Korea Standard Time. A normal work day. The NYT didn't roust some reporter in the middle of the night to make an article out of the most recent Trump truthing.

"Mr. Trump’s comments indicated that the fires, and officials’ response to them, will likely occupy a prominent place on his domestic political agenda when he takes office on Jan. 20. He has renewed a longstanding feud with California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, who in turn has accused Mr. Trump of politicizing the fires."

Is it wrong to "politicize" the fires? Isn't fire fighting one of the top services we demand from government? I can see saying, don't distract us with recriminations while we're right in the middle of an epic struggle against fire, but that only means, don't politicize yet. But are they fighting the fire right now or are they helpless? And if they are helpless, are we supposed to refrain from asking why are they helpless?

ADDED: I wondered if there are earlier examples of anyone ever saying "There is death all over the place." I only found one thing, at Internet Public Library, from what looks like a sample answer to a predicable high-school essay test question: "Similarities Between Death Of A Salesman And Hamlet": "In Hamlet there is death all over the place...."

Gavin Newsom literally lies to a woman about the fires, and we can literally see that it is a lie.

WOMAN: "Governor!... I live here! That was my daughter's school! Please, tell me what you're going to do!"

NEWSOM: "I'm literally talking to the President to specifically answer the question of what we can do...."

WOMAN: "Can I hear? Can I hear your call? Because I don't believe it."

NEWSOM (showing her his phone): "Um, I'm sorry. There's literally — I've tried 5 times. I'm walking around to make the call."

WOW. This woman literally ran up to Gavin Newsom on the street and demanded answers on his disastrous wildfires response — and she was NOT taking no for an answer. Good for her. pic.twitter.com/GNjUATtKXt

— Jake Schneider (@jacobkschneider) January 9, 2025

"You know in Los Angeles, you can't get proper amounts of water... In order to protect a tiny little fish, the water up north gets routed into the Pacific Ocean."

"Donald Trump was mocked for sounding the alarm on the California water/fire crisis during his interview with Joe Rogan. Turns out, he was right. Trump spent nearly 7 minutes ranting about the issue, blasting Newsom for doing nothing to fix the problem."

Tweets Collin Rugg.

An excerpt from Trump's rant about the water: "Millions and millions of gallons of water gets poured [into the Pacific].... I got it all done. Nobody could believe it. It was all done. I said, I got it. You got so much water. All you have to do is sign, and [Newsom] didn't wanna sign.... Every time I go to California, I say you have so much water. They don't know it... I'm telling you, people living in Beverly Hills, they turn off the water...."

Donald Trump was mocked for sounding the alarm on the California water/fire crisis during his interview with Joe Rogan.

Turns out, he was right.

Trump spent nearly 7 minutes ranting about the issue, blasting Newsom for doing nothing to fix the problem.

Trump specifically… pic.twitter.com/zSls82byPo

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 8, 2025

ADDED: The Trump episode of Joe Rogan went up on October 25, 2024, and if you go here, at Podscribe, you'll be at the beginning of Trump's L.A. water rant, with both audio and transcript. I'll do my own edit of the text:

"The fact of the matter is, if the entire community hadn’t stood up and taken action..."

"... there is a real good chance that we would just all be living with the northern giant hornet, even for years to come. It is a very difficult task to eradicate an insect once it has become well-established.”

Said Sven Spichiger, the pest program manager at the Washington State Department of Agriculture, quoted in "'Murder Hornet' Has Been Eradicated From the U.S., Officials Say The hornet was discovered in a corner of Washington State. Five years later, a massive mobilization has eliminated the invasive species, at least for now" (NYT).

Murder hornets were a public obsession in the year 2020 — the year of the covid pandemic and a hotly contended presidential election. I was skeptical, blogging, on May 3rd:

People are desperate to concern themselves with something other than coronavirus and Joe Biden's sexuality.

I think that's why this story has legs — disgusting spindly legs — "‘Murder Hornets’ in the U.S.: The Rush to Stop the Asian Giant Hornet/Sightings of the Asian giant hornet have prompted fears that the vicious insect could establish itself in the United States and devastate bee populations."

That's in the New York Times, where I would expect a little more care not to randomly give off whiffs of xenophobia. Why are they insisting on calling it the "Asian giant hornet"? They already had "murder hornet" and "giant hornet." Why go big with "Asian"? 

Dr. Looney said it was immediately clear that the state faced a serious problem, but with only two insects in hand and winter coming on, it was nearly impossible to determine how much the hornet had already made itself at home.

Must I worry about 2 insects simply because Dr. Looney — if that really is his name — finds the seriousness "immediately clear"?

That said, I am looking for more exciting articles that are not coronavirus or sex and Joe Biden.

What was the sex and Joe Biden topic? Had you remembered the murder hornets? Yesterday's ephemera. You remember covid, of course, but it's wearing thin. They're cuing up the next scary insect + disease. I see Gavin Newsom has declared an emergency — in California — over "bird flu." Which sounds like "bird flew." I guess that's why they usually say "avian flu." While you wait for whatever insects they've got cued up, you can watch the wonderful old movie "Killer Bees":

But seriously, congratulations to all the good people who swarmed together to conquer the murder hornets.